Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
21
WeatherCat iOS Clients / Re: WeatherCatRCP 1.0
« Last post by ColdnFrosty on May 15, 2018, 01:13:39 AM »
Downloaded and ran - works fine on Local and on Trixology, but not on the Internet through my router. Weathercat works fine on the Internet, but not RCP. Any thoughts?

I also noticed that certain settings cause it to instantly crash when launched. The only way to run it after that is to remove the app, and reinstall. But still I cannot run it over the web.
22
I think the key word in that “explanation” is hedges...
23
Dear WeatherCat climate watchers,

The Climate Prediction Center/NCEP/NWS and the International Research Institute for Climate and Society have issued (to quote:) their "Final La Niña Advisory."

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml

The critical bit of data is (once more I quote:) "During April 2018, the tropical Pacific returned to ENSO-neutral, as indicated by mostly near-to- below average sea surface temperatures (SSTs) along the equator."

However, just when you thought you could relax because things were back to "normal," the discussion goes on to say: "The majority of models in the IRI/CPC plume predict ENSO-neutral to continue at least through the Northern Hemisphere summer 2018. As the fall and winter approaches, many models indicate an increasing chance for El Niño. Therefore, the forecaster consensus hedges in the direction of El Niño as the winter approaches, but given the considerable uncertainty in ENSO forecasts made at this time of year, the probabilities for El Niño are below 50%. In summary, ENSO-neutral is favored through September-November 2018, with the possibility of El Niño nearing 50% by Northern Hemisphere winter 2018-19 . . . . ."

;) . . . . . So continues the El Niño or a La Niña soap opera for 2018 with every hope for a brand new season of foolishness for 2018-19!! . . . .  ;D

Cheers, Edouard  [cheers1]
24
Dear Randall, X-Air, and WeatherCat users concerned about global warming,

I priced solar to do my whole house and get away from the electric company.
It would cost me $23,000 to do this and take me 13 years to break even.
My average electric bill is $150.00 per month sometime more and sometimes less
That's if the batteries and solar panels and inverters would last that long.

That is one of the reasons why the California legislature’s actions are really unfair.  Effectively, they are forcing purchasers of new homes to pay the cost of solar whether or not it makes any sense.  It is a kind of tax imposed on people who simply might not be able to afford a home with that extra expense.

However, there is a more serious issue which is what I was alluding to and I hoped I could find my old posting that explained it.  Alas, try for all I'm worth I can't find it.  So I'll recreate it.  Solar can be used in one of two ways: 1.) with batteries to provide a self-contained system or 2.) to provide power to supplement the public power grid.  Option-1 is rare outside of specialized applications like RVs.   Option-2 has a serious problem that is reported in the Sacramento Bee article mentioned above.  Here is the solar radiation output from October 10, 2016:



By October trees block the sun so the morning data is missing.  However, it is the afternoon data that is important.  At 1pm (effective noon under daylight savings,) the solar radiation is almost 1000 Watts/meter2.  By 2pm it is under 800 Watts/meter2 and by 3:30 pm it is under 600 Watts/meter2.  The reason for this is that some of the solar radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere, so the shorter the path taken by those rays the more radiation reaches your solar panels.  As the afternoon progresses the sun's ray travel through more atmosphere and arrive weaker at your panels.  By 3:30 the same solar panels would generate 40% less power.

Here is the electrical demand for the same day October 10, 2016 from the California ISO:



These graphs have been made available since California's first electrical power crisis around 2001 and can be viewed on this web page:

http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

As you can see, when solar power is waning, user demand is growing.  So there is a limit of how much solar power can be practically used on a power grid.  It turns out California is already close to that limit.   Quoting once more from the Sacramento Bee article:

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article210886434.html

"Even at the utility-scale cost of 5 to 6 cents a kilowatt hour, there is growing concern that the massive commitment to solar in California is creating such a glut of mid-day electricity that prices during the day are plunging, and sometimes below zero. We are literally paying people to consume electricity during some midday hours.

Electricity system operators say they will increasingly have to curtail these large, inexpensive, solar producers because we have too much mid-day power. The Energy Commission mandate will pile even more expensive power onto that excess. Costs for society will go up, and the value received will go down."


Without some sort of battery system, California is producing already too much solar power at noon, but doesn't have the solar power it needs at the end of the day when demand is highest.  There simply isn't any other sort of renewable power source that can be counted upon to fill that gap.  So most the power that is produced at peak demand isn't renewable.  Since California has very little nuclear power, most of the electricity is producing greenhouse gases, including the power being used to recharge electric cars in the evening.

The political rush to force utilities to accept renewable energy hasn't had the effect intended.  Because there wasn't a comprehensive plan, solar isn't being used effectively and it appears there is insufficient generating capacity for the evening hours.  As a result the state has warned us about rotating blackouts.  This is precisely what can be expected when politicians meddle with complex technologies like the power grid.  You wouldn't let your legislator tell your doctor what do to.  Why are the public allowing legislators to tell power engineers how to operate the power grid?

TED - A printable, flexible, organic solar cell Turn ON subtitles. ;)

This is the final injury which really deserves careful consideration.  Is existing solar technology adequate or should we wait for some of the newer solar technology that is in development but looks very promising.

