Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [climatechangedebate] Re: misunderstanding of documentary disproves AGW

Expand Messages
  • Peter Hartmann
    calvin, here s the problem, as seen from the convinced of AGW side. there was a time when it was not clear what s happening. say, the 1970s, when some
    Message 1 of 106 , Feb 1, 2011
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      calvin,

      here's the problem, as seen from the "convinced of AGW" side.

      there was a time when it was not clear what's happening. say, the 1970s, when some scientists even said it could be cooling. 40 years, and a huge lot of sometimes heated discussion within the scientific literature later, the picture became so clear that even most of the world's big scientists' associations have made statements that the science is telling us unequivocally that the earth is warming at an unprecedented rate, and that humans are very likely the cause.

      however, for a variety of reasons, a very small variety of scientists actually working in the field, and a rather small but very vocal group of others, stay unconvinced. a very small minority of these actually can be called honest skeptics (i'd count dick here, maybe jack barrett, maybe in a way even roy spencer). most others are also honest, but refuse or are unable to look at the whole of the evidence, digging ever deeper into their confirmation bias. some (not very many, but those are the ones able to produce expensive ad campaigns, to lobby politicians, and to finance junk science) are fueled by financial interests (koch-funded for example).

      you'll *always* have groups that are unconvinced of something, especially if parts of the outcome dictate changes in behavior or belief. we've seen that with the sun-centered solar system and evolution, which threatened literal bible exegesis. we're now seeing it with climate science, where people are afraid of necessary change. that's understandable, but not wise in my view.

      p.

      On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:38 AM, Calvin M. Wolff <calvin@...> wrote:
       

      I have to agree, Bruce.  The AGW proponents are the prosecutors, and the burden of evidence is on them.
       
      Calvin.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 12:56 PM
      Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Re: misunderstanding of documentary disproves AGW

       

      Jon, shouldn’t it be the AGW crisis advocate’s job to present convincing evidence that we are facing some sort of AGW crisis? Particularly since this issue is so heavily politicized. And particularly since we have scientists such as Hansen, Trenberth, Mann, et al. acting more as political activists than scientists. They seem to be trying to put the onus on AGW crisis skeptics to prove their the Malthusian predictions are unfounded.  That’s like requiring folks who don’t believe that pigs will ever fly to prove that they won’t. 

      If the science is really “settled” then they should simply roll it out—data, methodology, and source code that there can be totally independent review by people other than by friends and close associates.  Once there is objective confirmation of “the science” then let the chips fall where they may.  When so-called climate scientists seem to still be trying to frustrate truly independent verification, we have to wonder why.  

      Bruce


      C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
      Houston, Texas   


      From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jonsblogger1980
      Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 10:33 AM
      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [climatechangedebate] Re: misunderstanding of documentary disproves AGW

       

      OK P, then you should be very interested in this paper. If it is right, it is a good reason to feel reassured that we are not 'sliding into disaster'. That's why you should be bothered.

      An accessible account of the paper (up to 6.45) can be found here, given by a former IPCC reviewer:

      http://www.youtube.com/*-watch?v=Ykgg9m-7FK4

      This explains it as well as I can, without writing a full review.

      It shows that, unless there is something wrong with M's mathematics, interpretation of physics or the observational evidence cited in support of his conclusions, there is reason to believe that catastrophic warming, or the upper range of warming as predicted by the IPCC, is impossible due to us producing more GHGs.

      I'll admit I'm not strong on physics, so he could have got something wrong in this respect. I understand there are some reliability concerns over radiosonde evidence. But I could not find anything wrong with his mathematics or other reasoning.

      Until I have time to verify these elements, i.e. when I have built up my knowledge in the fields of physics and the climate data sources he relies on, I will not be able to properly appraise the paper, but I have not seen a persuasive case that would lead me to reject it.

