________________________________
From: John Clark <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, April 7, 2014 5:54 PM
Subject: Re: Climate models
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Chris de Morsella <[email protected]>wrote:
> >>150GW * 8670 (hours/year)
>
>>> Actually 24 times 365 is 8760 not 8670;
>
>> Okay… get picky about very small details dude,
You're the one who wanted to "do the math", and when I've been shown
unambiguously to be wrong about something I don't make excuses, I just admit it
and move on.
Then why are you not admitting that you erred by a factor of 2000 times in your
calculation, based on your poor understanding of the meaning of the terms --
Capacity versus annualized output measured in watt hours.
> A GW of capacity is the nameplate measurement of capacity to produce power;
Yes, a Gigawatt is a measure of power.
> a GW-hour is a measurement of actual output.
>>No, Gigawatt-hour is a measure of energy. The actual output power would be
>>the capacity factor multiplied by rated output. And I don't understand why
>>you keep emphasizing the capacity factor, it just makes your argument weaker,
>>you say for solar it's 20%, so the the percentage of world wide energy needs
>>provided by photovoltaic is just .00002%, assuming the numbers you proved are
>>correct.
BS math thatI have already clearly falsified. You are misising Capcity and
using the currently installed global solar PV capacity figure of 150GW as if
this was the annual solar PV electric output -- WHICH IT IS NOT IDIOT (OR
LIAR). You are either really dense or you are a liar John. A GW is a measure of
electric energy output; you are being argumentative because you don't want to
admit you are clueless about the meaning of Capacity and clearly used it the
wrong way in your equation.
As I have already explained several times to you John: Capacity is a
measurement of the capacity of something to produce. It does not say anything
about actual electric energy output in a given year. A one GW nuclear power
plant that is shut down for a year -- for whatever reason -- produces no
electricity for that year, but it still has whatever capacity it had. A solar
module that has the capacity to produce one KW but that is -- say left in its
packaging and never installed similarly produces no output, but it still has
the capacity of 1kw.
Since I cannot believe you are this dumb; I can only assume you are a liar or
have to fragile of an ego to admit how badly off you were, and how poor your
understanding of these energy terms was.
> You multiply the capacity by a capacity factor, which for big thermo-electric
> plants (both nuclear and coal) is around 80% and then multiply that by the
> number of hours in a year to get the estimated annual output.
>
That would give you the amount of energy the plant would produce in a year.
And to operate all human technology on this planet would require 1.5*10^17
watts of POWER. To operate it for one hour would require 1.5*10^17 watt-hours
of ENERGY. To find out how much energy would be required to operate it for one
year you would take 1.5*10^17 watt-hours AND THEN MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER
OF HOURS IN A YEAR. Therefore if you're interested in percentages, like the
percentage of the energy required to run the world that photovoltaics provide,
it doesn't matter how many hours there are in a day because the 2 terms would
cancel out. So even if there were 6.02*10^23 hours in a year, the percentages
would remain the same.
BULL SHIT you cannot take the CAPACITY figure for Solar PV and pretend it
represents the actual annual output of electricity produced by the installed
base of solar PV and divide this CAPACITY number by the figure for the total
annual energy needs of the world expressed in terms of watt hours. That is
plain stupid. Are you that stupid?
It is basic fundamental grade school knowledge that one must compare like to
like. Compare Capacity to Capacity; compare output to output. If you want to
compare a capacity to an output you first have to calculate an estimate for the
output based on multiplying the capacity figure by the number of hours in a
year -- and adjusting this result with an estimated capacity factor.
> You really don’t get it do you. Are you dense or just argumentative?
>>Chris, You have just vividly demonstrated that you don't understand the
>>difference between energy and power, something that is taught during the
>>first week of high school physics, and you can't seem to figure out how to
>>multiply 24*365, so it makes we wonder if you are the one we should look to
>>in deciding what our long term energy policy should be.
Whatever IDIOT you are as argumentative as you are incapable of admitting how
wrong you were.
No John what you have demonstrated is that you are either monumentally stupid
or are a bald faced liar. You keep insisting that you are correct in comparing
a capacity figure on the one hand with an annual measure of total energy
consumption on the other to produce a ratio.
A ratio of what exactly John? This is just getting idiotic. Man up John and
admit you have a poor understanding of what is meant by the term Capacity --
and specifically what is meant when someone says "The world has a cumulative
installed CAPACITY of 150GW"
Admit that you did not understand that this refers to the CAPACITY to produce
and does not represent the actual energy output.
> Capacity measures the nameplate potential to produce power – a solar panel
> with a 1kw capacity can produce a kilowatt of power if the sun is shining on
> it at full flux. Actual annual electric output is a very different
Yeah it is very different, real solar panels are actually 5 times WORSE than
what I originally said. You have gotten so confused you don't even know if what
you're saying is helping your argument or hurting it.
> I did my calculations correctly
BULLSHIT.
> you were off by 2000 times
BULLSHIT.
You are a liar John -- the great Mr Clark cannot admit that he made a stupid
error in his calculation, by incorrectly using the Capacity number as if it
were the annual output figure when dividing that number by the total annual
energy budget figure.
Now you are trying to twist and spin, but dude I have you pinned down. If this
was submission wrestling you would be saying uncle by now. Just admit you made
a stupid mistake and move on.
> The 8670 = 365*24 – that is the number of hours in a year.
No, as I said before, 365*24= 8760 not 8670. I know this is a very very
difficult calculation but I really feel I'm correct about this.
> This is basic math dude.
Indeed.
>> As I've said several times nobody is going to bother with the Thorium in
>> your garden dirt until ores of much much greater Thorium concentration have
>> run out, and at current energy consumption that won't happen for over a
>> billion years. And when dealing with technology a billion years in advance
>> of ours it would be ridiculous to say what sort of ore is recoverable and
>> what sort is not.
>> Nobody is going to resurface planet earth – ever.
Why not? Not even in a billion years? Who did you determine that?
No one is resurfacing the crust of planet earth, for a Thorium mining
operation; not in a billion years. Insisting this is a possibility and that
therefore the Thorium in common garden dirt should be counted as part of the
reserve only makes you look more than a little insane.
Chris de Morsella
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
