www.newscientist.com/article/2223727-its-getting-windier-and-that-could-be-good-news-for-renewable-energy/

"The researchers found that from 2010 to 2017, average global wind speed over land increased by 17 per cent - from 3.13 to 3.30 metres per second. Before this, from 1978 to 2010, wind speed had been falling by 0.08 metres per second - or two per cent - every decade. The reversal came as a surprise, says Zeng"

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
www.newscientist.com/article/2223727-its-getting-windier-and-that-could-be-good-news-for-renewable-energy/

"The researchers found that from 2010 to 2017, average global wind speed over land increased by 17 per cent - from 3.13 to 3.30 metres per second. Before this, from 1978 to 2010, wind speed had been falling by 0.08 metres per second - or two per cent - every decade. The reversal came as a surprise, says Zeng"

Zeng had better get his calculator out again. The difference between 3.13m/s and 3.30ms is 5.4% not 17%. I wonder what else he got wrong.

Good pickup. I sometimes wonder about New Scientist? They lost a bit in translation. Wind power goes up with the cube of the windspeed ratio.
Gets to 17% then.

They'll need it to compensate for all the energy taken out of the wind by the wind farms.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
They'll need it to compensate for all the energy taken out of the wind by the wind farms.

Its offsett by all the hot air coming out of canberra.

What do you think of a coal fired power plant using the turbines as big fans to replace that wind? It will get the nod from Joe Hockey, and probably SloMo.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
Good pickup. I sometimes wonder about New Scientist? They lost a bit in translation. Wind power goes up with the cube of the windspeed ratio.
Gets to 17% then.

Clearly says an increase in speed, not energy. 17% speed increase is significant, 5% not so much.

Fail.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Ian K said..
Good pickup. I sometimes wonder about New Scientist? They lost a bit in translation. Wind power goes up with the cube of the windspeed ratio.
Gets to 17% then.

Clearly says an increase in speed, not energy. 17% speed increase is significant, 5% not so much.

Fail.

You mean they're not being accurate in their language and fudging the stats to backstop their point of view...?

Didn't we *cough* have this *cough* argument at least *cook* once this year so far?

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..
www.newscientist.com/article/2223727-its-getting-windier-and-that-could-be-good-news-for-renewable-energy/

"The researchers found that from 2010 to 2017, average global wind speed over land increased by 17 per cent - from 3.13 to 3.30 metres per second. Before this, from 1978 to 2010, wind speed had been falling by 0.08 metres per second - or two per cent - every decade. The reversal came as a surprise, says Zeng"

Article or research behind is riddled with mistakes i am afraid.
The first would claim the on global scale average changed by 17%. : Logically that is not possible, regardless if we talk about wind speed or energy behind.Researchers use few metering stations in specific regions and extrapolated results on the whole planet. Let's think for a second about al minia that will change direction at every decade cycle.If you set up your anemometer in this region that you will clam 100--200% changes, the conclusion that for the global average will be completely useless. Yes common sense could suggest that with increased global temperatures dynamics of the systems increase. But not that quickly and not too much so I will be very suspicious about Mr Zeng research. Most likely founded by wind generators manufacturers in China that need manufacture numbers to sell.Simply speaking wind may increased in one place and decreased in another-= so global average remains the same, just pattern, the location changed.

I'm suprised it didn't come with its own hockey stick .Always a good way to get attention.

Select to expand quote

Macroscien said..