      Jon

      --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com, Peter Hartmann <captain.pithart@...> wrote:
      >
      > jon, i'm *trying* to find reasons to believe we're not sliding into
      > disaster. you're not delivering any. if you can't tell me why the miskolzci
      > paper is relevant for the discussion, why should i bother working through
      > it, especially as people that actually are experts in the field, and are not
      > just playing one on the web (i'm referring to watts here), say the paper is
      > obfuscated?
      >
      > p.
      >
      > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:56 PM, jonsblogger1980
      > <jon.southall@...>wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > > I'm not asking for answers - I'm asking you to consider a different point
      > > of view.
      > >
      > > This isn't climate change Q&A with Professor Peter, its a debate. I
      > > presented you with peer reviewed science as you challenged me to, now you
      > > are trying to duck out of it.
      > >
      > > Jon
      > >
      > > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com<climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > Peter Hartmann <captain.pithart@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > so stop bugging me, asking me for answers when you have none yourself.
      > > >
      > > > p.
      > > >
      > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:39 PM, jonsblogger1980
      > > > <jon.southall@>wrote:
      > >
      > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > I just wasted 30 seconds of my life reading that response.
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > > Jon
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com<climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > <climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > > > Peter Hartmann <captain.pithart@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > jon,
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 1. no. you're the one overthrowing AGW. you tell me why i should
      > > bother
      > > > > to
      > > > > > read it. the rabett says he has trouble understanding miskolczi's
      > > > > reasoning.
      > > > > > so maybe you understand what he's talking about, and can enlighten
      > > us.
      > > > > from
      > > > > > what i've seen from you in the past, you seem to have a very spotty
      > > > > > understanding of climate science (as do i), so i wonder what makes
      > > you so
      > > > > > confident of the quality of the paper.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 2. if i understand you right, if the majority of doctors tell you
      > > people
      > > > > > will die from some new virus within a year, and it turns out they die
      > > > > within
      > > > > > 6 months, that's a good reason not to care about a cure? the mwp is a
      > > > > > canard. what's there to deny? we don't know much about its global
      > > impact,
      > > > > > and if it was global, that would not alter the range of predictions
      > > in
      > > > > any
      > > > > > way. this is like claiming the plague is not a problem because you've
      > > > > seen
      > > > > > some guy with black and blue marks earlier and he fully recovered.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > 3. i don't care much for the mixing of the two, pop culture and
      > > science.
      > > > > > you're saying pop culture is getting it wrong? tell me something new.
      > > > > you're
      > > > > > saying climate scientists get it wrong? better show me some evidence.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > p.
      > > > > >
      > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 4:11 PM, jonsblogger1980
      > > > > > <jon.southall@>wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Hi P
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 1. READ THE PAPER. You wanted peer reviewed science - I have given
      > > some
      > > > > to
      > > > > > > you. Stop being so lazy and go and read it.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 2. I didn't say bad predictions were proof of no AGW - that's your
      > > > > words. I
      > > > > > > was talking about science standing up to scrutiny. "Too
      > > conservative"
      > > > > is
      > > > > > > just another phrase for, "got it wrong" in my book. They went with
      > > what
      > > > > they
      > > > > > > were confident with - re arctic ice, and they didn't get it right.
      > > > > There has
      > > > > > > been much discussion about arctic ice, about whether it really
      > > provides
      > > > > > > proof of AGW or not. It is probably as frustrating for me, as I'm
      > > sure
      > > > > > > skeptics going on about the MWP is for you (wait, your not a MWP
      > > denier
      > > > > are
      > > > > > > you?).
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > 3.I do care what documentaries say actually P. They are usually
      > > good
      > > > > > > proxies for how the public understand an issue, or will come to
      > > > > understand
      > > > > > > it. A lot of lay people, you know, the people that vote for
      > > political
      > > > > > > parties, and support or resist policy implementation, base their
      > > > > decisions
      > > > > > > on these documentaries because they are simplified and accessible.
      > > They
      > > > > take
      > > > > > > this as the scientific perspective, as they are presented as
      > > science,
      > > > > not as
      > > > > > > activism or politics. Just look at Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.
      > > Of
      > > > > > > course, no-one took any notice of that now did they... For balance,
      > > how
      > > > > many
      > > > > > > skeptics have you spoken with who echo what is in the Great Global
      > > > > Warming
      > > > > > > Swindle. Ignore documentaries at your peril.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > Jon
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com<climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > <climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > <climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > > >
      > > > > > > Peter Hartmann <captain.pithart@> wrote:
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > jon,
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > first tell me how you think miskolczi's work somehow disproves
      > > "AGW".
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > i'm always a bit befuddled with "unconvinced of AGW" people
      > > telling
      > > > > me
      > > > > > > > that the "bad" predictions are proof of no AGW. most of the time
      > > when
      > > > > > > > the IPCC was wrong it was that their predictions were too
