That's because AC is not a step function. It *DUTY CYCLES* running less often at lower outside temps and more often at higher temps. So as the day warms up more AC units are on for a higher duty cycle meaning more of them are on at the same time giving a higher load.
I don't know what you mean. With millions of customers, each experiences their own environment and generating their own load, why would there be anything *but* a smooth graph? That's statistics.
-- Rick C
te:
hings
as.
ven
te
sound bites.
act all the oil we are burning is merely stored solar energy, so we are alr eady relying on stored solar energy.
be dug up makes burning oil a strictly short term solution, even if you are silly enough to think that it's a good idea to keep on dumping more CO2 in the atmosphere.
on to satisfy our current demand for power, but we could do it. We'd also h ave to invest in storage schemes of one sort or another - thermal solar tow ers capturing heat in molten salts at 500C can store thermal energy for day s is just one of the options.
pital investment involved with dealing with 10 metres of sea level would be at least as substantial.
fother
years.
ous interglacials shows that ice sheets don't melt in place, but eventually slide off into the sea. The sea level rise will take place over a century or so, not over a thousand years.
It isn't the extra energy that matters, but the change in temperature at se al level, driven by the fact that more CO2 in the atmosphere pushes up the effective emitting altitude (where the earht looks like black body emitting as if it were at -18C.
That pushes up the temperature within the ide sheet, and when the volume ab ove sea level starts sliding off into the sea fast, it can drift away and m et as far north as it can get.
d you've just produced an example their kind of misleading output.
te
n.
.lt to offer that orientation.
guaranteed.
Do we need it.?
Storage serves much the same purpose, but you'd need a lot more of it than you would if you had an extended grid.
ity is likely to be in higher voltage lines, so "many" new HV lines is a li ttle misleading.
mperature superconductors, which introduces other constraints.
neering to make enough solar cells to supply 100% of what we need is straig htforward, and we'd probably cut the capital cost per kilowatt of capacity by a factor of four in the process of setting up enough manufacturing capa city to do it.
k, but cost capital investment, and only recover about 90% of the stored en ergy.
Compressed air in underground caverns - natural or man-made - is just as re alistic as pumped hyro.
ssil carbon and burning it, devaluing a whole lot of other capital investme nts we've made.
I have my own problems with Greenpeace, who can't advertise a sensible idea without loading it up with every emotional cliche in the book, but while u nrealistic Greenies may be noisy, they aren't all that relevant.
ohe matter gets desperately urgent.
omething like a hundred or so - when ice sheets start sliding off into the ocean they slide fast.
It didn't happen as a smooth continuous rise.
ith
al.
rgy overnight - they are all bulky and expensive, but perfectly practical a nd entirely useable.
just one more excuse for not getting on with solving the problem.
ahara and shipping the current north to Germany. It was feasible, if expens ive, but did create a lot of crucial infra-structure in places that it woul dn't be easy for Germany to defend.
Which says nothing about its technical feasibility. Since the political ins tability in the region was driven the drought-induced shortage of wheat aro und 2010 - which more global warming makes more likely than less - a hands off appraoch to dealing with global warming doesn't look too clever.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
No idea, but who would want to live in a house surrounded by such an inflammable material ?.
First rate fire hazard, seems to me and would any company insure it ?...
Chris
but half as much as water---turns out water has tremendous heat capacity (1 cal/g K) as well as latent heat (334 kJ/kg), compared to other common materials. For instance, paraffin is 0.4 cal/g K and 147 kJ/kg. To put this in perspective, heating a 55gal barrel of water from room temperature (20 degC) to 80 degC stores 15 kW hr of energy---in league with high-tech car batteries and such, even if it's not as good in terms of energy density and storage/retrieval efficiency.
Maybe it'd be cool to run a reversible heat pump between two insulated barrels: freeze one, and heat the other one. We could then both use the stored thermal energy to heat/cool the house and run the heat engine to retrieve electricity.
You may be right with your numbers, but you are missing the point. Freezing water would require a whole new system. Moderating temperatures with a passive system can be added to an existing heating/cooling system or can even be a stand alone system. The installed cost should be much cheaper only requiring a fan or even just a unit to be added inline with simple changes to the air plenum.
There is also the issue of the wide difference in temperature between ice and ambient. When using a heat pump to bridge this difference the efficiency drops adding to the recurring cost. Water is not the ideal heat storage medium for residential use regardless of the heat latency and capacity numbers.
-- Rick C Viewed the eclipse at Wintercrest Farms, on the centerline of totality since 1998
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.