Ian K said..
www.newscientist.com/article/2223727-its-getting-windier-and-that-could-be-good-news-for-renewable-energy/

"The researchers found that from 2010 to 2017, average global wind speed over land increased by 17 per cent - from 3.13 to 3.30 metres per second. Before this, from 1978 to 2010, wind speed had been falling by 0.08 metres per second - or two per cent - every decade. The reversal came as a surprise, says Zeng"

Article or research behind is riddled with mistakes i am afraid.
The first would claim the on global scale average changed by 17%. : Logically that is not possible, regardless if we talk about wind speed or energy behind.Researchers use few metering stations in specific regions and extrapolated results on the whole planet. Let's think for a second about al minia that will change direction at every decade cycle.If you set up your anemometer in this region that you will clam 100--200% changes, the conclusion that for the global average will be completely useless. Yes common sense could suggest that with increased global temperatures dynamics of the systems increase. But not that quickly and not too much so I will be very suspicious about Mr Zeng research. Most likely founded by wind generators manufacturers in China that need manufacture numbers to sell.Simply speaking wind may increased in one place and decreased in another-= so global average remains the same, just pattern, the location changed.

al minia? I hope you aren't too critical of that article...

I think Ian is probably right in that it was probably translated and someone mixed up words for speed versus power.

I wonder about climate change. If it is man made and there is potential to reign it in, would we as humans be able to react quick enough, or would it take an extreme event never seen before to make us do something?

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said....I wonder about climate change. If it is man made and there is potential to reign it in, would we as humans be able to react quick enough, or would it take an extreme event never seen before to make us do something?

Well that's the real conundrum humanity faces isn't it?

On the one hand, human nature (that is most humans are selfish and greedy) dictates that we only take meaningful action when we are forced to.

On the other hand, if we accept the worst case scenario outlined by scientific theory of runaway climate change 30-50 years from now, by the time we do act it will too late and the ice caps will melt, the weather patterns will be screwed and the world will have billions of climate catastrophe refugees, all knocking on Scott Morrison's and Tony Abbot's retirement house doors.

So yes, I too also "wonder" about climate change!

Help me ,
Does it mean I get 5 or 17% more sailing days
or
do I use 5 or 17 % smaller sails,
or
can I only put on 5 % more fat or can I go the full 17% to go the same speed ?

The Liberal Party will blame all this nonsense on same sex marriage and the wrath brought upon us by god. Windsurfers have something to answer for with there large number of same sex marriages. ????

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

al minia? I hope you aren't too critical of that article...

Macro's point was that 5% or 17%, either way it's a lot of extra wind over the globe that's got to be powered by something. More than we've currently measured in increased temperature differences you'd reckon? Pity we haven't got a tame climate scientist on sea breeze to put us straight.

Easily eplained by air conditioners. Refrigerative types.

The unit pumps out hot air outside the building. This increases the outside temperature (ever seen talk of inside climate change?? Nope)
It also makes wind as it blows out.

Climate change is caused by aircon. Look at the obvious link. Heat and wind = aircon units.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

FormulaNova said....I wonder about climate change. If it is man made and there is potential to reign it in, would we as humans be able to react quick enough, or would it take an extreme event never seen before to make us do something?

Well that's the real conundrum humanity faces isn't it?

On the one hand, human nature (that is most humans are selfish and greedy) dictates that we only take meaningful action when we are forced to.

On the other hand, if we accept the worst case scenario outlined by scientific theory of runaway climate change 30-50 years from now, by the time we do act it will too late and the ice caps will melt, the weather patterns will be screwed and the world will have billions of climate catastrophe refugees, all knocking on Scott Morrison's and Tony Abbot's retirement house doors.

So yes, I too also "wonder" about climate change!

Well that's the crux of the issue isn't it. Is there a sufficient threat relating to climate change that warrants an extreme response? Noting that an extreme response will cause significant hardship to most of the vulnerable populations on earth and reduce the living standards of all.

Even the overblown, doom and gloom IPCC reports find it hard to actually quantify any significant adverse effects from their view of climate change. Their language is more alarming than is actually reflected in the data in their reports.

In my view, the global response is more than adequate monetary wise. The amount being poured into renewable energy is insanely high. Too high in fact for the actual return it gives. It is not currently a full solution for our energy needs and its contribution is already peaking.

If the use of fossil fuels is such an urgent existential threat, then the only immediate solution is nuclear. People need to balance their irrational fears of that over the need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. The science is definitely in on that one.

I would say that most governments are well aware of the less than alarming actual outlook of man induced climate change and don't particularly feel like destroying their economies for no good reason, and are taking a more logical approach to reducing emissions as well as keeping the power on.