      > > > > > > > conservative. see the arctic sea ice example.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > what examples to the contrary do you have?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > so you were talking with a layperson who had seen a documentary.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > http://img812.imageshack.us/img812/2489/scienceformul600px.jpg
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > i don't care much what documentaries say. do you?
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > p.
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:20 PM, jonsblogger1980
      > > > > > > > <jon.southall@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > P. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what's wrong with
      > > Ferenc
      > > > > > > Miskolczi's 2007 "Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary
      > > > > > > Atmospheres". You did post a link to someone who admitted they
      > > didn't
      > > > > > > understand the paper, but then thought it was legitimate practice
      > > to
      > > > > present
      > > > > > > a critique; that didn't really satisfy me. Compare your reply to
      > > Ian's
      > > > > when
      > > > > > > I challenged him on Ocean Acidification - he e-mailed me privately
      > > with
      > > > > a
      > > > > > > reading list, attaching research. That's much more satisfying.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > And lets talk about standing up to scrutiny. Show me one AGW
      > > > > scenario
      > > > > > > that has been proven reliable. There are some that have been around
      > > for
      > > > > 30
      > > > > > > years now - so you must be able to find one. I think climate
      > > scientists
      > > > > are
      > > > > > > worse than economists at making predictions.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I was talking to someone about climate change the other day and
      > > he
      > > > > was
      > > > > > > referring to Global Dimming and what a scientist found out around
      > > 9/11.
      > > > > Due
      > > > > > > to the lack of contrails (due to grounded flights), they noticed
      > > the
      > > > > > > temperature anomaly shot up by a degree. They were trying to tell
      > > me
      > > > > that
      > > > > > > this was credible proof of anthropogenic global warming.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > I pointed out that this isn't proof of AGW - on the contrary it
      > > is
      > > > > > > actually evidence of AGC (cooling, not warming) - as contrails from
      > > > > aircraft
      > > > > > > are cooling parts of the planet which would otherwise be warmer.
      > > They
      > > > > > > conceded in the end, but their position was based it turned out on
      > > > > > > confusions around the conclusions of the documentary, which treated
      > > AGW
      > > > > as a
      > > > > > > given, and argued that reducing some sorts of air pollution will
      > > worsen
      > > > > its
      > > > > > > effects and trigger run away warming. However AGW is not a given,
      > > but a
      > > > > mere
      > > > > > > theory. And of course, its scientifically backed advocates never
      > > > > mislead or
      > > > > > > exaggerate.
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > Jon
      > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > --- In climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com<climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > <climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>
      > > > > <climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>,
      > > > >
      > > > > > > Peter Hartmann <captain.pithart@> wrote:
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > jon, i watched the horizon piece on saturday or so. the link
      > > you
      > > > > > > provided is
      > > > > > > > > > not available outside the UK, but you can find it on youtube.
      > > > > indians
      > > > > > > 2500
      > > > > > > > > > years ago were far more advanced than what we today jokingly
      > > call
      > > > > > > > > > "psychotherapy". what does this have to do with climate
      > > science?
      > > > > you
      > > > > > > don't
      > > > > > > > > > seem to recognize how credentials are built from how often
      > > your
      > > > > past
      > > > > > > work
      > > > > > > > > > stood up to scrutiny. you are advocating some kind of
      > > imaginary
      > > > > > > alternative
      > > > > > > > > > science that better fits with your ideas about how the world
      > > > > should
      > > > > > > be, but
      > > > > > > > > > seem unable to present it to me. so how are you planning to
      > > > > convince
      > > > > > > me of
      > > > > > > > > > its existence? all i get is a muddled mixture of
      > > WUWT-leftovers
      > > > > and
      > > > > > > "it's
      > > > > > > > > > the sun"-chantings. oh, and of course "it's all too
      > > uncertain".
      > > > > > > where's your
      > > > > > > > > > science?
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > p.
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 1:34 PM, jonsblogger1980
      > > > > > > > > > <jon.southall@>wrote:
      > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > You should watch the Horizon "Attack on Science" - it looks
      > > at
      > > > > > > these issues
      > > > > > > > > > > and has a large segment on climate change (see my post on
      > > > > Sunday).
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > As an aside I watched the King's Speech - a wonderfully
      > > > > produced
      > > > > > > film about
      > > > > > > > > > > King George VI who had a stammer (a slight disadvantage for
      > > > > someone
      > > > > > > in such
      > > > > > > > > > > a position). It is interesting that his speech therapist -
      > > > > Logue -
      > > > > > > had no
      > > > > > > > > > > credentials, but nevertheless had more advanced therapy
      > > > > techniques
      > > > > > > than the
      > > > > > > > > > > 'elites' of the day. As my partner Ruth is completing a MSc
      > > in
      > > > > > > Speech &
      > > > > > > > > > > Language Therapy, we could well relate to the story.
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > It is interesting how social constructs such as credentials
      > > can
      > > > > > > prevent us
      > > > > > > > > > > from listening to those who have something important to
      > > say.
      > > > > Its a
      > > > > > > kind of
      > > > > > > > > > > intellectual snobbery that gets us nowhere.
      > > > > > > > > > >
      > > > > > > > > > > Jon
      > > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >


    • Albert Masetti
      Texas is going to probe ERCOT:
      Message 106 of 106 , Feb 8, 2011
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Texas is going to probe ERCOT:


        - Al

        On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Albert Masetti <almasetti@...> wrote:
        A brief excerpt from the www.sepp.org   TWTW newsletter that arrived yesterday.

        - Al  >>>>>

        The intense cold through the mid-West caused rolling black-outs in Texas. According to reports, at least three coal-fired power plants were off-line for scheduled maintenance - to prepare for a hot summer - in retrospect, a poor decision. Many other plants were "tripped-off." It is not clear how much of the problem was caused by wind-power failing to perform as needed due to the intense cold, still air. Apparently, a number of natural-gas-fired plants (perhaps in back-up) did not have the electrical power to receive the needed natural gas. Shortages of coal were also reported (which is strange). A realistic report from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) would be beneficial for all considering wind power. Please see articles under "Extreme Weather."


        On Sun, Feb 6, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Calvin M. Wolff <calvin@...> wrote:
         

        

        I understand that DC does not have the "skin effect" that A/C, where induced magnetic fields in the line forces much of the current to the surface of the wire.  In DC this does not occur and current is more or less distributed equally across the cross-section of the wire, eliminating the I^2R losses from the skin effect..
         
        Calvin.
        Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 12:50 PM
        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] ERCOT, was Buying Power from Mexico

         

        Dick, I could see the point of converting to DC where the high voltage lines are running under water for example to avoid losses through induction. Also there might be an advantage for transmitting power over very long distances to reduce the line losses. But the conversion process has losses too. So I assume that it is unlikely that most of the power to the grid is AC to DC to AC. But I don’t know that to be a fact.

        Are you saying that most of the output of the generators in the grid is converted to DC? And then converted to synchronize AC? I can understand how large banks of
        thyristors could convert the AC to DC. And inverters can convert the DC back to pure sine wave AC. But there is a loss in efficiency and a great increase in complexity.  Simply synchronizing the generators with computer controls would seem to be a more robust approach in most cases. 

