Lying is Not Okay

A couple days ago I came across a link on Twitter to a post on Judith Curry's blog saying a scientist was suing critics to shut them up. Naturally, I was curious. I went to the blog post and saw it starts off:

Mannian litigation gone wild. — Steve McIntyre

Details given by Michael Schellenberger in Environmental Progress:

Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson has filed a lawsuit, demanding $10 million in damages, against the peer-reviewed scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) [link to published paper] and a group of eminent scientists (Clack et al.) for their study showing that Jacobson made improper assumptions in order to claim that he had demonstrated U.S. energy could be provided exclusively by renewable energy, primarily wind, water, and solar.

A copy of Jacobson’s complaint and submitted exhibits can be found here and here.

What Jacobson has done is unprecedented. Scientific disagreements must be decided not in court but rather through the scientific process. We urge Stanford University, Stanford Alumni, and everyone who loves science and free speech to denounce this lawsuit.

The idea presented here is quite serious, but I wanted to do a little checking before drawing conclusions as filing a lawsuit is not trivial a thing to most people. Why would someone file a lawsuit like this? Would they think they could shut their critics up just by filing baseless lawsuits?

I know plenty of people like to act as though the answer to that question is yes. Anthony Watts ran a post about this lawsuit titled, "UGLY: Disputing peer review by lawsuit" and began it by saying:

Wow, just wow. Some scientists and their egos. Sheesh.

Another blog ran a post titled,

Academia Stunned As Science Anti-Free Speech Neurosis Flares…”Eminent Scientists” Sued Over Dissident Paper!

While quoting the reaction of only one academic (Judith Curry), which seems odd for an article saying academia as a whole is having any particular reaction. There doesn't seem to have been any effort to gauge how academics feel about this in general, much less an effort to examine what the lawsuit is really about. It's just more of the typical lazy talking points with no substance. It makes me wonder, is that all there really is?

The timing of this topic makes it particularly interesting to me given the topic of my last blog post. As that post discusses, people seem perfectly content to say the most bizarre things, no matter how untrue as there is no consequence to doing so. That last post talked about the lack of social repercussion as people seem to be so partisan they'll accept anything that supports their "side."

This lawsuit seems to further show this mentality that people, or at least people one one's own side, should be free to say anything they want without legal repercussion. Mark Jacobson's lawsuit doesn't complain that people criticized his work. It alleges people intentionally lied about his work. That's a serious accusation. I would hope society as a whole could agree intentionally lying about people and their work is not okay.

That doesn't seem to be the case though. Not a single blog post or news article I could find complaining about this lawsuit even mentioned Jacobson's allegation. No matter how much you might oppose a person's ideas or actions, you should at least be able to say what those ideas or actions are. That doesn't seem to be the case. By failing to even acknolwedge Jacobson's allegations, people seem to be defending the right of Jacobson's critics to lie about him.

And yes, it does appear they intentionally lied about his work. I can't see any other conclusion. The final version of the paper which triggered this lawsuit basically says Jacobson's work is complete rubbish because of things like modeling errors. One of the central "errors" is described:

As we detail in SI Appendix, section S1, ref. 11 includes several modeling mistakes that call into question the conclusions of the study. For example, the numbers given in the supporting information of ref. 11 imply that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW (SI Appendix, section S1.1), about 50% more than exists in the United States today (15), but figure 4B of ref. 11 (Fig. 1) shows hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW. Similarly, as detailed in SI Appendix, section S1.2, the total amount of load labeled as flexible in the figures of ref. 11 is much greater than the amount of flexible load represented in their supporting tabular data. In fact, the flexible load used by LOADMATCH is more than double the maximum possible value from table 1 of ref. 11. The maximum possible from table 1 of ref. 11 is given as 1,064.16 GW, whereas figure 3 of ref. 11 shows that flexible load (in green) used up to 1,944 GW (on day 912.6).

These two papers are about the feasibility of switching the United States energy system to rely entirely upon renewable energy sources. Jacobson argues a case for saying it would be possible to do so. I don't agree with that conclusion, particularly since even if it were technically feasible to do so, market forces would never allow that to happen.

But whether or not Jacobson's conclusions are ultimately correct is not the issue. There is plenty of room for argument and debate on this topic. What there is not, or at least should not be, room for is lies. That is the issue here. The argument in the quotation above is quite simple. It says Jacobson's paper indicates hydroelectric power generation could produce a maximum of 145.26 GW power yet Jacobson's paper show "hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW."

You can't have an output greater than the maximum potential output so clearly Jacobson's model must be garbage. This same error is also found in total electric production from all sources, which again has the listed maximum output as being lower than the output Jacobson relies upon. This means there must be some sort of modeling error that's causing numbers to be wildly inconsistent with one another, completely invalidating the model.

The problem with that argument is it is all a lie. To understand what the lie is, you need to know an important feature of hydropower stations. Hydropower stations produce electricity for consumers by converting the kinetic energy of flowing water into electricity. That amount of electricity which can be produced depends on how much water flows through the river the facility is located on.

In times where a hydropower facility could produce more electricity than is needed, it can choose to reduce the flow of the water flowing through it. This causes water to back up, getting stored in a reservoir. Later, when greater amounts of electricity need to be produced, the rate of the flow of water can be increased. In this manner, hydropower stations can store up energy. until is is needed. Additionally, some hydropower facilities even use excess electricity they produce to run pumps which pump water into elevated reservoirs for the purpose of storing energy.

With that in mind, consider this table from the Supporting Information for Jacobson's paper:

Hydropower in this table is listed as only being able to produce 87.48 GW of power in the 2050 scenario Jacobson envisioned where the United States relied solely upon renewable power. That is, as his critics noted, far short of the 1,300 GW of power Jacobson showed might be output from hydropower sources at a particular moment. That sounds like a contradiction only as long as you ignore the fact hydropower facilities can store energy.

If a 100 gallons of water flows through a creek every hour,would we say a dam built in the creek could only release 100 gallons of water in one hour? of course not. The dam could cut off water flow for 10 hours and store up 1,000 gallons of water. The dam could then release as much of that water as it wanted, even releasing 1,000 gallons in a single hour to create a flow of water 10x the normal flow of the creek.

Many modern dams have the same fundamental design. The difference is they have things like turbines which use the flowing water to produce electricity. The result is the amount of electricity discharged by a hydropower facility can vary over time, being changed as needed without affecting the total amount of water flowing through the faciity (and thus, eletricity produced). I can't imagine any reason Jacobson's critics would be unaware of this. Even if they had somehow been unaware of it, Jacobson pointed the error out multiple times. For instance, when asked to peer-review the work of his critics, Jacobson quoted the draft paper and responded:

...Jacobson et al. include several modeling mistakes. For example, the numbers given in the Supporting Information of ref. 11 impluy that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW (see our Section S1.1), about 50% more than exists in the U.S. today, yet in Jacobson et al. Figure 4(b) shows hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW.

False. Increasing the discharge rate was not a mistake but a model assumption, and Dr. Clack is well aware that it was not a mistake yet falsely and intentionally calls it a mistake here. On Monday, February 29,2016, I informed Dr. Clack by email that we assumed an increase in discharge rate while keeping annual energy output constant...

