Weather

Why climate skepticism hasn’t worked out yet


By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Climate skepticism has four drawbacks: lack of basic professionalism; tendency to be overly skeptical of both sides of the argument; a startling absence of intuition of the mathematician, who roams happily and competently from concrete to theory and vice versa; and unwarranted impoliteness to the scientific works of fellow skeptics.

As a result, the skeptical argument – ​​which is objectively true – has gained far less traction than it deserves. An interesting example of all four failures is a 2,400-word rebuttal directed at me that was published here recently.

Firstly, lack of professionalism. The author lacked common sense to contact me for comment before publishing the rebuttal. However, this opportunity to respond, granted immediately upon my request, purges that lack of professional courtesy.

Monday, excessive skepticism. I posted a post at WattsUpWithThat outlining a very important and useful result achieved after careful research by Douglas Pollock, an expert on the scientific and economic impact of wind and solar energy on with the national grid.

Pollock consulted extensively among grid operators, generators and academic experts. He found widespread confusion that after a certain point – varying from species to species and from grid to grid – the addition of renewable energy did not increase that species’ share. in total grid output either leading to ever-increasing capacity-limiting payments or not- creating orders for renewable power generation plants at times of high winds, strong sunshine or low demand. He did his research, did the math, and found that he could answer industry questions. He proposed – in my view justifiably – to submit his results to a leading journal for peer-review.

He discovered a counterintuitive and surprising fact hitherto unknown in the industry: namely, the maximum national renewable energy share (the maximum share of total output per year). national grid due to a contribution from a type of weather-dependent renewable energy that is inexpensive and logistically unfeasible). static battery backup or wasted power generation covered by expensive capacity-limiting payments or disconnection orders) – equal to the national average power factor for that species (average rate) of the species’ nameplate capacity achievable given the country’s annual average weather patterns). Surprisingly, the average national power factor of a renewable species – the greatest penetration that can be achieved without much cost and waste – is the limit of its pollock in the grid. that country.

Now, a true skeptic would start by reading through my writing with due care and attention. The author of the disclaimer, like some of the commenters on my post here, chose not to do it. Instead, after quoting a sentence out of context in my paper, he then restated the sentence in two terms that were completely at odds with elsewhere in my writing – a context which he regrets hiding from his readers all this time, for without it his entire review would be considered erroneous. completely unfounded:

“Thus, Monckton (and Pollock) seem to be saying that if (for example) a wind turbine system that can only produce about 35 percent of the power on the nameplate ‘can be practically achievable under conditions. practically’, it would be futile to build any more wind turbines. you get up to 35% wind penetration into the output, because 35% penetration is a mathematical limit that cannot be exceeded.”

Just two sentences after the one he rewrote from my original paper so that he could more easily lean towards the straw man rather than against what I had actually written, I wrote:

“Douglas Pollock’s excellent and at first unexpected results mean a pathetic low performance factor r in fact is also the basic limit fmaximum about the contribution that untrusted things can make to the grid without the need for large-scale static battery backups that are extremely costly and logistically impossible.

To make sure people don’t doubt what I mean, I go on to say: “This means that wind and solar power cannot contribute more than about a quarter of total electricity demand, unless there is a backup battery. However, as Professor Michaux’s 2021 article for the Geological Survey of Finland establishes, There’s nothing like enough engineering metal to provide backup batteries for the entire worldwide grid.”

I need not state the corollary that, without battery backup, which Professor Michaux has proven impossible to do at the necessary scale, one would either need limited payments. capacity or cut off subsidy orders for farmers to stop their windmills and solar panels. Both the capacity payment and the disconnect command are extremely expensive and dangerously wasteful due to scarcity and increasing costs of energy.

The author of the rebuttal, in writing to give me this opportunity to respond, wrote that Mr. Pollock’s results “do not address the questions of the cost and wastefulness of over-construction”.

However, not only my original paper but also this article, like Mr. Pollock’s, of course mentioned “the cost and waste of over-construction”. In addition to the mention of “large-scale backup batteries that are too expensive and logistically impracticable”, which appeared in both articles, I further referenced the following costs in the original article:

“As a direct consequence of this shortcoming, the UK now suffers from the most expensive electricity costs in the world.”

Next, I explained that, due to our high electricity prices, “Manufacturing industries that we once led the world over have died or gone abroad to China, India, and Russia due to the Communists. leadership property.”

