2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet?

I am thinking very clearly: Successful societies aren't built on the whims of electricity Nazis who make it their job to know when people 'need' power and when they don't. Very.I have a job.Don't you? It typically does. But waiting to turn the dishwasher on until right before you leave the house is hardly going to have any impact whatsoever on peak load times.The few things that can reasonably be done on a population level will have little effect to relieve peak load stress.But even implementing these sort of things is difficult, because now you're talking about building a system that rests on everyone synchronizing their daily tasks to avoid an overload on the system, and the only way to avoid that kind of devastating failure is to literally sit in everyone's fucking house and stop them from using a forbidden appliance outside its approved timeframe.Otherwise the whole system is just waiting for Martha to start the dishwasher at the wrong time and plunge her whole state into darkness. You do know what causes the peak load, don't you?If you reschedule the 'major power consuming portions', you've only moved the peak, not eliminated them. There is nothing silly about believing that people in free societies should be able to wash their hair as they please.Especially when we are talking about something as stupid as getting rid of peaking in the electricity demand cycle.Why the hell does it even matter? The same amount of energy is used regardless. If we're talking about building a system that generates renewable energy when able and then stores it for later use, as long as there is enough captured and stored, then when it's used really doesn't make much difference. I can't. I have a life. My life works around a schedule similar to those of other people. The times I am home are the times when I need lights on (morning and evening); the times when I can do laundry (weekends); or wash dishes (after supper)....Also, I think I replied to half of your pre-edited post and half of your post-edited post. I don't feel like sifting through your edits though, so if I missed something important in between clicking 'reply' and submitting this, let me know.

You mean midnight? Our options are limited. We can either have a very stable system that runs somewhat inefficiently as load changes throughout the day or even year or we can have a very efficient system allowed to operate at maximum capacity but that runs into the problem of potentially crashing in on millions of consumers if Billy decides on having some toast at just the wrong time.Though with large scale renewable energy systems, where the consumption of power is separated from its generation by the storage medium, these issues like peak load become less important. You just have to have enough power, period. It's not 'unlimited consumption' and it's not 'washing our hair so much' - it's just washing it at the time of our choosing.

I forgot to finish my thought. And I don't know exactly what I was going to say, but the jist of it is that it is made scarce either by limiting it directly or enacting pricing policies that limit its use.Scarce is scarce - however the scarcity is created. It's already up to the individual. And individuals don't behave the way you think would be best for them to behave.So how are you going to get them to behave the way you think best? Be specific. In that case, you're talking about something that by definition can do nothing to reduce GHG emissions from electricity production. Right. You enjoy it as a hobby - that's why you do it. Not to get necessary food. Because if you did it for that reason you'd starve to death since the methods used in home gardening simply cannot provide the amount of food necessary to feed large societies. Alternatively, if we did use home gardening to supply our societies with food, we'd be running such an inefficient, wasteful, land-intensive operation that the effects on the environment would be orders of magnitude more severe than the effects our current food-production methods have.Or to really cut to the chase, what we're talking about is economies of scale. Not only do fewer inputs per unit of output create more affordable goods, but since all inputs are ultimately derived from the environment, they create a smaller environmental footprint than producing the same number of goods without the advantages of economies of scale. Okay... But how will that reduce GHG emissions? This is only true when the price of generation isn't placed directly on the consumers. Home-sized renewable power being put on to the grid, because it is unreliable and intermittent, requires the cycling on and off of the power companies primary generation devices - which run on FF - and the expenses of monitoring and scrambling to do these things. This cycling is inefficient and actually increases the costs of the electricity.Regulations that establish buy-back programs simply prohibit power companies from charging those costs to their consumers - they don't make those costs go away.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