That's quite simple. Jacobson's model relied on the assumption the rate at which hydropower stations could send out electricity (the discharge rate) would increase while the total amount of energy they output did not. That is, the stations wouldn't produce more electricity overall, but when sending out the electricity they had stored, they'd be able to send it out in larger amounts.

Maybe that assumption is unrealistic, but it's one Jacobson's critics were well-aware of. As Jacobson notes, he spoke to the lead author of the paper criticizing his work about this very issue via e-mail. Here is a quote from an e-mail Jacobson sent when questioned about this very issue:

The result is based on the assumption that we would increase the discarge rate conventional hydro while holding the 2050 annual energy output constraint...
For the study, we assumed that the discharge rate of hydro would be increased as needed...
Please also note, that, even if we could not add 1 TW of discharge to current hydro plants, the solution could still be obtained with more CSP albeit as higher cost than the presnt solution.

Jacobson's critic asked him about this issue. Jacobson responded by explaining the distinction between energy production and discharge rates, noting the model he used assumed the latter would be increased while the former was not. He then said even if that assumption wouldn't work, alternative solutions would exist within his model.

In the following exchanges, his critic showed he understood this distinction perfectly fine, discussing the assumption and providing rough estimates for the costs involved in increasing discharge rates without increasing overall power production. He even said he didn't disagree with the possibility of it being done:

I am not disagreeing with the possibility that it can be done with CSP and hydro etc, I just think that the costs are skewed quite badly by getting all this free dispatchable power.

Which to me seems a fair point. I think Jacobson is under-estimating the costs involved in increasing the discharge rate at hydropower facilities. Jacobson even acknowledges he failed to include that cost in his calculations. The only point of dispute was how much it would affect the costs he estimated.

But then, despite knowing fully well Jacobson's paper listed 84.48 GW as a production value, not an instantaneous output rate, this guy helped write a paper which claimed to find a modeling error:

For example, the numbers given in the supporting information of ref. 11 imply that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW (SI Appendix, section S1.1), about 50% more than exists in the United States today (15), but figure 4B of ref. 11 (Fig. 1) shows hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW.

He knew fully well the two numbers he was comparing were for different things. He had a discussion in which he discussed the possibility of having a much higher output rate than the production the rate (during times of high demand). The only conclusion I can reach is he understood the point fully well and simply decided to lie in the paper.

This wasn't just a one-off thing either. Jacobson raised this issue when asked to review a draft of the paper. He then raised it again when shown an updated version of the paper. He then raised it a third time after the journal published this paper when he asked for teh paper to be retracted.

That's (at least) three separate times Jacobson pointed out a simple and obvious untruth in this paper, each time providing clear evidence the lead author of the paper knew what he said was false. Nobody is talking about this. Nobody who is criticizing Jacobson's lawsuit has done anything to challenge the idea what Jacobson's critics said was false and they knew it to be false. Instead, everyone is just crying, "You can't sue over scientific disputes!"

Well guess what? This isn't a scientific dispute. Authors of a paper willfully and flagrantly telling lies with a scientific journal's tacit acceptance isn't a matter of science. They may be lying about a scientific publication, but this lawsuit isn't intended to settle a scientific dispute. This lawsuit is intended to address the blatant dishonesty of people who fabricated claims to trash a person's professional work.

If someone could show Jacobson's claims about what his work did and did not say were false, I would condemn this lawsuit. If someone could show the authors of this paper really did just fail to understand an incredibly simple point, and that neither they nor the journal understood the point despite it being pointed out many times (and one of the authors directly discussing it), I would condemn this lawsuit.

But if it turns out people really did blatantly lie to fabricate claims so they could portray Mark Jacobson's work as garbage, then I will wholeheartedly support this lawsuit

Because lying is wrong. Lying to hurt a person's career is both wrong and legally defamatory. Nobody should defend it, either explicitly or by willfully ignoring what this lawsuit alleges to pretend this is just a guy suing his critics so they'll stop publishing scientific criticisms of his work.

(I have only discussed the first of the lies Jacobson claims his critics have told. There are several more. I didn't discuss them today due to space, but I do find them just as damning.)

November 11, 1:15 AM Update: This post has been updated to change an example used in it to ensure there were no errors in using GW as opposed to GWh. Additionally, it has been updated to remove the conflation of pumped hydropower storage (PHS) stations and regular hydropower stations. The latter was an embarrassing error to make made more embarrassing by the fact it went unnoticed for several days. The substance of the post should not be affected by these changes.

498 comments

  1. Leaving aside the question of whether the authors deliberately lied or just were unable to understand Jacobson's work and explanations, do you think this lawsuit is reasonable -- meaning, has Jacobson been materially damaged by his critics and should he be compensated? Basically, does he have grounds for a successful suit? As I understand it, libel law considers actual damages to be necessary for a case to go forward. If there are no damages in evidence, then is this just a nuisance action by an unfairly treated, but thin-skinned researcher?

  2. Gary, I think there can be little doubt there damages exist in this case. I have no idea how one would try to estimate how large those damages are. For all I know, Jacobson could win his suit yet be awarded only $1 in damages from each of the defendants.

    And that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for him. While showing actual damages is part of a libel lawsuit, like with many lawsuits, the bigger threat can be punitive damages. Punitive damages are damages intended to punish, not to compensate. They are assigned when a judge/jury decides the defendants acted so bad they need to be punished in order to discourage them and others from engaging in such behavior again. A person can be awarded $1 in actual damages yet be awarded millions of dollars in punitive damages.

    And while I don't think it is relevant to this case, I should point out there is a third type of damages in libel lawsuits - assumed damages. Those are damages assumed to have happened without proof. Typically this is seen with defamation per se, where the type of defamatory statement is such that the court will simply assume damages exist. For instance, if you say someone got HIV from sleeping with a prostitute, the court won't insist the person show that statement harmed their reputation (though they can if they wish, perhaps to try to encourage a higher payout). I don't think that should matter for this case as the lawsuit doesn't allege such damages, but it's still good to remember. Michael Mann alleged such damages in his lawsuit.

  3. I've been occasionally criticizing Jacobson ever since I read his Scientific American peice. At first I sort of dismissed him as an energy expert wannabe. After finding out how prominent and influential he actually is, I think he's a menace to the world's energy infrastructure. After reading some of Jacobson's papers and Clack's, and a lot of the stuff written about them, I'll have to say I felt a bit uneasy about the distinctions between adding more turbines to dams and current capacity. There's probably a lot of subtle points I don't understand.

    But did Clack et. al. maliciously lie? I suspect they just dismissed Jacobson's claims. Just because Jacobson tells them something, are they obligated to believe it? Did they fully understand it?

    Another thing is that they don't appear to be accusing Jacobson of fraud -- just incompetence. They claimed he made errors and Jacobson got to write a response to these claims.

  4. Canman, a lot of people seem to be willfully blind on this issue. People talk about complexity of issues and how science should be allowed to play out, but look at what you say here:

    But did Clack et. al. maliciously lie? I suspect they just dismissed Jacobson's claims. Just because Jacobson tells them something, are they obligated to believe it? Did they fully understand it?

    First off, anyone with the slightest knowledge of how the electrical grid works should know the average annual production of a plant is distinct from its instantaneous discharge rate. A person who knows nothing about the subject might be forgiven for not understanding such a simple point, but anyone publishing papers on this topic could not possibly pretend to be unaware of it. And it's not like the point is complicated or difficult, so any onlooker who was previously ignorant of the distinction should pick it up in no time, as soon as they read something like this blog post.

