via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/KlCezQT

November 20, 2024 at 12:00PM

Scientific American boasting about Kamala Harris’ prowess in science. (59) Scientific American on X: “As the daughter of a cancer researcher, Kamala Harris would bring a lifelong familiarity with science to the presidency, experts say https://t.co/YOdjX6c7QA” / X

via Real Climate Science

https://ift.tt/RB9cdNJ

November 20, 2024 at 11:46AM

Researcher Willem van der Bilt was surprised when a project on Arctic storminess revealed ‘the opposite of what was expected’. But if ‘disasters become more frequent when the disparity between the temperature at the equator and the temperature at the Earth’s poles increases’, as this climatologist explains, perhaps the real surprise was that researchers were surprised to find exactly that. “Civilization has always done better under warmer conditions,” because “a warmer world is a less volatile weather world”. Maybe their assumptions were somehow influenced by alarmist voices predicting ever greater weather ‘extremes’ of all kinds under gradually warming conditions? In any case, convincing evidence for such assertions is in short supply.
– – –
A recent study has uncovered surprising patterns in Arctic storminess, challenging the common assumptions about the relationship between warming temperatures and increased wind activity, says the University of Bergen @ ScienceNorway.

Willem van der Bilt is a researcher at the University of Bergen and the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research. As part of an international research team, he has developed new methods for extracting climate hazard information from geological archives like lake sediments.

Studying sediments to track storminess
To do this, the research team used detailed scanning methods and combined the results in a structured way to analyse patterns and relationships in the data.

The researchers examined sediments from a coastal lake on Svalbard, focusing on particles transported by wind and waves. These particles, which include sand grains and sea salt carried into lakes by storms, allow researchers to trace changes in wind strength and wave height over time.

Using advanced geological tools, the team refined methods typically used for studying glacier behaviour and flood frequency, adapting them to reconstruct wind history.

“We used a toolbox of techniques that are typically applied to extract other past information from geological records. And then I thought; we might as well look at the wind, right?” says van der Bilt.
. . .
Wind history
The study focused on a coastal lake on Svalbard, chosen for its ability to consistently record wind patterns over time.

The team ended up sampling cores from a few lakes shielded by a rocky ridge and started analysing these sediments. They applied a proven set of methods, making refinements, and introducing some enhancements to improve accuracy.

Van der Bilt explains that from these sediments, they extracted a clear storm signal.

“We started to understand that we could tie different signals that we recorded in these sediments to both wind systems that prevail in the area – the Westerlies and Easterlies – and get 10,000 years of wind history,” he says.

Surprising patterns in Arctic storminess
As the team started to analyse their findings, the plot thickened. The results were the opposite of what the researchers thought they would be.

“The assumption is that a less icy, warm Arctic will be windier, but the sediments show us that it’s the other way around. We learned that the stormy phases that we see in our record actually overlap with phases of colder climate conditions in the North Atlantic Ocean. That was a big surprise,” says van der Bilt.

Another thing they observed was a form of cyclicity in storminess.

“We find that storminess exhibits a 1,500-year cyclicity. This periodicity is a widespread feature of many North Atlantic climate records and acts like a bit of a heartbeat of the region’s climate system,” he says.

Van der Bilt adds that the team found both of the region’s main wind systems – the Polar Easterlies and the Westerlies – move in synchrony, weakening and strengthening together over time.

Full article here.
– – –
Image: Svalbard Map [credit: theoceanadventure.com]

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/X6yo4mR

November 20, 2024 at 11:40AM

By Paul Homewood

 

 

https://www.neso.energy/publications/clean-power-2030

You will recall the NESO’s Clean Power 2030 report to Ed Miliband a couple of weeks ago, which made it absolutely clear that we would need to retain our full fleet of gas power stations, in order to provide power when the wind does not blow.

The report made it clear that this would continue to be necessary well beyond 2030, until enough low carbon dispatchable capacity came on stream. That effectively means either CCGT with carbon capture, or hydrogen burning plants.

Carbon capture is still not proven at commercial scale, and even if it could be introduced, it would make the cost of generation much higher, as well as increasing the amount of gas used, which makes zero sense to anybody outside of Ed Miliband’s little bubble.

But what about hydrogen?

In 2020, John Constable wrote a report on hydrogen use for GWPF, analysing the CCC’s proposals. It contained this section::

 

In other words, most of the hydrogen would have to be made via steam reforming natural gas. With an assumed fuel efficiency of 80%., that would need 282 TWh of natural gas supply, nearly half the current annual usage of just over 700 TWh. However, 80% efficiency is extremely optimistic – 65 to 75% is deemed to be the norm at the moment, and that does not take carbon capture into account. A gas requirement of 500 TWh would not be unrealistic.

Coming back to the NESO proposals, they reckon we would need at least 15 TWh in a “typical” weather year, but plainly we would need to build a much larger margin of safety.

 

During the first week of this month, gas plants were supplying half our power, when winds were low. During midwinter, if wind power was a low as it was in that week, we would need the full 35 GW capacity churning out nearly 1 TWh a day, particularly given the fact that NESO say demand will be 11% higher by 2030.

A month or more of that weather would mean at least 30 TWh of gas power, all of which would have to be stored for winter months.

To produce this amount of hydrogen would not be an insurmountable problem in itself, requiring about 4 GW of steam reforming capacity. John Constable suggests a capital cost of about £5 billion for this. But the hydrogen would then need to be distributed and stored, and a fleet of hydrogen burning power stations built at a potential cost of £50 billion. (It seems unlikely that it would be viable for older CCGTs  to be adapted to burn hydrogen).

Given the continued dependence on imported natural gas, with all the upstream emissions involved, of the steam reforming option, it can hardly be regarded as Net Zero! There can be no justification for imposing a cost of tens of billions on the public for what would be no more than a box ticking exercise. And it’s not just a matter of cost. To waste massive amounts of gas converting it to hydrogen and then capturing the carbon would be an obscene misuse of a valuable and sparse commodity.

 

What about electrolysis though?

Constable’s study reckons fuel efficiency of 73% – 44 TWh from 60 TWh of electricity. As we could potentially need at least 30 TWh, we would need to input roughly 60 TWh of hydrogen, given the operating efficiency of thermal power stations.

That would mean 82 TWh of electricity to feed the electrolysers, probably more if line losses are taken into account. In turn, you would therefore need about 25 GW of offshore wind power capacity, which is more than we currently have.

All that just to supply 5% of our electricity demand. And we have not even started with all the other uses of natural gas that will have to be catered for.

Does anybody still believe this is a good idea?

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/FCslSXf

November 20, 2024 at 10:13AM