        I know that early on, most wind turbine generators were synchronized.  I don’t know if that is still the case.  An advantage to converting their output to DC would seem to be that each turbine could rotate at whatever the most efficient speed would be. That might allow each turbine to be simpler and more dependable. Then the output of the entire wind farm could be transmitted as DC to where it is to be used and then converted to synchronized AC. That would make sense. But is that typically what happens?

        I would think that a generator that is grossly out of sink would behave like a motor that has stalled—i.e. like a dead short. No back EMF to throttle the current.  


        Bruce


        C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
        Houston, Texas


        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
        Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:43 PM
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] ERCOT, was Buying Power from Mexico

         

        Bruce,

        The conversion stations use very large thyristors. Most links between the three grids are 100 or 200 MW.

        In regards to what happens with the frequency, if the load gets out of balance with the generation then the frequency will change. If the generation exceeds the load then the frequency will increase, the opposite happens if the load exceeds the generation. The frequency is watched very closely and usually varies in thousandths of a cycle per second.

        You do not want generators out of sync with each other. Under certain circumstances this can create instability in the system. There are situations (I forget the correct word) where a large generating unit can actually be severely damage during the start of this instability before there is even a danger to the system.

        Dick

        On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 6:34 PM, <m1aport@...> wrote:

         

        A clarification: the TrippLite feeds continuous AC power to the projector via the battery so there is no switch over. In the event of a power outage on the utility side of the TrippLite, an alarm goes off to alert me to shut off the projector if it's in use.

        Rich


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: m1aport@...
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com

        Sent: Friday, February 4, 2011 4:22:13 PM
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] ERCOT, was Buying Power from Mexico


        Interesting subject. I happen to own a home theater projector system and for emergency power I have a backup power supply, a double conversion battery system by TrippLite. It converts AC to DC and back to AC via the battery. The near perfect sine wave and voltage stability is paramount for the projector lamp. I don't trust the other emergency battery packs to switch over quick enough to keep the mercury lamp from extinguishing.

        Rich
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "C. Bruce Richardson Jr." <cbrtxus@...>
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Friday, February 4, 2011 4:08:06 PM
        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] ERCOT, was Buying Power from Mexico

         

        Calvin, I just don’t think that it is feasible to rectify 200 megawatts (as an example) and then convert that DC to pure sine wave AC.

        There are automatic controls for synchronizing large generators. That’s easy these days.  AC to DC to AC would be almost impossibly difficult for the amount of energy that we are talking about.

        Bruce

        C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
        Houston, Texas


        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Calvin M. Wolff
        Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 5:09 PM
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] ERCOT, was Buying Power from Mexico

         

          

        Bruce...

        System A is out of synch with System B.  To tie in A to B, each phase of A must be converted to DC, then passed through (typically solid state) inverter that takes that DC and converts each phase to AC that is in sych with B (signal from B drives inverter).  Variable frequency drives for pumps and fans use that principle: line A/C to DC and is then reconstructed to a modified AC to drive the motor.

        Calvin.

        ----- Original Message -----

        Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 4:36 PM

        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] ERCOT, was Buying Power from Mexico

         

        David, perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by AC-DC-AC ties.

        This is my best understanding. They have to synchronize each generator to the others before it can be switched into the system. Once they are connected, they will stay synchronized.  If one generator tries to slow below 60 cycles, the other generators effectively turn it into a motor powered by them. If one generator tries to speed faster than 60 cycles, then it is effectively trying to bring to others up to its frequency. If I am not understanding this correctly, I hope that someone will bring me up to speed. 

        I remember reading about using two portable generators in tandem. Some with certain types of electronic controls can’t do this.  But with simple generators, running them in tandem would be a simple way to increase the capacity.

        The article talked about wiring a simple light bulb between the outputs of the two generators. When the two generators are out of phase, there will be a difference in potential between them and the light bulb will glow.  When they are in phase, there is no glow and the two generators can be connected at that point.  The generators will then stay synchronized.