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Macro's point was that 5% or 17%, either way it's a lot of extra wind over the globe that's got to be powered by something. More than we've currently measured in increased temperature differences you'd reckon? Pity we haven't got a tame climate scientist on sea breeze to put us straight.

I think Macto's point was that given the likely flaws in the sampling method compared with the chaotic nature of wind 5% is will within the error margin and therefore largely meaningless.

Select to expand quote

I wonder about climate change. If it is man made and there is potential to reign it in, would we as humans be able to react quick enough, or would it take an extreme event never seen before to make us do something?

You mean fires happening up-and-down the east coast of Australia at a magnitude greater than we have seen before?

Just attended a lecture by David Bowman, professor of pyrogeography. Left somewhat stunned afterwards.

Select to expand quote

brady said..

I wonder about climate change. If it is man made and there is potential to reign it in, would we as humans be able to react quick enough, or would it take an extreme event never seen before to make us do something?

You mean fires happening up-and-down the east coast of Australia at a magnitude greater than we have seen before?

Just attended a lecture by David Bowman, professor of pyrogeography. Left somewhat stunned afterwards.

Well, are you trying to keep an idiot in suspense? What did he say?

Select to expand quote

Paradox said.....Well that's the crux of the issue isn't it. Is there a sufficient threat relating to climate change that warrants an extreme response? Noting that an extreme response will cause significant hardship to most of the vulnerable populations on earth and reduce the living standards of all.

I don't think the current official response is significant enough to address the problem, nor do I think anyone rational is calling for an extreme response. Both extremes of the discussion are big on hysterical garbage.

The issue is, that at present we are clearly gambling with the probabilities and that is of concern.

Our country is led by many people who are very transparent anthropogenic climate change deniers.

If you are wrong Paradox, the results will be catastrophic and we will have relied heavily on fossil fuels for a few more decades. Do you think the planet cares about the economy?

If I am wrong, then we will have transitioned to a low carbon economy a little faster. Big deal. That's good for everything including jobs and innovation and ensures a more sustainable planet for thousands of years. Planet happy.

To claim that a more comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will lead to economic meltdown is simply hysterical garbage.

In addition, to claim that adoption of nuclear power in Australia is going to have any significant impact when it is far more expensive in total lifecycle cost than renewables is the answer, is also highly hypocritical if you are the type of person who thinks this is about economics. So you appear to endorse an even more expensive solution to climate change, that is not renewable energy nor is entirely safe.

It's commonly ventilated by conservatives that Australia only emits 1.3% of total greenhouse gases, but that ignores the fact that we are also in the top three exporters of coal and gas and that these exports bump up our total liability in emissions to pollution superpower status. We can't wipe our hands of our choice to sell the stuff to be burnt elsewhere. That's simply propaganda.

Of course, without these exports and the metal ore that go with them, Australia would be in perpetual recession so....there we have it.

So, gamble away mate.

Select to expand quote

brady said..

I wonder about climate change. If it is man made and there is potential to reign it in, would we as humans be able to react quick enough, or would it take an extreme event never seen before to make us do something?

You mean fires happening up-and-down the east coast of Australia at a magnitude greater than we have seen before?

Just attended a lecture by David Bowman, professor of pyrogeography. Left somewhat stunned afterwards.

Alot of them fires were lit by dick heads.

Select to expand quote

brady said..

I wonder about climate change. If it is man made and there is potential to reign it in, would we as humans be able to react quick enough, or would it take an extreme event never seen before to make us do something?

You mean fires happening up-and-down the east coast of Australia at a magnitude greater than we have seen before?

Just attended a lecture by David Bowman, professor of pyrogeography. Left somewhat stunned afterwards.