    And this is where I refer to willful ignorance. Even if you somehow failed to be aware of the distinction after reading this post, genuinely believing it is somehow a complicated or technical matter there could be any dispute or confusion over, this post says:

    Maybe that assumption is unrealistic, but it's one Jacobson's critics were well-aware of. As Jacobson notes, he spoke to the lead author of the paper criticizing his work about this very issue via e-mail. Here is a quote from an e-mail Jacobson sent when questioned about this very issue:
    ...
    Jacobson's critic asked him about this issue. Jacobson responded by explaining the distinction between energy production and discharge rates, noting the model he used assumed the latter would be increased while the former was not. He then said even if that assumption wouldn't work, alternative solutions would exist within his model.

    In the following exchanges, his critic showed he understood this distinction perfectly fine, discussing the assumption and providing rough estimates for the costs involved in increasing discharge rates without increasing overall power production. He even said he didn't disagree with the possibility of it being done...

    Clack spoke to Jacobson about this very issue in e-mails, showing he understood what the assumption was perfectly well as he discussed it in detail. I explained this in my post, spending several paragraphs and quotations making this point clear. Your response is to ask if the fact Jacobson told Clack something means Clack must be aware of it.

    No. the fact Clack talked to Jacobson about the assumption, performing calculations based upon the assumption and saying he didn't necessarily agree with the assumption is what means Clack was fully awre of it. You might be able to blindfold yourself and walk into a conversation completely unaware of what the people you're disagreeing with have said, but that is what we call willful ignorance.

    Jacobson's complaint in this lawsuit is incredibly simple and clear. It is only by being willfully ignorant people can come up with responses like yours. I know that's not a pleasant thing for me to say, but come on. You clearly didn't read this post. How do you expect people to believe you have a genuine interest in the truth of this matter?

  5. Random segue, but writing that last comment made me realize the plugin I use for letting you see a preview of your comment has a small bug in it. It is possible for the preview shown to you will show incorrect indentation levels within blockquote tags if you put an ellipsis on an empty line. I'm not sure what causes the bug, but I don't think it will bother anyone. I just wanted to make a note of it.

  6. MikeN, I was a bit surprised when I saw these papers used GW instead of GWh, but since that's what they used, I decided to go with it. I assume it's standard in this field since they do it even though it's not what I'd expect.

    Did you notice any cases where power and energy were referred to with the same units? That's something I would want to avoid. I don't mind using GW when GWh seems more appropriate to me if that's what is normally done in these sort of papers, but I don't want to use GW for both GW and GWh.

  7. I didn't read it closely because I figured I'd wait for you to fix it before I tried to understand it. Amazing that the errors are inherited.

  8. I've only skimmed a small part of this stuff, but what do you say about the discussion of hydro on p2 of the SI for the Clack et al paper?

    ------------------------

    S1.1: Hydroelectric Capacity. The analysis in ref. [11] relies on much more hydroelectric capacity than can reasonably be
    expected to be available. In ref. [11], the total installed hydroelectric power capacity in the U.S. system, as defined in Table S2
    of its supporting information (SI), is 87.48 GW. In addition to this, Table S1 of its SI defines the maximum discharge rate for
    new pumped hydroelectric capacity (assuming that all of this is completely new capacity and not existing capacity with added
    pumping) to be 57.68 GW1
    . Thus, assuming that conventional hydroelectric generation and “pumped” hydroelectric power
    production capacity is separate, the total maximum theoretical output of all hydroelectric capacity postulated in ref. [11] is
    145.16 GW.

    Figure S1 (which corresponds to Panel B of Figure 4 in ref. [11]), shows the power supplied by different sources in TWh/hr,
    which is effectively the average power for each hour in the unit of TW, for a period of four days in January of 2055. Readers of
    ref. [11] are given only a few snapshots of the modeling results, but as an example, for half of the simulated day of 15th of
    January 2055, hydropower is depicted as supplying ∼84% of total system load, averaging 1.3 TW (1,300 GW) over a period of
    13 hours, or approximately 9 times the theoretical maximum instantaneous output of all installed conventional hydropower
    and pumped storage combined. It is not feasible for an installed hydropower capacity of 87.48 to 145.16 GW (depending on
    whether pumped hydro is included in these figures in the hydro output or in non-underground thermal energy storage output)
    to produce 1,300 GW for hours at a time. It is worth noting that 1,300 GW is more than the current combined generating
    capacity of all the U.S. power plants. Furthermore, this error is not limited to a single figure in ref. [11]. The hydroelectric
    production profiles depicted throughout the dispatch figures reported in both the paper and its supplemental information
    routinely show hydroelectric output far exceeding the maximum installed capacity as well. Both Figures S4 and S5 of its SI,
    for example, depict hydroelectric generation rates exceeding 700 GW. This error is so substantial that we hope there is another
    explanation for the large amounts of hydropower output depicted in these figures. In [12] the authors state that “We constrain
    hydropower to existing capacity in each state except in the case of Alaska.” Then in [11] the authors state values from [12] are
    used.

    [etc]

  9. Szilard:

    I've only skimmed a small part of this stuff, but what do you say about the discussion of hydro on p2 of the SI for the Clack et al paper?

    I say quite a bit about it in my post. Please read it. If You have questions about what you read, I'll be happy to answer them, but I have to wonder what value there can be in me repeating what I say in this post in comments just because people didn't read the post.

    I don't know if expecting people to read a post of this length before responding is unreasonable within the blogosphere, but I've never really viewed this place as a blog anyway. If it is too high a demand from people who might visit... well, it's not like I've been trying to get a large readership.

  10. I just realized this post has a typo:

    Authors of a paper willfully and flagrantly telling lies with a scientific journals' tacit acceptance isn't a matter of science

    That should either be "a journal's" or "journals.'" When I first wrote the post, I wrote the latter. I then added the word "a" because only one journal is involved in this example, and it would be quite different if multiple journals had published the same lies. Unfortunately, I forgot to move the apostrophe when I made that change.

    Mark Jacobson quoted that sentence in a tweet seen by hundreds of people. It feels weird changing something after it's been quoted in a different forum, but the typo will drive me crazy if I don't fix it.

  11. MikeN, could you provide a couple examples of what you think should be changed in the post? I checked a few of my GW usage and saw they were correct, but I could well have messed some up. I only see hours come up once in the excerpt you refer to though, but it doesn't jump out at me as contradicting anything in my post. I've never been good with getting units right though. It's certainly possible I messed something up.

    As for Szilard's excerpt, the Supporting Information for Clack et al. is a strange beast. I said this of it:

    However, changes the authors made in response to Jacobson’s complaints did improve the paper in regard to some things, and those changes may have been enough to give them deniability in any lawsuit. For instance, the paper originally said Jacobson’s values for hydroelectric power were a maximum, not an average. There was no uncertainty in that statement, and Jacobson rightly complained as it was completely untrue. For the final version of the paper a couple changes were made which seem to allude to the authors knowledge those values were averages, not maximum, even as the authors maintained their original portrayal. The result is people reading the paper would likely be misled as to what Jacobson’s values were, but at the same time, the Clack et al. authors may have a fig leaf of, “If you look close enough at an entirely different section/document, you can see we knew those values were averages, not maximums.”