Later in the article, I have further highlighted the cost and waste of installing wind and solar capacity beyond the Pollock limit by explaining that, to take an example, “only for the world The first static battery backup system for the global grid, professor [Michaux] calculates that one would need annual production of vanadium equivalent to total present production in 67,000 years, to name but one of the scarce engineering metals required in extraordinary quantities.”

Having thus misrepresented my paper, the author of the rebuttal said his immediate reaction was that I “couldn’t be right”.

I have rarely seen a more blatant example of Aristotle’s logical fallacy criticized by medieval scholars as ad argument skip elenchi.

Tuesday, Defective mathematical intuition. The author actually admits that his habit is to avoid theory, what he calls “imaginary proofs”, and “stick to simple arithmetic”. As a result of his approach – all too popular among skeptics – he completely ignores the main point of Mr. Pollock’s result and, therefore, its importance. Instead, as stated above, he misrepresented it. So let me present the Pollock results, step by step. Judge for yourself, gentle readers. You will find that the conclusion is reasonable.

National average competency coefficient r of a weather-dependent renewable species (usually wind or solar) is the ratio of the output that species can achieve under average annual weather conditions to the capacity on its nameplate . Capacity factors vary from country to country (with variable weather) and from species to species. As an example in the UK, the average national onshore wind power factor is around 0.25. Please note that for some reason one cannot, as the author did, naively add wind and solar power factors.

Nameplate capacity meets minimum demand OLD of wind or solar is the minimum installed nameplate capacity of that species that will be required to meet the average demand D. connect to the national electricity grid. It is simply the ratio of D. arrive r. So –

OLD = D. / r.

National wind (or solar) ratio f is the portion of the national grid’s electricity output that is actually contributed by wind or solar power.

Nameplate capacity meets minimum demand in fractions WOMEN of wind (or sun) is the minimum installed nameplate power required to generate f. It is the product of f and OLD:

WOMEN = f C = fD/ r.

Maximum national solar or wind share fmaximum happens when WOMEN = D.. Afterward:

WOMEN = D. = D. fmaximum / R, to be fmaximum = r.

Therefore, the maximum national wind fraction fmaximum equal to the national average competency coefficient r for wind power, it’s the Pollock limit: in this example it’s 0.25.

By now, most national grid management agencies know what ris for each renewable species. But so far they didn’t know that r equal to the nameplate capacity that meets the minimum installation needs. Install more than that iron limit r and the additional electricity generated would be extremely expensive, or wasteful, or both. That new knowledge is valuable and easy to use.

Precisely because until now the Pollock limit is unknown, some national grid regulators have generated more electricity from renewables than the Pollock limit. In doing so, they are unknowingly subjecting their customers to very heavy and unnecessary additional costs, which could have been and could have been avoided if pollock limits were known and respected.

It is noteworthy, however, that the author of the rebuttal cited the existence of generation overload in various countries as evidence that Mr. Pollock was wrong in suggesting that there was no Pollock limit. For good measure, he also said that I was “supposedly not allowed to overbuild”. Neither Mr. Pollock nor I assume, claim or imply any such thing. Instead, I have twice implied the opposite. The existence of overbuilding is proof that it is not the absence of a Pollock limit but rather that the grid regulators are unaware of the Pollock limit.

Wednesday, not generous toward the work of other skeptics. Mr. Pollock’s results have been proven above. He deserves to be congratulated, not condemned for his insight. The equations are very simple, like Einstein’s, but finding them is not easy.

If the author of that rebuttal had not misrepresented Mr. Pollock’s results, and if he had found an actual mistake, it would have been fair enough to point that out. He found no fault, but it was impolite nonetheless. He preached that I had “pushed into the sad name-calling… [i]instead of simply realizing that a slight modification to [my] Conclusion is in order. No need to “modify” as the original post mentioned this.

Next, the author of the rebuttal says: “I think Monckton ultimately concedes that his result only applies to situations where over-construction is not allowed.” As will be seen from the quotes above, in the original post I explicitly indicated, twice, that a backup battery is required if wind or solar power exceeds their Pollock limit: ie. if over-construction occurs. Otherwise one would not need a backup battery. I didn’t “finally concede” to anything: in the original article, I began by stating twice what should have been obvious from the outset in any case.

The author ends impolitely with the effect that I’ve been “a bit over the top on this matter”. However, when he wrote to give me this opportunity to respond, for which I am grateful, he said: “I strongly advise you that naming does not advance your argument.” Goose, silly. Pot, kettle. We are skeptical of the need to up our game.


5
twelfth
votes

Rate Articles

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button