The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[SdK]

It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.

[ednksu]

I mean, you idiots had to rename global warming climate change to account for the cooling you know deny, and you've done so lockstep without a question asked. That's  pathetic.

it's great you think there is cooling, even though all science has debunked that.  Just great stuff.  Deny, deny deny, stay months behind.

[ednksu]

Nobody itt can explain global climate warming change, let alone the science behind it.

What we do know is that even in the most aggressive of the models (which are all overstated), there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

No people do "get it" and it's been explained to you in small words.  You decided not to listen.  Sad really.

[sonofdaxjones]

When you throw out phrases like "all of science" you lose all credibility.

FFS they're debating the "hiatus" going on for years in the U.K. Met office.   Sat temps also greatly diverge from NOAA, who keeps effing with historical weather data, gets caught and then rolls out more bullshit to explain themselves. 

[Rage Against the McKee]

Nobody itt can explain global climate warming change, let alone the science behind it.

What we do know is that even in the most aggressive of the models (which are all overstated), there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

Greenhouse gases slow down the rate that heat leaves the earth. More greenhouse gases further slow the rate.

[SdK]

It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.

I'll do my best!

[sys]

[mocat]

It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.

It's true, we are in the golden age of GW rn

[SdK]

I love it. I also will not be having kids.

[SdK]

So maybe I just don't care

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

It's been warm and it's February. I'm playing golf all weekend in February. Think about that guys/gals.

Pretty great problem to have, imho. Hit em straight, cowboy.

It's true, we are in the golden age of GW rn

More likely the groundhod [not?] seeing its shadow.

[SdK]

Are you making fun of animal climate science now? Sheepshead. You pubs know no bounds.

[halfEmpty]

In the end, if we truly believe what we are doing is bad for Mother Earth, then we need to consume less and consume more efficiently.  That's a tough pill to swallow for almost everyone alive.

This.  In reality, we have to first solve the problem of how much we waste before we can tackle the how much we consume problem.

[Emo EMAW]

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies. 

[cfbandyman]

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies.

It's really hard to make a heat engine high efficient, pretty much 65% of the gas you put into your car is rejected wasted heat right away, the rest of the inefficiencies are mechanical and wind resistance in nature. It's funny you find that "only" 21%, I honestly think it's high.

[michigancat]

Yeah:

Most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient at turning fuel burned into usable energy.

The efficiency by which they do so is measured in terms of "thermal efficiency", and most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent

[Emo EMAW]

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies.

It's really hard to make a heat engine high efficient, pretty much 65% of the gas you put into your car is rejected wasted heat right away, the rest of the inefficiencies are mechanical and wind resistance in nature. It's funny you find that "only" 21%, I honestly think it's high.

Okay so ball parking it, I put in 100 units of energy into a car, 65 of them are rejected as heat.  Then say 35 are turned into actual work in the engine, then say we lose another 5 units getting that work to the pavement.  That makes sense.  I can't see wind resistance playing a part of the waste part of calculation though, as to me that's the only useful part of the work, aside from any gain in elevation but I would expect that to be a cancelled out by any losses of elevation. 

I figured transportation sector also considered aviation and ships and rail and all that, maybe could account for some increases over what you might guess for a passenger vehicle. 

[cfbandyman]

Yeah:

Most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient at turning fuel burned into usable energy.

The efficiency by which they do so is measured in terms of "thermal efficiency", and most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent

I was just about to post that

So I'll post this instead.

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

Overall, the thermodynamics of the system immediately puts you behind the curve. A theoretical Carnot engine can only get you 50% efficiency, and that's the highest single cycle engine possible, and even it's only theoretical. 

Power plants that are heat based like coal and simple cycle natural gas are around 38-45% efficient. Combined cycle natural gas plants are around 60% (which is possible cause as the name implies, combines two cycles to extract energy, instead of just burning and allowing the heat to escape.) And before you go "why can't you do that for a car, you just said it's over 50%!" then all you need to do is add a boiler and and compressor feed motor and water to your car and holy crap this car weighs too much to make this practical ok nevermind.

[ShellShock]

Yeah:

Most internal combustion engines are incredibly inefficient at turning fuel burned into usable energy.

