Climate Denial Crock of the Week
with Peter Sinclair
-
-
-
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
- TreeHugger"@PeterWSinclair is a national treasure." - Brad Johnson, Publisher Hill Heat
Pages
Links
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund
-
Recent Posts
- Keystone, on the Ropes, Suggests Pipeline to Run on Solar, Wind
- The Capitol Riot and Climate Disinformation
- World’s Oceans Hit Record Warming in 2020
- Vice News: The World’s Worst Oil Related Disaster You’ve Never Heard Of
- Under Antarctic Ice: Lakes Ebb and Flow
- Climate Catastrophe Animal Vid of the Week
- Master Class in Climate Denial Gaslighting
- The Economist: Can Business Survive Climate Change?
- BFD: Lab Grown, No-Kill Meat Approved
- 2020 Temps Tied Record
- Tearing the Fabric of Life on Earth
- Correlation is Not Causation, but..
- 2020 Year in Review
- Trump Team Leaving a Smear of Anti-Science Poo Behind
- Healing the Resentments that Cleave Us
Archives
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
Blogroll
- A Few Things Ill Considered
- AGW Observer
- Clear Climate Code
- Climate Change Ireland
- Climate Charts
- Climate Place
- Climate Progress
- Climate Victory
- ClimateSight
- Deep Climate
- Deltoid
- Denial Depot
- From a Glaciers Perspective
- Glimpse Science Network
- James Empty Blog
- Mind of Dan
- More Grumbine Science
- OilPrice.com
- Only In It for the Gold
- Open Mind
- Our Changing Climate
- Planet Experts
- Post Normal Times
- RealClimate
- Rocky Mountain Institute
- Scholars and Rogues
- Shale Gas Bulletin Ireland
- Skeptical Science
- Solar Power Now
- Terra Alert
- The Cost of Energy
- The Way Things Break
- Yale Climate Forum Playlist
July 5, 2020 at 6:34 pm
I like the idea of off-the-shelf tech, the contained nature of the facility (many siting options), and the plausible 60%(?) efficiency, but I sent it off to my sister (our dad calls her the “Pump Queen”) for skeptical review and assessment of its safety and maintenance. AFAICT, there are no community-toxic components.
July 6, 2020 at 8:07 am
Footprint seems OK at 6,000 km**2 for 2,000,000 gWh
July 6, 2020 at 12:39 pm
The confusing graph ten minutes in illustrates an important drawback in expensive battery schemes (and they are all expensive) such as this. When you use such schemes to cover for hopelessly intermittent wind and solar, you run into increasingly infrequent but longer periods of no wind and sun. In order to cover for the longer periods, you need more of this expensive storage capacity, but since these periods are infrequent, all this expensive storage is hardly ever utilized.
July 6, 2020 at 5:52 pm
Depends on the grid geographical area
July 6, 2020 at 10:14 pm
It may not be as bad for larger interconnected areas, but it’s still true.
July 7, 2020 at 3:05 am
I would expect the first such plants to be built where they are most cost-effective.
In any case, grid storage doesn’t have to be the cheapest, just cheaper than peaker-plants.
July 7, 2020 at 11:12 am
Comparing batteries to peaker-plants is like comparing glasses of water to faucets.
July 8, 2020 at 9:49 am
Not if the energy comes from sunshine because sunshine is biggish, relatively speaking.