I see what you're talking about.But what is the point of getting rid of the peak? Sure. But what you're talking about is something that is not really going to have any effect on GHG emissions - the topic of this thread. A small amount, yes; because you are basically increasing the baseload, which allows more generators to run non-stop at max capacity.But how much is saved? And at what additional environmental costs? Those peaks and valleys aren't the same thing as the intermittency of renewable energy at all. They are predictable and rather steady - the peak 'ramps up' once and then 'ramps down' once.When it comes to renewables, you have one minute where there is a bunch of power, then a cloud comes over head and you're 'generators' are knocked out so you have to kick on a few gas turbines; once the cloud moves, you've got to shut the gas turbines back off or you overload the system. Then you're good for a while... until the next cloud. And this goes on and on all day long.The ramping up and ramping down of the peak power period causes some inefficiency, but it is nothing at all like the inefficiency caused by the constant and unpredictable on and off of renewable generation.

But on what scale?Isn't that what this is all about? LNA made some bogus claims about entire populations running on nothing but solar power and I challenged him to prove it.If you just want to talk about some renewable energy replacing some FF energy some of the time, I am not going to argue with you about that; but I'm also not going to pretend that that's at all meaningful or helpful in solving the problems of global warming.If we want to make any kind of real impact on GHG, we need to be really upping the scale of our renewable energy sources. And I'm just not convinced the technology's really there yet.

No.Because I am also asleep.I don't have to be awake while the machine's washing - but I do have to be awake to put the clothes in it, and then move them to the drier/hang them.And all this has to be completed well before I go to work, since I don't so much care to wear wet underwear.But really: the fact that you're railing on me because I don't wake up at 2:00 am to do my laundry really shows how pathetic your position is. And when everyone else does it, then what?

Sure he has. Not really. Again, not really.If you want to talk about something other than 100% replacement, go for it.But LNA started this thread to harp about global warming and then started pissing on about the miracle of solar power. I'm just going with the flow.Let's talk about partial replacement. We can start with you getting some figures showing where it's decreased GHG.

But that's what you want them to do. When they run at max capacity, they run the most efficiently (unless by 'max' you mean at the point where they're about to blow).Look at your car. Idling is the least efficient thing you can do with your engine - it runs and burns gas yet propels you nowhere. Going very slow is only a step above idling and your car is still burning up more fuel just in keeping the engine running than what actually goes toward moving you forward. As you increase speed, though, you increase the ratio of fuel being used to move the car to fuel being used just to keep the pulleys spinning - you get more efficiency. Peaks and valleys are never 'benefits'. Yes. They are predictable and steady. The power ramps up and ramps down smoothly. Unlike renewables which generate one second and go dead the next. I agree. But the storage technology isn't there; not at a cost that makes it feasible for the majority of people anyway. Yes. Remember? I pointed out how ridiculously expensive it is and how little power storage you get with it: Message 279.

That's it? I've always agreed that running on pure renewables would be the ideal as far as reducing electricity-related GHG emissions.And I've always agreed that the big hurdle to overcome is the storage.I personally do not see chemical batteries as being the answer to the storage problem. I'd be interested in Dogmafood going further into depth on his concrete-lifting battery idea.

If it's true we can effect drastic changes in the climate system, then I suppose a few questions need to be answered:

• What do we want the climate system to look like? What is optimal for our survival and how do we make that happen?
• If we have to change the climate as part of improving our lives, what level of change is acceptable in return for what level of improvement?

I don't honestly believe any discussion about what we should/can do about anthropogenic climate change can really begin until these questions are answered.This thread's probably not the place for that discussion... so I started a new one: The Optimal Climate & Optimal Human Development

I really don't understand this.The dishwasher, sure.But clothes washer? What happens to the clothes when they're done washing? And suddenly you're a laissez-faire capitalist.

Prove. It.Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

So that's a 'no' on proving it, I guess.

Funny, RAZD.Do you have anything to address the 'how'? Or is it just more of your and others' assertions that it's possible?

So you think just writing the word 'how' sufficiently demonstrates how something is possible?Really?