    Or perhaps the changes were due to sloppiness. I wouldn’t rule that possibility out. I kept being distracted by strange things like the authors adding 87.48 GW and 57.68 GW and getting 145.26 GW for their paper while adding the two together and getting 145.16 GW for their Supporting Information. There were enough little things like that in the paper and its previous versions that I wouldn’t feel comfortable assuming too much competence.

    On the one hand, it falsely claims:

    Thus, assuming that conventional hydroelectric generation and “pumped” hydroelectric power
    production capacity is separate, the total maximum theoretical output of all hydroelectric capacity postulated in ref. [11] is
    145.16 GW.

    Making the same conflation as the paper. That, again, is an obvious lie. The paper never describes the value in question as "the total maximum theoretical output" of anything. Following from this, the reason there is such a gap between the two listed values is they reflect two different things. We know Clack knew this because he talked to Jacobson about it.

    But after that obvious lie, the Supporting Information later says:

    It is not feasible for an installed hydropower capacity of 87.48 to 145.16 GW (depending on whether pumped hydro is included in these figures in the hydro output or in non-underground thermal energy storage output) to produce 1,300 GW for hours at a time.

    Which sounds as though the authors are recognizing the distinction between what the numbers reflect, one being instantenous output and the other annual average generation (under ideal circumstances). This portion, on its own, would seem to claim the problem is the difference between the two is too large to be possible. That is a legitimate argument to make, and it is one Clack discussed in his communication with Jacobson. It's like two different, contradictory, arguments were thrown into the SI while only the fabricated one was included in the paper itself.

    I haven't figured out how to reconcile those (seemingly) different arguments made in the SI, but ultimately, I don't think it matters. Both the paper and SI claim Jacobson et al. gave listed values as maximum output when it was not. The lead author of the paper, Clack, demonstrated his awareness of what the values actually were in his communication with Jacobson. That shows he knew what the values were but knowingly and falsely claimed they were something else. If that one line in the SI making a valid argument does in fact show the authors understood the issue and had a real point to make, that only serves to prove they intentionally lied when they made the other argument which rested on them lying.

    But as I said in my quote from over at Judith Curry's place, the peculiarities I notice when examining the SI may not mean anything significant. My effort at interpreting them may be wasted as they may just be due to pure sloppiness. There are a non-trivial number of sloppy errors in the SI/paper. Chasing down the exact reasons for any particular oddity shouldn't be necessary given how clear it is Clack and his co-authors lied in the paper.

  12. I noticed the use of TWh/hr. They are clearly using power as power with GW, and energy as energy with GWh.

    On the other hand, you said 'it might store up 1,000 GW.'

  13. Brandon

    The issue that MikeN raised illustrates that you share a GCE about electricity and basic physics with Mark Z. Jacobson. (GCE - Navy Nuclear Power School lingo for Gross Conceptual Error.)

    The difference between power (measured in watts – aka joules/second) and energy (watt-seconds – more simply just joules) is fundamental and extremely important for understanding how the systems that enable us to function actually work.

    By definition, power is an instantaneous measure of a system's output – right now – and power capacity is a system limit of the MAXIMUM that the system can produce at any instant.

    If a hydropower system has a capacity of 1000 GW, it can NEVER produce more power. Even for an instant. That capacity is a function of a complete system that has pipes, valves, dams, transformers, wires, turbines, riverbeds, etc with fixed dimensions. At the rated capacity, the water is moving as fast as that system will allow and the wires are carrying as much current as they can without exceeding physical limits.

    Adding capacity to a hydroelectric system is thus a completely non trivial task whether it is a traditional dam with reservoir, a run of the river turbine system, or a pumped hydro system.

    If anything, the Clack et al response to Jacobson's stubborn defense of his CGE is too respectful and deferential. It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to produce valid results from a model that includes such a fundamental error as failing to constrain output of hydroelectric systems to their rated capacity. If the demand on the system requires the hydro components to produce significantly more than their capacity for even an instant, the grid being modeled should only be able to remain operational by abruptly cutting off loads.

    Failing to constrain any power source output to its rated capacity in a model purporting to balance supply and demand at all moments is such a serious modeling error that I am completely befuddled about why it took so long for the academic community to reject the work as being wrong. Many of us who are not academics and have no incentive to participate in its "peer reviewed journal article" process have been saying for years that Jacobson's 100% renewable solutions project is fundamentally flawed.

    We've done our best to try to convince Jacobson to revise or retract it. For whatever reason, MZJ has refused all assistance. His frequent response to criticism has been to summarily block them on Twitter.

    Rod Adams
    Publisher, Atomic Insights
    Resume available upon request

  14. MikeN, you're right. I had forgotten about my toy example because, well, it was a toy example. There was no real thought put into it. Using the correct units wouldn't have changed anything about the point so the mistake doesn't affect anything, but you are right that I made a silly error. I'll try to clean that up in a bit.

  15. Rod Adams, if you're going to use rhetoric to criticize other people's understanding of things, you should try to refrain from making simple mistakes yourself. You say:

    By definition, power is an instantaneous measure of a system's output – right now – and power capacity is a system limit of the MAXIMUM that the system can produce at any instant.

    If a hydropower system has a capacity of 1000 GW, it can NEVER produce more power. Even for an instant. That capacity is a function of a complete system that has pipes, valves, dams, transformers, wires, turbines, riverbeds, etc with fixed dimensions. At the rated capacity, the water is moving as fast as that system will allow and the wires are carrying as much current as they can without exceeding physical limits

    Exactly what you are thinking is a bit opaque as the phrase "power capacity" is not a term which has any common meaning that I can find. Regardless, you're wrong on even the most basic aspect of this. You say a facility "can NEVER produce more power" than its nameplate capacity, but that's simply untrue. Nameplate capacity is the sustained load, over a long time, the facility is rated for. Nothing prevents a facility from going over that value for a period of time, except for the costs doing so would incur in things like repairs.

    Beyond the fundamentals, what you describe is false as, again, nameplate capacity is about sustained loads. Facilities which store energy such as pumped hydropower stations, can store excess energy so they can tap into it when demand gets high. One can see the same behavior with capacitors. A circuit with capacitors can store energy in the capacitors then later discharge that energy to get a surge of power far exceeding the normal levels in the circuit.

    You can jump up and down, throw around rhetoric and even insult people all you want, but waving your hands around and declaring things to be impossible doesn't make them impossible. Facilities can have instantaneous discharge rates exceeding their nameplate capacity. There is nothing which prevents that.

    Failing to constrain any power source output to its rated capacity in a model purporting to balance supply and demand at all moments is such a serious modeling error that I am completely befuddled about why it took so long for the academic community to reject the work as being wrong. Many of us who are not academics and have no incentive to participate in its "peer reviewed journal article" process have been saying for years that Jacobson's 100% renewable solutions project is fundamentally flawed.

    Anyone who shares your views has no idea what they are talking about. Nameplate capacity is a measure of the long-term, sustained electrical production of a facility. It is a long-term average. The instantaneous output of a facility is not a long-term average. It is the instantaneous discharge rate. The instantaneous discharge rate is in not bounded at the long-term average, or sustained, production rate.

