Comments on: Climategate

By: keith

keith — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:58:04 +0000

Have a look at

http://www.hashemifamily.com/Kevan/Climate/

basically a quite detailed examination of the CRU data that was available prior to climategate – with an after climategate comment at the bottom..

By: jc

jc — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:27:37 +0000

Will:

There’s no reason to go in and doubt AGW. We should simply demand the data, source code and methods used.

Anyone that lied should do face time with Bernie Madoff.

By: Will

Will — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 08:19:12 +0000

THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION
We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
So if the mains stream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.

And

If you have a Facebook page post the two links.

Will

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 03:30:51 +0000

Steve,

An interesting perspective. Given that China has commited to lower it’s energy intensity (energy per unit of GDP) the argument put in your link would seem to be that this will just cause extra growth.

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 02:22:55 +0000

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091123083704.htm

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 00:53:40 +0000

Terje,

Surely a theoretical halving or better of transmission losses is going to impact the budgetary and ecological goals of a Government with state owned distribution infrastructure?

It is just amazing we’re not considering this whereas the ETS proposes to subsidise coal into a senile industry status.

By: TerjeP (say tay-a)

TerjeP (say tay-a) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:49:55 +0000

Mark – it all assumes a simple end to end line with no intermediate tapping of power. Tripole retrofits have not been done anywhere that I know of and remain hypothetical. Reliability is also going to be a factor. Obviously for new long haul transmission DC is an option but I don’t see any role for government in deciding between AC and DC transmission technology. Leave it to the engineers who are quite familiar with cost / benefit calculations.

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:41:55 +0000

http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~electriconf/2004/Barthold_The%20Future%20of%20Transmission%20Technology.pdf

‘Conversion of AC lines to DC of any form is economic only when the cost of alternatives is extremely high and/or the functional advantages of DC are compelling. If Conversion is an interesting option at all, the tri-pole option may tip the scales in DC’s favor. Even though tri-pole
converters will cost from ten to twenty percent more per kW than a bi-pole station, that premium is offset by three factors. 1. The real cost of conversion is not based on new capacity but rather on incremental capacity. The ability of the tri-pole to achieve a higher ratio of DC to AC capacity will more than offset the cost per kW premium of the terminals themselves. 2. The tri-pole option has an additional 37% advantage in utilization of the existing transmission asset. 3. The tri-pole’s redundancy has economic value to the extent it permits greater loading on parallel circuits.’

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:35:43 +0000

http://www.solarec-egypt.com/resources/Larruskain_HVAC_to_HVDC.pdf

By: Mark Hill

Mark Hill — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 12:33:52 +0000