        I assume that wind turbines have to be synchronized before they can be interconnected.  I don’t think that there would be any way to efficiently turn very high powers into DC and then back in to synchronized AC. 

        One of my customers told me about something that happened at his plant. There was some sort of problem with the grid.  They needed to augment their plant power with a large diesel generator to reduce their draw from the grid. One employee was given the responsibility of keeping the diesel generator fueled all night. The next morning he was asked how often he needed to add fuel.  He said that he didn’t have to. It ran all night without being refueled. And it was still running just fine totally without fuel the next morning.  Once it ran out of fuel, the grid was spinning the generator as well as the diesel engine that was supposed to be driving the generator. The guy assumed that the engine would stop once it ran out of fuel which would tell him when to refuel it. No one made it clear that he needed to be certain that it never ran out of fuel.

        Bruce


        C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
        Houston, Texas


        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of David Wojick
        Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 2:28 PM
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [climatechangedebate] ERCOT, was Buying Power from Mexico

         

        What defines a grid is that every one of the running generator turbines, many hundreds in the Eastern Interconnection (EI), is synchronized to the same 60 cycle wave form, to me an astounding feat. From James Bay to Florida and west to Denver, if I remember correctly (I used to write about it). They call the EI the world's largest machine. This is why blackouts can spread so far, so fast.

        Each Interconnection is linked by AC-DC-AC ties, because they are not synchronized with one another.

        David

        At 02:37 PM 2/4/2011, you wrote:



        The contiguous USA & Canada consists of 3 grids -- the Eastern Interconnection, the Western Interconnection and the ERCOT grid. Coordination was voluntary within each grid until recently, when the groups transitioned to federal regulatory entities under FERC.

        David

        At 01:01 PM 2/4/2011, you wrote:



        
        I think ERCOT has performed very well since deregulation began in 2002.  The problem apparently is that a number of generating plants in Texas didn't prepare well for the cold weather, allowing water piping to freeze and burst, among other things.
         
        ERCOT is the coordinator and "traffic cop" for power in Texas.
         
        Calvin.

        ----- Original Message -----

        From: famstaff@...

        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com

        Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 10:25 AM

        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Buying Power from Mexico

         

        Your friend is correct about who intituted the black-outs. But we had

        them all over Houston as well, and I know they had them in College

        Station. The news has stated that they were pretty much state-wide.

        Dallas people tend to think they are living in the center of the

        universe,so perhaps since he couldn't observe black-outs elsewhere he

        assumed they did not happen. :)

        Greg

        Quoting Albert Masetti <almasetti@... >:

        > From a friend in the Dallas area:

        >

        > " ... a lot of the power outages and branch outages that occurred to us

        > because of these rolling blackouts that were instituted by a group called

        > ERCOT [Electric Reliability Council of Texas]. They manage the unregulated

        > utility companies in Texas. And they were the ones that requested these

        > rolling blackouts -- and they were all over the state. They weren't just in

        > the Dallas/Fort Worth area."

        >

        > FWIW.

        >

        > - Al

        >

        > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Calvin M. Wolff <calvin@...> wrote:

        >

        >>

        >>

        >> Bruce..

        >>

        >> Here's a good link on smokin' Mexico.

        >>

        >> http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=5281

        >>

        >> Calvin

        >>

        >>

        >> ----- Original Message -----

        >> *From:* Bruce Richardson <cbrtxus@...>

        >> *To:* climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com

        >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 03, 2011 1:38 PM

        >> *Subject:* RE: [climatechangedebate] Buying Power from Mexico

        >>

        >>

        >>

        >> That could very well be the source. .The ranger just assumed that it was

        >> from the United States. And perhaps preferred to think that it was.