    If you wish to continue insisting it is impossible to have an instantaneous discharge rate exceeding the installed capacity of a facility, I suggest you do more than just demand everyone accept what you say as true. A simple step would be to try a small, hypothetical example. An obvious one is the one I alluded to above - capacitors in a system with a generator. Once the generator charges the capacitors. what will happen if the capacitors are discharged?

    According to Jacobson, there will be an instantaneous discharge whose numbers could go higher than the "installed capacity" of the generator. According to you theory, there wouldn't be.

  16. Brandon -

    Interesting reading. Thanks.

    This reminds me of l'affaire Bengtsson, where McIntyre wrote about "The Cleansing of Lennart Bengtsson" and Judith wrote about "Climate McCarthyism" and claims such as “... mild compared to real McCarthyism….” and “Senator McCarthy was a lightweight compared to these Global Warmng Mullahs,” and "I am awaiting the Margaret Chase Smith’s and Edward R. Morrow’s of modern times to speak against this, what has become, the Reign of Terror with all its horrific attributes," and "...a war on reason." were easy to find at "skeptic" websites in reaction to a circumstance where no one actually knew details about what had transpired with Bengtsson (e.g., maybe it was that some scientists wrote him emails saying they wouldn't work with him any longer).

  17. So, essentially, Mr. Jacobson is suing NAS or Clack et al. because of semantics. A modelling assumption is, in essence, an implicit error or a wilful mistake. It is not reality. Do you think it is reasonable to sue PNAS for 10 million USD on account of that?

    And also, what does this say about yours and Mr. Jacobson's understanding of the scientific method? Wouldn't the correct response be to publish a rebuttal highlighting whatever grievances Mr. Jacobson and his team may have with Clack et al. and let readers decide for themselves? Was such a rebuttal even written and sent to PNAS's editors as a write-in? Suing and demanding a retraction seems to be contrary to the method Mr. Jacobson purports to adhere to, and rightly fueling the opinions you seem to be dismayed about.

    Moreover, the assumption is so outlandish that it makes anyone working with power systems laugh.

  18. Pedro -

    Wouldn't the correct response be to publish a rebuttal highlighting whatever grievances Mr. Jacobson and his team may have with Clack et al. and let readers decide for themselves?

    It doesn't seem to me that a "correct" form of response to the belief that someone published lies about you, would be to publish an article addressing a non-academic or scientific question of whether someone lied about you. To do so, it seems to me, would have nothing to do with "the scientific method." I can't imagine what type of journal would be interested in publishing such an article.

    That, it seems to me, is more an issue that one should address through the legal system, if one feels strongly enough about it.

  19. Jacobson linked to a clarification on twitter:

    http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/Clarification-PNAS15.pdf

    ...
    The actual annually averaged discharge
    rate of hydropower in this study for 2050 is 45.92 GW (Table 2), which is much less than
    the 87.48 GW maximum potential annually averaged value. However, as indicated in
    Figures 2b, S4b, and S5b, it is assumed here that 1,282.5 GW of turbines are added to
    existing hydropower dams to increase the maximum instantaneous discharge rate of
    hydropower to a total 1,370 GW without changing the reservoir size or maximum
    potential annually averaged discharge rate of hydropower of 87.48 GW.
    ...

    We start with the cost for a large 1000-MW plant and add costs for pipes or
    widening penstocks and for equipment housing and contingencies due to possible supply
    shortages to arrive at an estimated total cost of the additional hydropower turbines of
    roughly $385 (325-450) per kW. This amounts to ~$494 billion for all of the additional
    turbines proposed here, which would increase the total all-sector capital cost in Table 2
    by a mean of just over 3%. We believe this cost increase has no impact on the main
    conclusions of this study. Even if costs were much higher, there are multiple other lowcost
    solutions with zero added hydropower turbines but more CSP and batteries instead,
    not only for North America, but also for 20 world regions, so the increase in hydropower
    peak instantaneous discharge is just one of several options

    Adding ten times the average discharge capacity for half a trillion dollars and claiming there are other "lowcost solutions" like "more CSP and batteries". Rather than lying, I think Clack et. al. just don't take these claims seriously. It looks like they made an omission that should be called out and addressed somehow. Why couldn't Jacobson request a corregindum?

  20. Joshua:

    ...in reaction to a circumstance where no one actually knew details about what had transpired with Bengtsson (e.g., maybe it was that some scientists wrote him emails saying they wouldn't work with him any longer).

    To this day, I have practically no knowledge of what happened in that case as every article i saw written about it had nearly no factual content. Whichever "side" of that argument was right, they completely failed to show me anything which would make me think they were.

    Pedro Magalhães

    So, essentially, Mr. Jacobson is suing NAS or Clack et al. because of semantics. A modelling assumption is, in essence, an implicit error or a wilful mistake. It is not reality. Do you think it is reasonable to sue PNAS for 10 million USD on account of that?

    No. That is not "esentially" the issue at all. This issue isn't about semantics, save in that when a person lies about what you say, semantics may come up in the explanation of how what you said was different from what they claimed you said.

    Canman:

    Adding ten times the average discharge capacity for half a trillion dollars and claiming there are other "lowcost solutions" like "more CSP and batteries". Rather than lying, I think Clack et. al. just don't take these claims seriously. It looks like they made an omission that should be called out and addressed somehow. Why couldn't Jacobson request a corregindum?

    It may be that Clack et al. did not take those ideas seriously, but that in no way contradicts the idea they intentionally lied. That the reason they lied about the paper might be they genuinely think the paper is bad doesn't change that they lied about the paper.

    Again, I'll repeat, Clack talked to Jacobson about this very assumption in an e-mail exchange. During that exchange, Clack discussed his views on how plausible the assumption of increasing discharge rates as described was and what costs might be involved. Had he made the same points in his paper, Jacobson would not have sued.

    The reason Jacobson sued is Clack talked to him about what went into Jacobson's results, showing he was fully aware of the issue, then turned around and published ap aper where he lied by intentionally disregarding the assumption and pretending it didn't exist to create a false conflation he knew would deceive readers.

    I don't agree with the conclusions of Jacobson's work. Under other circumstances, I would likely be a critic of what he's said. However, whether I think a person is correct or not has no bearing on whether or not I believe people should tell lies about what his claims/arguments/results are. If someone's work is wrong, explain what's wrong with it. Don't tell lies to fabricate fake problems. Not only is doing so wrong for all sorts of ethical (and legal) reasons, it's also wrong for tactical reasons. If you start lying about someone's work while claiming it's flawed, you ruin your credibility. The result is even if the work is flawed, people won't listen to you.

    Unless, of course, you are aiming for the partisan crowd which will accept anything as long as it agrees with what they want to hear. I suppose in that case you can tell whatever lies you want and it probably won't make a difference.

  21. Canman, I heard someone else report not being able to access it so there may be a problem. If so, I can upload the copy of it (and his exhibitions) I downloaded. Not right now though. I've been awake for 36 hours, and I still have to split what seems like a 1,000 pieces of wood before I can go to bed. Thank god this log splitter works well.

  22. I'm not sure how hydro operates, but I don't think it is feasible to have the pumped hydro operate at 20x or 40x capacity for 12 hours.
    The twitter update looks like he is saying it is the conventional hydro that would ramp up. So this would be about 15x or 40x capacity.