The efficiency by which they do so is measured in terms of "thermal efficiency", and most gasoline combustion engines average around 20 percent thermal efficiency. Diesels are typically higher--approaching 40 percent in some cases.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1091436_toyota-gasoline-engine-achieves-thermal-efficiency-of-38-percent

I was just about to post that

So I'll post this instead.

http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/consumer_tips/vehicle_energy_losses.html

Overall, the thermodynamics of the system immediately puts you behind the curve. A theoretical Carnot engine can only get you 50% efficiency, and that's the highest single cycle engine possible, and even it's only theoretical. 

Power plants that are heat based like coal and simple cycle natural gas are around 38-45% efficient. Combined cycle natural gas plants are around 60% (which is possible cause as the name implies, combines two cycles to extract energy, instead of just burning and allowing the heat to escape.) And before you go "why can't you do that for a car, you just said it's over 50%!" then all you need to do is add a boiler and and compressor feed motor and water to your car and holy crap this car weighs too much to make this practical ok nevermind.

Excellent post!

[Emo EMAW]

Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cfbandyman]

How in the world is the transportation sector only operating at 21% efficiency?  Any details on the calculation?  What constitutes rejected energy? 

It also seems bogus they put the residential and commercial sectors at identical efficiencies.

It's really hard to make a heat engine high efficient, pretty much 65% of the gas you put into your car is rejected wasted heat right away, the rest of the inefficiencies are mechanical and wind resistance in nature. It's funny you find that "only" 21%, I honestly think it's high.

Okay so ball parking it, I put in 100 units of energy into a car, 65 of them are rejected as heat.  Then say 35 are turned into actual work in the engine, then say we lose another 5 units getting that work to the pavement.  That makes sense.  I can't see wind resistance playing a part of the waste part of calculation though, as to me that's the only useful part of the work, aside from any gain in elevation but I would expect that to be a cancelled out by any losses of elevation. 

I figured transportation sector also considered aviation and ships and rail and all that, maybe could account for some increases over what you might guess for a passenger vehicle.

Those types of transportation (mostly) use an internal combustion engine as well. Trains use a diesel engine to drive a generator which uses the electricity to run the electric motors to move the locomotive. Mostly due to the increased control and torque you get with an electric motor. Many big ships do the same thing as well. Airplanes use a turbine, which is in general more efficient but not horribly so (38-low 40's of %). So while yes, some areas are more efficient than a car, most is still a car/semi truck, and even ships use the same tech to move themselves unless they are steam driven in which case they'll be a turbine (for a ship) but many/most don't anymore. Really only airplanes are the pure turbine driven, unless of course they are piston based.

[cfbandyman]

Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would you consider the heat part of cooling an efficiency?

Also, for a home I read it as 65% for homes and commercial. 80% for industrial.

[Emo EMAW]

Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would you consider the heat part of cooling an efficiency?

Also, for a home I read it as 65% for homes and commercial. 80% for industrial.

I don't consider the heat an efficiency.  If 100 units of energy go into an A/C unit and it produces 200 units of cooling, is the efficiency 200%?  I would guess typical residential COP's are in the 2.0 range.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cfbandyman]

Are turbines more efficient than IC engines?  I would guess they are.

On the residential/commercial sectors, consider light:

100 units of energy go into a house, and the following occurs:

- some energy is lost as heat through the wires (2%)
- some energy creates light we can see (useful)
- some energy creates light we can't see (waste)
- some energy creates heat (waste)

I don't know what those ratios are but not way it's near 80%.

I guess heating would be approaching 90% or more efficiency.

Cooling, how do they even calculate that?  You put 100 units of energy into an A/C, you might get 200 units of cooling and 300 units of heating (rejected).  So is the efficiency 200%? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why would you consider the heat part of cooling an efficiency?

Also, for a home I read it as 65% for homes and commercial. 80% for industrial.

I don't consider the heat an efficiency.  If 100 units of energy go into an A/C unit and it produces 200 units of cooling, is the efficiency 200%?  I would guess typical residential COP's are in the 2.0 range.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thermodynamics would love to talk to you then