        >>

        >> Bruce

        >>

        >> ------------------------------

        >>

        >> *From:* climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:

        >> climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Calvin M. Wolff

        >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 03, 2011 12:44 PM

        >> *To:* climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com

        >> *Subject:* Re: [climatechangedebate] Buying Power from Mexico

        >>

        >>

        >>

        >> Bruce, the haze most likely came from slash & burn in Mexico. Depending on

        >> time of year, they could also have been burning sugar cane down there.

        >>

        >> I remember about 2003 we were in mountainous western Colorado and there

        >> was haze coming from the south.

        >>

        >> Calvin

        >>

        >> ----- Original Message -----

        >>

        >> *From:* Bruce Richardson <cbrtxus@...>

        >>

        >> *To:* climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com

        >>

        >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 03, 2011 9:19 AM

        >>

        >> *Subject:* RE: [climatechangedebate] Buying Power from Mexico [1

        >> Attachment]

        >>

        >>

        >>

        >> Al & Greg, I was in Big Bend National Park about 6 years ago. We were

        >> taking a tour with a Park Ranger. She had commented about the haze being

        >> the result of the pollution produced by the United States. Of course, I

        >> had to question that—politely. As you know, BBNP haas Mexico on three sides.

        >> I pointed out that on the drive down from Marathon, which was about 60

        >> miles, the haze seemed to increase as we drove South. Didn’t that suggest

        >> that the haze was most likely coming from Mexico? Mexico isn’t known for

        >> its clean air and water. It was apparent to me that the very nice but naïve

        >> park ranger just assumed that it was from the United States and seemed to

        >> prefer to believe that it was. In some cases polluted water including raw

        >> sewage flows from Mexico to the United States. I attached an article about

        >> that.

        >>

        >> As Greg mentioned, power from Mexico is probably produced without the

        >> controls that we have here. If there is a demand for drugs, guns, or power,

        >> there will be a supply. If “environmentalists†believe that citizens of the

        >> United States will accede to lowering our standard of living so that the

        >> “environmentalists†feel good about themselves for pursuing what they

        >> consider to be eco-justice, they are delusional. Power plants that aren’t

        >> built here will be built just across the border. Mexico’s corrupt

        >> government would like to have our investment capital flowing into

        >> Mexico. And

        >> they have no concern about their pollution flowing into the United States.

        >>

        >> If we allow a federal bureaucracy to claim powers not granted by the

        >> Constitution and to claim authority over our own DEQ, then Texans don’t

        >> deserve liberty. The federal government should concentrate on cleaning up

        >> mess that it has created and take a good long look the United States

        >> Constitution. Laws claiming powers not delegated to the federal government

        >> in the Constitution are nothing more than ink on paper.

        >>

        >> Predictions are that we will have some white AGW in Houston late this

        >> afternoon and tonight.

        >>

        >> Bruce

        >>

        >> C. Bruce Richardson Jr.

        >> Houston, Texas

        >>

        >> ------------------------------

        >>

        >> *From:* climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:

        >> climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Albert Masetti

        >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 03, 2011 5:20 AM

        >> *To:* climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com

        >> *Subject:* Re: [climatechangedebate] Buying Power from Mexico

        >>

        >>

        >>

        >> To the end of: "taking Texas down a peg".

        >>

        >> It's classic envy.

        >>

        >> - Al

        >>

        >> Whoops, there I go again, introducing religion.

        >>

        >> On the other hand, where is whoops, now that we really need it?

        >>

        >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:05 PM, <famstaff@...> wrote:

        >>

        >>

        >>

        >> I hear tonight Texas is buying electricity from Mexico. Perhaps not

        >> directly related to cap and switch, it is a harbinger of things to

        >> come if the inane anti-coal people have their way. We'll simply

        >> transfer the CO2 emissions to somewhere else.

        >>

        >> A power plant was just approved by our state DEQ, but the CO2 ninnies

        >> are promissing to fight. Great - more, even dirtier power from

        >> Mexico, and more expensive. To what end?

        >>

        >> Greg

        >>

        >> ----------------------------------------------------------

        >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

        >>

        >>

        >>

        ----------------------------------------------------------

        This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.