  23. "Furthermore, the conclusions in ref. 11 rely heavily on free, nonmodeled hydroelectric capacity expansion (adding turbines that are unlikely to be feasible without major reconstruction of existing facilities) at current reservoirs without consideration of hydrological constraints or the need for additional supporting infrastructure (penstocks, tunnels, and space); massive scale-up of hydrogen production and use; unconstrained, nonmodeled transmission expansion with only rough cost estimates; and free time-shifting of loads at large scale in response to variable energy provision. None of these are going to be achieved without cost. Some assumed expansions, such as the hydroelectric power output, imply operating facilities way beyond existing constraints that have been established for important environmental reasons. Without these elements, the costs of the energy system in ref. 11 would be substantially higher than claimed. "

    I'm not sure I follow the Figure 4B of Jacobson that they complain about. It looks like the hydro is operating at this high capacity at least half the time.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15060/F4.expansion.html

  24. Both of them have some wording issues.
    Jacobson includes in a key footnote, which they think explains the whole situation, and is the only appearance in the paper of this issue:
    Hydro power use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply. When hydropower storage increases beyond a limit due to non-use, hydropower is then used for peaking before other storage is used.

    Their explanation is one interpretation. Another interpretation is that there is no short term increase in hydro, because it is limited by its annual power supply.

    Meanwhile, Clack says
    "averaging 1.3 TW (1,300 GW) over a period of 13 hours, or approximately 9 times the theoretical maximum instantaneous output of all installed conventional hydropower
    and pumped storage combined."
    It goes on to explore the issue, saying
    " It is not feasible for an installed hydropower capacity of 87.48 to 145.16 GW...to produce 1,300 GW for hours at a time."
    If this was meant as understatement, then they are way off. On the other hand, the 'for hours at a time' suggests they understand the issue of average vs max.
    The 'instantaneous' would still be an error.

  25. The idea that Clack is "lying" because he interprets the use of 1,300 GW hydro as a "modeling mistake", while Jacobson calls the 1,300 GW a modeling "assumption" is bizarre, as if Jacobson's attorney has ordered some new interpretation of what shall be the truth. Can Clack say the "assumption of the model was mistaken", or is that also not his simply his interpretation but a lie?

    Once published, the assertions and facts in Jacobson 2015 become the property of the commons. There is no authority, certainly not Jacobson, to control how they are described, to demand which label is placed on a fact of the paper. Misinterpretation of the facts occur, but this is to be dealt with by the editors, the authors, and back and forth of publication.

    Dealing with intermittent power is the primary problem in all of the high RE share literature. A paper proclaiming a "low cost" solution while not dealing directly with the assumed solution of vastly increased burst hydro in the text, yet showing no lapse in power generation, is the fraud here. Personal communication was a graciously given opportunity for Jacobson to retract and correct. The paper, while it stands uncorrected, must be otherwise be considered as-is because it will remain in the commons.

    Clack et al are well within reason to make any conclusion they can support in print about the Jacobson 2015, based solely on-that-paper and not personal communications, because the paper stands in the literature for the world to debate, as the best science can offer at the moment. Personal communications do not.

  26. A little digging would reveal that Judith Curry is not alone in her assessments. Michael Tobis is at least as harsh on Jacobson. Tobis views this as a assault on science. The papers are both in peer reviewed journals and clearly were judged to be free of obvious errors. This issue has nothing to do with "tribalism" or "which side you are on." It's really an issue of freedom of thought and speech. In a scientific context, nothing will destroy progress faster than a fear of legal action. It is uninformative for non-scientists to try to judge the issue as there is a unique culture surrounding the scientific literature that while not perfect is vastly preferable to the legalisms of the legal system, no pun intended. Having a jury of laymen decide such an issue is just liable to chill debate and the rough and tumble of arguments needed to resolve difficult issues.

  27. https://initforthegold.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/mark-jacobson-abandons-science-takes-up.html

    "Jacobson wrote (what seemed to me at the time) a very bad paper. At least the climate modeling makes no sense, which caused me to doubt the rest of it.

    It got into PNAS without peer review. (That journal has a publication mechanism that allows some non-peer-reviewed articles.)

    If I and many others are right that his work is poor, that doesn't mean his conclusion is wrong, just that the paper shouldn't be relied upon as evidence that his conclusion is right.

    Normally, bad work is quietly ignored, but this was getting enough publicity that a multidisciplinary team of highly regarded authors hastened to put together a rebuttal, and ran it through peer review. Rather than correcting, amending, or defending his work, Jacobson chose to treat the challenge as libelous. This is inexcusable, even if the paper somewhat misrepresented Jacobson as he claims."

    You can read the rest.

  28. Gavin Schmidt doesn't like it either: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/10-million-lawsuit-over-disputed-energy-study-sparks-twitter-war

    Jacobson seems to have achieved broad-spectrum disapproval. But so what? I don't believe in the "chilling" story.

    For me the interesting issues are whether Jacobson et al's modelling was deficient/defective (looks that way to me) and whether wilful misrepresentation in an academic paper is in principle actionable as a matter of law (why shouldn't it be? - but good luck winning a case).

  29. Brandon

    I was not using "power capacity" as a term. The nameplate capacity of a system is expressed in watts because that is the units by which power is measured. A watt is a derived unit, the root unit is joule/sec (energy/time).

    When a system capacity is determined, it is the limit of energy per unit time that the system can deliver. As I noted in my original comment, it is a function of a number of system components that all have finite dimensions and can allow only so much fluid to flow or current to be moved.

    Capacitors are components that can be connected to a power generation system to provide the capability of storing energy – up to a fixed amount determined by the physical design of the capacitor – that can then be nearly instantaneously discharged. The output of capacitors is generally not subject to any regulation, they are either in the mode of being charged, storing energy, or being discharged immediately.

    Capacitors are not normally considered to be part of a power generation system. They are separate components that MAY be connected to the output of a given system.

    Here's an example that your readers might understand, even if you stubbornly defend your conception of how energy and power are related.

    A Honda Civic might be sold with a 100 horsepower engine. Translating that limit into SI units, it has a capacity of ~ 75 kw. That number is the max power it can provide which governs parameters like acceleration and maximum velocity.

    It can be sold with a 10 gallon gasoline tank. Since gasoline contains 40 kilowatt-hours per gallon, the tank can store 400 kilowatt-hours of chemical energy. The gasoline (Otto cycle) engine is roughly 25% efficient in converting chemical energy to rotational energy.

    Running at rated capacity, a 75 kw (output) engine consumes 300 (75 kw/0.25) kw-hrs of chemical energy each hour. The system we are talking about could burn up the stored gasoline energy in about 1.33 hours if the operator had a place to run full throttle.

    If the owner of that car wasn't satisfied with the car's acceleration and top end velocity, she could take action to increase the engine power by altering various physical components in the system to make fuel flow faster, add additional air, etc. There is not a fixed limit on how many such alterations are possible, but anyone suggesting that there is a low cost way to increase that Civic's power by a factor of 13 to give it a 975 kw engine would not simply be laughed out of a garage.

    They would be ignored, ridiculed or tossed out of the garage.

    Rod Adams

  30. Szilard, The problem here is in general the use of intimidation tactics in politics and science is increasing by interest groups and in Jacobson's case, other scientists. And this action is an intimidation tactic. If anything it will decrease Jacobson's chances of convincing other scientists or the public the he is right on the substance. I can imagine no noble motive for this action either.