There is an audio recording of Prof Bowman's talk at UWA in July here: echo360.org.au/media/e4ca459a-4fd8-4d96-a7b4-4270eb85b8da/public

^^ Yeah very interesting. Still watching....I liked this one:
"Anthropocene Fire"
The causal loop in farcical action.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
In addition, to claim that adoption of nuclear power in Australia is going to have any significant impact when it is far more expensive in total lifecycle cost than renewables is the answer, is also highly hypocritical if you are the type of person who thinks this is about economics. So you appear to endorse an even more expensive solution to climate change, that is not renewable energy nor is entirely safe.

False. It's simply not that simple.

Re. nuclear and renewable: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_renewable_energy

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Paradox said.....Well that's the crux of the issue isn't it. Is there a sufficient threat relating to climate change that warrants an extreme response? Noting that an extreme response will cause significant hardship to most of the vulnerable populations on earth and reduce the living standards of all.

I don't think the current official response is significant enough to address the problem, nor do I think anyone rational is calling for an extreme response. Both extremes of the discussion are big on hysterical garbage.

The issue is, that at present we are clearly gambling with the probabilities and that is of concern.

Our country is led by many people who are very transparent anthropogenic climate change deniers.

If you are wrong Paradox, the results will be catastrophic and we will have relied heavily on fossil fuels for a few more decades. Do you think the planet cares about the economy?

If I am wrong, then we will have transitioned to a low carbon economy a little faster. Big deal. That's good for everything including jobs and innovation and ensures a more sustainable planet for thousands of years. Planet happy.

To claim that a more comprehensive approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions will lead to economic meltdown is simply hysterical garbage.

In addition, to claim that adoption of nuclear power in Australia is going to have any significant impact when it is far more expensive in total lifecycle cost than renewables is the answer, is also highly hypocritical if you are the type of person who thinks this is about economics. So you appear to endorse an even more expensive solution to climate change, that is not renewable energy nor is entirely safe.

It's commonly ventilated by conservatives that Australia only emits 1.3% of total greenhouse gases, but that ignores the fact that we are also in the top three exporters of coal and gas and that these exports bump up our total liability in emissions to pollution superpower status. We can't wipe our hands of our choice to sell the stuff to be burnt elsewhere. That's simply propaganda.

Of course, without these exports and the metal ore that go with them, Australia would be in perpetual recession so....there we have it.

So, gamble away mate.

You are pretty strong on rhetoric there, but a bit thin on facts. First up: "anthropogenic climate change deniers" Can you define exactly what that is? See that's one of the key problems, people are believing the hyperbole being posted in popular media. Scientific debate on climate change issues has been killed off in favour of popular opinion; ( wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/18/climate-science-has-died-the-effects-will-be-big/ ) if anyone logically challenges the view of a "climate catastrophe" that can only be fixed by switching quickly to 100% renewables they are labelled "climate denier" whatever that means, even if they agree something needs to be done, but don't agree on the way it is progressing. Definition of a cult if you ask me.

The reality is that:

1) there is no strong or conclusive evidence that any level of climate change currently being observed is predominately anthropological. The best scientists can say is we are probably contributing to some level. ie 1% or more, and there are big variations in scientific opinions on the level. However irrespective of that lets assume everyone agrees its possible that we are contributing to some level and moving away from fossil fuels is good, provided it's economically logical.

2) you seem to be of the view that our energy needs can be met 100% by renewables. It cannot and to try to do it would definitely cripple economies and set back world growth significantly. That is the facts and the science is definitely in on that one. Feel free to call it hysterical garbage all you want (ironic really), but you are coming from a position if ignorance. Our current power systems cannot cope with more than about 50% renewables, except if you are lucky and have large hydro sources available. The rest has to come from large dispatchable sources (turbine driven plants). Coal, Gas, Nuclear, Hydro - take your pick but they are your options. This is fact and no amount of "belief" that renewables are a complete answer will change that. Here is an excellent article by Vox, who incidentally are typically very pro environment. www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies

3) You argue that nuclear is prohibitively more expensive than large scale renewables. Thing is, as above it is not the cost. It's the fact that available renewable sources cannot be used past about 50% of load. So they are not a complete option. Coal, Gas, Nuclear. Take your pick, we need one of them to provide at least 50% of our power needs. That's fact. No amount of labelling people climate deniers or claim they are sprouting hysterical garbage is going to change it. The reality is that if Nuclear is embraced and programs put in place the cost actually will come down significantly. South Korea are an excellent example of this. But that is beside the point. For reference here is a report showing relative costs of power sources. Nuclear is not that bad and much cheaper than some large scale renewable such as offshore wind. www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf

4) Australia stopping the exporting of coal is not going to stop the recipients from buying it elsewhere. We are not the ones burning it. There is plenty of cheap coal available outside Australia and if we stop they will just buy elsewhere. in fact Australia's coal is the purest available and has the least emissions. If we stop exporting, it changes nothing and costs us significantly. I can see the philosophic argument, but I can guarantee its a poor one when people are trying to make ends meet. Balancing that philosophical argument is our reliance and massive uptake on PV solar. It's great, but we are facing enormous cost and environmental management issues around disposal of used panels www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#4b911efa121c

The reality is that huge amounts of money is being poured into "green" tech by pretty much all governments around the world. Renewables have had huge growth and are not being ignored. What is being ignored is that despite our best efforts on renewables, we cant just shut down our dispatchable plants. Cant be done. Doesn't work. So stop complaining that you want reliable energy and no coal/gas/nuclear.

So, lets get to the crunch - you are pretty vocal that the government is not doing enough. Tell me, what more would you suggest without causing undue economic stress? how would you approach it??

Ill tell you what I would do... in addition to working toward economically sound 40-50% renewable generation targets, I would embark on an ambitious nuclear program. I would replace our reliance on coal and gas with a world leading nuclear development industry. I would partner with South Korea to build modern low cost nuclear facilities and develop a whole lifecycle Uranium mining, enrichment, leasing, processing and waste disposal industry. This would eclipse the economic benefits of digging up coal by an order of magnitude. It would also completely remove coal and gas burning from our electricity generation. That would massively cut our co2 emissions, give Australia a world leading speciality in demand globally and leave us all better off than before.

This is a very workable plan, based on scientific fact and meets all environmental, safety and economic targets.

Hows your plan?

Paradox.... put your name on a ballot sheet....

I would vote for that in a heartbeat! A refreshing dose of reality.... and possibility.

Select to expand quote

hParadox said..

You are pretty strong on rhetoric there, but a bit thin on facts. First up: "anthropogenic climate change deniers" Can you define exactly what that is? See that's one of the key problems, people are believing the hyperbole being posted in popular media. Scientific debate on climate change issues has been killed off in favour of popular opinion; ( wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/18/climate-science-has-died-the-effects-will-be-big/ ) if anyone logically challenges the view of a "climate catastrophe" that can only be fixed by switching quickly to 100% renewables they are labelled "climate denier" whatever that means, even if they agree something needs to be done, but don't agree on the way it is progressing. Definition of a cult if you ask me.

The reality is that:

1) there is no strong or conclusive evidence that any level of climate change currently being observed is predominately anthropological. The best scientists can say is we are probably contributing to some level. ie 1% or more, and there are big variations in scientific opinions on the level. However irrespective of that lets assume everyone agrees its possible that we are contributing to some level and moving away from fossil fuels is good, provided it's economically logical.

1- Your source "Wattsupwiththat" is not in any way objective, nor does it actually prove the claims in your link. It's rather strange to use a source that quotes fiction to support it. Those who speak of the financial and career incentive for scientists to fudge data appear to ignore that people who are interested in making a buck from science can do it much better in industry than in academia. Scientists who become academics tend to do it because they are not all that interested in money. And the fossil fuel industry is enormous - it's the oil companies that have the cash that can distort debate.'

Note that the "Wattsupwiththat" article you linked to comes from another blog and its authors are NOT scientists in any way. One of them is a financial guy, the other four are ex military. What in the world do they have that gives them any credibility to speak about the climate science and academia?

2- is an assertion for which you have given no evidence whatsover.