There is a lot of very angry debate insisting that action must be taken on global warming.  However, this very debate fails to grasp the seriousness of the situation.  As Randall points out, renewable energy is extremely expensive and the global economy is very fragile.  We absolutely cannot afford to make large investments in one technology only to have to scrap it and switch to something else.  We need a very carefully crafted plan that take into account as many of the issues as possible in one pass.  As the trendy saying goes: "failure is not an option."  At the moment there isn't even a coordinated attempt to succeed.  As another trendy saying goes: "None of us are as stupid as all of us put together."  Perhaps it is time that humanity make a concerted effort to earn it's scientific name: Homo Sapien (Wise Man.)

Edouard
25
General Weather Discussion / Re: Deciding the Weather Machine
« Last post by xairbusdriver on May 12, 2018, 01:13:19 AM »
26
General Weather Discussion / Re: Deciding the Weather Machine
« Last post by Randall75 on May 12, 2018, 12:09:01 AM »
Hi Edouard, Blick, and all WC solar friends
 I priced solar to do my whole house and get away from the electric company.
It would cost me $23,000 to do this and take me 13 years to break even.
My average electric bill is $150.00 per month sometime more and sometimes less
That's if the batteries and solar panels and inverters would last that long.
I have a backup generator that kicks on if that power goes out and runs off propane since I'm out in the country and it likes to eat it very much at an average of $16 per day I went 8 and 1/2 days once when hurricane made it all the way up here about 13 years ago and I payed $2900 for the generator.
So for solar to work our government would have to step in and help pay for it.


cheers


just my 2 cents worth
27
General Weather Discussion / Re: Deciding the Weather Machine
« Last post by xairbusdriver on May 11, 2018, 11:03:30 PM »
Quote
Before introducing alternative energy systems, plans should have been in place to maintain grid stability and such plans should have been tested in small scale communities instead of inflicting uncertain energy policies on the most populous state in the union.
I assume you are not pointing a finger at us non-CA residents. As I understand the new-homes-must-include-solar-panel-law comes from the California government. I suspect that Sac B article included the thought that the CA Senators could have created laws to build solar farms (regardless of the lack of current energy storage options). I have seen several options for storage that don't rely on batteries. Frankly, until we can create a real (non-fake) need for more and better storage options and infrastructure, we can only count on the risk taken by companies that are able to avoid the "quarterly ROI" mania.
28
General Weather Discussion / Re: Deciding the Weather Machine
« Last post by elagache on May 11, 2018, 10:35:43 PM »
Dear Blick, X-Air and WeatherCat observers of the changing climate,

Haven't seen the program but California, starting in 2020, will require solar panels on every new home built in the state (California's population accounts for about one out of every eight Americans). I recently priced out a solar panel for my water heater and learned that the pay back period for the investment is just shy of 40 years.

 . . . .

On one hand, I admire the forward thinking regulators in California.
 . . . .

Unfortunately, what seems forward thinking is in fact contributing to an ever growing problem.  It is described in this Sacramento Bee editorial:

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/soapbox/article210886434.html

As described in the editorial, residential solar is among the most expensive ways to implement solar.  Dedicated solar farms are cheaper.  So new homeowners are facing an unreasonable burden.  Worse still, there is already a glut of solar power at the peak of solar radiation: 12 noon to 1 pm.  Utility companies are already unable to sell the electricity being generated at this time, while power needs later in the day must be filled by other means.  If there isn't any other renewable energy source, that means fossil fuels get burnt because nothing else is available.

I documented this problem on an earlier post, but I can't find it right now.  I'm literally waiting at Costco for new tires to be put on Coquette, our junior Buick.  However, if you just look at a graph of solar radiation you'll see the problem.  The solar energy output varies drastically while our energy consumption has a different diurnal curve.  At the moment only two solutions are possible: battery technology on a scale many orders of magnitude larger than ever attempted before, or conventional power plants. 

This is precisely the sort "half-baked" energy solutions that leave me extremely frustrated.  Modern life depends on the power grid in ways which we don't notice but absolutely depend on.  Before introducing alternative energy systems, plans should have been in place to maintain grid stability and such plans should have been tested in small scale communities instead of inflicting uncertain energy policies on the most populous state in the union.  The effects of rolling blackouts are extremely serious on the economy and could even cost the lives of people.  Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a goal we all should strive for, but I don't want to become a guinea pig for an electrical system that nobody is sure can work for all Californians 24/7.

Oh well, . . . . Edouard

Sent from Panoramix using Tapatalk HD
29
Dear X-Air, Weatheraardvark, Grand, and WeatherCat climate watchers with their "head in the stars,"

As I hoped finally there is an explanation that us "just plain folks" can understand from the Smithsonian Magazine:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/venus-and-jupiter-change-earths-orbit-and-climate-405000-year-cycle-180969038/

Two key pieces of the puzzle were explained:

First, the premise is that the tug of Venus and Jupiter changes the orbit from more circular to more elliptical.  The more elliptical the orbit the more extreme the differences between the heat at closest point to the sun and cold at the furthest separation.

Second, the scientists were able to pull samples from a lake that was periodically going dry.  Using those observations, they were able to make an assessment of the climate at that location over millions of years.

So yes, Venus and Jupiter do effect our climate!  However, their best assessment is that Venus and Jupiter aren't involved in the present case of climate change.

Cheers, Edouard
   I appreciate the information, but silliness by me aside, it is nothing I can do about, I am on this ride and have to deal with the driver.   I suspect that the Hippy Dippy Weatherman was right .  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2HpB5CGfLQ
30
General Weather Discussion / Re: Deciding the Weather Machine
« Last post by xairbusdriver on May 11, 2018, 03:08:48 AM »
You might want to visit TED and search for "Printable, flexible solar panels". Maybe an investment opportunity, also.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10