    Check out what has been happening recently in US politics, with Fusion GPS being a blatant example of an organization that is paid to plant false stories to discredit people and intimidate them. Look at Thor Halverson's story and you will see the actions of what I would call a criminal organization. There is now evidence that Fusion actually pays journalists to get out stories its clients want published. Weinstein was also an expert at these intimidation tactics, although in his case, it seems the mere threat of legal action was enough to get the result he wanted (spiking stories he didn't want out there).

  31. David -

    The problem here is in general the use of intimidation tactics in politics and science is increasing by interest groups and in Jacobson's case, other scientists.

    Evidence of this "increase," in intimidation tactics in politics, or are you just being alarmist about an age-old phenomenon so as confirm your agenda driven biases? Seems to me that intimidation in politics has very long history.

    Also, I gotta love the arbitrary and tortuous path to link Jacobson to Fusion GPS. It's all a conspiracy to victimize right wingers, ain't it?

  32. MikeN, if you agree Clack et al.'s claim Jacobson listed values as maximum instantaneous output when it was really the annual average output (under ideal circumstances), then I see no basis for claiming they did not lie. Clack knew fully well that claim was not true, and it could not have inadvertently slipped by given Jacobson pointed it out while reviewing the paper multiple times.

    The only way to say Clack et al. did not lie is to say they genuinely believe the stated values in Jacobson's paper were maximum instantaneous discharge rates, despite being told repeatedly that it was not the case, including in an e-mail exchange where Clack accepted the explanation was true and did calculations based upon it,

    I'm not sure how hydro operates, but I don't think it is feasible to have the pumped hydro operate at 20x or 40x capacity for 12 hours.
    The twitter update looks like he is saying it is the conventional hydro that would ramp up. So this would be about 15x or 40x capacity.

    I don't know how you get that from what you're looking at. What he described is an increase in instaneous discharge rate, the amount of electricity the facility can output as one. Increasing that would require increasing the number of turbines and such. What it would not require is increasing the total flow of water through the facility each year, which is the source of kinetic energy the facility uses to produce electricty. If the total amount of water flowing through the facility does not increase, its total energy production will not increase (save through things like improving efficiency).

    I know some people like Mark Heslep are trying to ignore this simple point to pretend the issue is over something else, but it is really very simple. Jacboson's paper listed annual average production values. Clack knew this. Despite knowing it, he lied and said Jacobson's stated values were maximum instantaneous discharge rates. That's all there is to this example.

    There are other examples of Clack et al. lying in their paper, and it'd be fine to discuss them. It'd also be fine to discuss how people Jacobson's results are wrong for reasons not involving the lies Clack et al. told. But if people refuse to recognize intentionally misrepresenting what another person's work says in order to fabricate an error in it is wrong, I see no reason to think they're capable of having a useful discussion on Jacobson's paper. (Or if I'm feeling particularly cyncial, anything e3se.)

  33. Szilard -

    For me the interesting issues are whether Jacobson et al's modelling was deficient/defective (looks that way to me) and whether wilful misrepresentation in an academic paper is in principle actionable as a matter of law (why shouldn't it be? - but good luck winning a case).

    Repeated for emphasis.

    But also interesting, IMO, is the phenomenon of how issues like this turn into cynical exploitation of "free speech" for the purpose of advancing political agendas. IMO, the "chilling effect" concern is rather snowflake-ish, but the politicization of science as we see in the reaction to Jacobson's lawsuit is an interesting phenomenon, even if it is ubiquitous.

  34. David Young, the horror stories you try to portray here are nonsense. There is no reason scientific publications should be excepted from legal liability. Every other aspect of society gets by despite the possibility of things they say or publish getting them sued. They do so because people understand they are obligated to follow certain basic guidelines in publications to be free from liability.

    Centrally, people understand if you don't wish to be sued, you shouldn't intentionally lie about people (or the things they do) to fabricate claims of wrongdoing. It's that simple. This issue isn't complicated, and no judge or jury would trouble understanding it. Not a single person you've mentioned who has portrayed this suit as "chilling" has even bothered to look at what the suit alleges to see if it is true. It's just a bunch of knee-jerk reactions from people who couldn't be bothered to look at what they were condemning.

    Unless one feels scientists should be completely immune to defamation law for what they publish in scientific papers, the position of people like you and those you quoted is nonsense. If one accepts some papers published in scientific journals might rightly merit a libel lawsuit, then there is no reason to condemn this lawsuit on principle. I doubt any of you will say, "No libel lawsuit should ever be filed against people for lies they tell in papers published in scientific journals." Am I wrong?

  35. Rod Adams:

    I was not using "power capacity" as a term. The nameplate capacity of a system is expressed in watts because that is the units by which power is measured. A watt is a derived unit, the root unit is joule/sec (energy/time).

    Aye. However, you have to define a period of time in which that station would produce that many Watts. A person could choose to list the number of Watts produced by minute, hour, day, week, year or anything else. The convention when using nameplate capacity is to use hourly production. That convention is not reflected in the units used. Not sure what this has to do with our disagreement though.

    Capacitors are components that can be connected to a power generation system to provide the capability of storing energy – up to a fixed amount determined by the physical design of the capacitor – that can then be nearly instantaneously discharged. The output of capacitors is generally not subject to any regulation, they are either in the mode of being charged, storing energy, or being discharged immediately.

    Capacitors are not normally considered to be part of a power generation system. They are separate components that MAY be connected to the output of a given system.

    You and I agree on the functionality of capacitors, but it appears you have missed my point in bringing them up. Power facilities are effectively circuits which produce energy. The function of storing water in a pumped hydro facility is effectively the same as that of a capacitor.

    By pumping water into an elevated reservoir, the PHS stores energy in the form of the potential energy of the water. It can then convert potential energy stored in the water into electricity when the PHS needs to produce more electricty than the water normally flowing through it can let them produce. The parallel is not exact, but it's good enough to make the point. The point is maximum instantaneous discharge rate is not bounded by annual average production rates.*

    The point is very simple. Jacobson listed values as annual average production rates. Clack et al. falsely claimed those values were listed as maximum instantaneous discharge rates. The two are not the same, and Clack et al. were fully aware of the difference. They also knew what Jacobson listed was annual average production rates, not maximum instantaneous discharge rates, meaning they lied.

    *Taken to the extreme, one could create a power storage facility which didn't produce any net electricity yet had non-trivial instantaneous discharge rates. Take two water reservoirs at different elevations. Consume electricity to pump water from the lower reservoir to the higher one. Later, run the water back to the lower reservoir to run a turbine and produce electrify. Net electricity produced will be 0 (actually less due to inefficiencies); instantaneous discharge rate will be greater than 0. There is nothing impossible about this.

  36. By the way, Joshua repeats something Szilard wrote for emphasis:

    For me the interesting issues are whether Jacobson et al's modelling was deficient/defective (looks that way to me) and whether wilful misrepresentation in an academic paper is in principle actionable as a matter of law (why shouldn't it be? - but good luck winning a case).

    I agree with this sentiment. My personal view is Jacobson's paper is wrong in a number of ways. It might be wrong in the same way most scientific papers are wrong, that they don't get everything right but advance our state of knowledge. Or it might be wrong in ways that make it utterly useless. I suspect the former is true, but I'd be open to hearing from people who argue the latter. I just don't see how any meaningful discussion of a paper can be had when people participating in the discussion are lying about what the paper says.