I like what you said Paradox. But I just don't get how Denmark is running on 100% renewables and Australia can't. By the way, not suggesting we should.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..
I like what you said Paradox. But I just don't get how Denmark is running on 100% renewables and Australia can't. By the way, not suggesting we should.

Well, again you need to watch what you read in the media. The easy answer is that it doesn't run 100% on renewable, except for short periods. I believe they are on about 70% overall. Denmark is a small country that is well situated to utilise renewable sources. Mainly wind and pumped hydro storage from other countries.

When the wind blows they have enough to power the country, and therefore can claim they run 100%. But its only while its windy. When it doesn't they still rely on fossil fuel, but are admirably trying to reduce that.

They also use stored Hydro solutions by arrangement with Norway and Sweden. This way they can store excess wind power.

It's great what they are doing, but it doesn't go against what I am saying. You need big power turbines feeding into the system. Denmark is well situated to utilise the wind when it blows and use their neighbours hydro infrastructure to store a bit to make it last longer. They still rely on oil, gas and coal though when the wind doesn't blow.

It's great stuff, but not a solution than can be just replicated elsewhere. They need infrastructure managed by countries not on 100% renewables to achieve it.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

1- Your source "Wattsupwiththat" is not in any way objective, nor does it actually prove the claims in your link. It's rather strange to use a source that quotes fiction to support it. Those who speak of the financial and career incentive for scientists to fudge data appear to ignore that people who are interested in making a buck from science can do it much better in industry than in academia. Scientists who become academics tend to do it because they are not all that interested in money. And the fossil fuel industry is enormous - it's the oil companies that have the cash that can distort debate.'

Note that the "Wattsupwiththat" article you linked to comes from another blog and its authors are NOT scientists in any way. One of them is a financial guy, the other four are ex military. What in the world do they have that gives them any credibility to speak about the climate science and academia?

2- is an assertion for which you have given no evidence whatsover.

1- Sure, I wont disagree that it is opinion and a discussion point and I linked it just to reduce my post size. I believe the issue is very real, feel free to dismiss it though. The point is that research funding comes with a caveat that you don't question the popular opinion on climate Science if that is what the funding dictates. It seems that it is career suicide for a climate related scientist to argue against mainstream views. Who will employ anyone who doesn't give the answers the funding or employer wanted? Peter Ridd is a good example.

2 - Really? I thought that vox article was a well balanced summary of technical papers on the subject. It's not hard to find more, try googling, or go find a power network engineer to tell you. You can't run a stable power network without some fundamental aspects, especially sources that are dispatchable, have inertia and can maintain frequency. Here is some help:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispatchable_generation
www.nmppenergy.org/feature/dispatchable%20resources
theconversation.com/baffled-by-baseload-dumbfounded-by-dispatchables-heres-a-glossary-of-the-energy-debate-84212

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

psychojoe said..
I like what you said Paradox. But I just don't get how Denmark is running on 100% renewables and Australia can't. By the way, not suggesting we should.

Well, again you need to watch what you read in the media. The easy answer is that it doesn't run 100% on renewable, except for short periods. I believe they are on about 70% overall. Denmark is a small country that is well situated to utilise renewable sources. Mainly wind and pumped hydro storage from other countries.

When the wind blows they have enough to power the country, and therefore can claim they run 100%. But its only while its windy. When it doesn't they still rely on fossil fuel, but are admirably trying to reduce that.

They also use stored Hydro solutions by arrangement with Norway and Sweden. This way they can store excess wind power.

It's great what they are doing, but it doesn't go against what I am saying. You need big power turbines feeding into the system. Denmark is well situated to utilise the wind when it blows and use their neighbours hydro infrastructure to store a bit to make it last longer. They still rely on oil, gas and coal though when the wind doesn't blow.

It's great stuff, but not a solution than can be just replicated elsewhere. They need infrastructure managed by countries not on 100% renewables to achieve it.

Burn alot of wood pellet to, good idea if its all waste wood .