    That leaves me with the legal aspect to look at. I've looked at libel law due to being a critic of Michael Mann, who has filed several such lawsuits. When I apply the basic tests used for determining if a lawsuit should proceed, all the answers come back yes. Given that, I find it baffling people are so opposed to this lawsuit. As much complaining as I hear, I haven't seen a single person discuss any factual or legal aspects involved in the legal filing. It seems people are complaining something is wrong without having any idea what it actually is. The result is people appear to be defending Clack et al's right to lie about people's work in order to fabricate claims of error, even though I am sure none believe/realize that is what they are doing.

    I started this site as a sort of journal to write about things I see in this world which strike me as insane. That seems to fit.

  37. >MikeN, if you agree Clack et al.'s claim Jacobson listed values as maximum instantaneous output when it was really the annual average output (under ideal circumstances), then I see no basis for claiming they did not lie.

    Except in the very next sentence they do not declare it theoretically impossible, but 'not feasible'. If you are saying that a theoretically maximum instantaneous output is 'not feasible' to be exceeded for hours at a time, then you are using a different definition of 'instantaneous' than what most people would understand.
    They also had a separate discussion of the assumed improvements for hydro assumed by the paper, which I think is based on the personal communications, since I don't see much in the paper itself about these improvements.

    > Increasing that would require increasing the number of turbines and such. What it would not require is increasing the total flow of water through the facility each year, which is the source of kinetic energy the facility uses to produce electricty. If the total amount of water flowing through the facility does not increase, its total energy production will not increase (save through things like improving efficiency).

    I wrote it with pumped hydro in mind, as you did in your example, but it appears the regular hydro is where he is getting the boost. Looking at pumped hydro, you say it doesn't increase the water flow. However, it increases the water flow at that instant. Doing this for 12 hours at 20x capacity would require lots of water flow, for pumped hydro or regular. I get the total average doesn't change, but now you are building up lots of storage. The average PHS power is more than half the total regular hydro power, so claiming it is a small average doesn't work.

    According to Clack, the model has the hydro not operating for many months, even tough the Jacobson paper says that there is a certain limit of non-use, at which point hydro becomes a primary source.

    For regular hydro power, the idea that you can not run it for months at a time, then run it at 15x capacity, not just for 12 hours occasionally, but for some reason it appears to be about half of every day for weeks or months at a time, is in conflict with how I imagine hydroelectric power operates. Again this is not a small average, but the rate at which hydropower is currently operating, 87 GW, becomes 650 GW on the day, and several hundred GW for the week and perhaps months.

    I got 15x, 20x, 40x, by dividing 1200 by 80, 60, 30. 1300 GW needed. 87 GW hydro, 57 GW pumped hydro.
    Clack is not sure if the 57 is part of the 87 or separate. From Jacobson's reply, it appears that it is a separate category entirely, UTES.
    If separate, then (1300-87)/57 multiplier needed. If not separate then (1300-30)/57 needed. I think I made a mistake and divided 1200 by 30 instead of 60, so pumped hydro is about 20x in both cases.
    For regular hydro, if separate (1300-57)/87, or (1300-57)/30.

  38. MikeN:

    Except in the very next sentence they do not declare it theoretically impossible, but 'not feasible'. If you are saying that a theoretically maximum instantaneous output is 'not feasible' to be exceeded for hours at a time, then you are using a different definition of 'instantaneous' than what most people would understand.

    First, I have to ask, why do you cherry-pick the SI to make this claim? The paper never goes on to say anything like what you discuss. I've referred to both the paper and SI, focusing more on the paper as that is what is more read. To ignore the paper and only focus on the SI seems strange.

    Second, I discussed the seemingly contradictory nature of that sentence above. As I said then, the sentence you refer to seems to indicate the authors understood what Jacobson listed was not a maximum instantaneous discharge rate:

    Which sounds as though the authors are recognizing the distinction between what the numbers reflect, one being instantenous output and the other annual average generation (under ideal circumstances). This portion, on its own, would seem to claim the problem is the difference between the two is too large to be possible. That is a legitimate argument to make, and it is one Clack discussed in his communication with Jacobson. It's like two different, contradictory, arguments were thrown into the SI while only the fabricated one was included in the paper itself.

    I haven't figured out how to reconcile those (seemingly) different arguments made in the SI, but ultimately, I don't think it matters. Both the paper and SI claim Jacobson et al. gave listed values as maximum output when it was not. The lead author of the paper, Clack, demonstrated his awareness of what the values actually were in his communication with Jacobson. That shows he knew what the values were but knowingly and falsely claimed they were something else. If that one line in the SI making a valid argument does in fact show the authors understood the issue and had a real point to make, that only serves to prove they intentionally lied when they made the other argument which rested on them lying.

    If you think what I said there was wrong, I'm happy to hear why you think that, but it seems strange to raise an issue I discussed before without making any mention of or reference to what I've already said about the issue.

    I wrote it with pumped hydro in mind, as you did in your example, but it appears the regular hydro is where he is getting the boost. Looking at pumped hydro, you say it doesn't increase the water flow. However, it increases the water flow at that instant. Doing this for 12 hours at 20x capacity would require lots of water flow, for pumped hydro or regular. I get the total average doesn't change, but now you are building up lots of storage. The average PHS power is more than half the total regular hydro power, so claiming it is a small average doesn't work.

    Regardless of whether or not what you say is true, I don't see what it has to do with the issue of whether or not what Clack et al's said was false or if they knew it to be false.

    According to Clack, the model has the hydro not operating for many months, even tough the Jacobson paper says that there is a certain limit of non-use, at which point hydro becomes a primary source.

    Nobody has raised this issue before. Could you quote what Clack et al. in claiming hydropower would not be operating for many months? I can't recall having seen them say that, and the claim would almost certainly be false.

    I get the 15x, 20x, 40x, as follows. 1300 GW needed. 87 GW hydro, 57 GW pumped hydro.
    Clack is not sure if the 57 is part of the 87 or separate. From Jacobson's reply, it appears that it is a separate category entirely, UTES.

    Are you saying you think Jacobson's reply suggests the 57.68 GW in question is from UTES? If so, I have no idea how you reached the conclusion. I don't see anything which suggests that idea, and UTES is "underground thermal energy storage." They are entirely different things.

  39. I have a question I couldn't find an answer to in the papers which readers might be able to shed some light on. When we talk about PHS electrical production, are we talking only about PHS stations or are we also including pump-back hydroelectric dams? A dedicated PHS facility would be one where water was never sent anywhere, just pumped between locations within the facility. A pump-back hydroelectric dam is your typical hydropower dam, except that it also includes PHS technology to store energy on-site when it doesn't needs its full output to meet electric demands.

    I would expect both types to get included in the PHS category, but I'm not sure if they are.

  40. To the author:

    Some facts. Wikipedia lists the total instantaneous maximum power capacity of Hoover dam at 2080 megawatts. Several other sources confirm this number.

    This source
    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/
    (see "3_1_Generator_Y2015.xlsx)
    lists Hoover dam's nampate capacity at 2.0788 GW.

    The same source says that the combined nameplate capacity of all hydro is 78.9569 GW. This number should look familiar.

    78 GW is not some sort of average power from hydro over the entire year. 78 GW is the combined maximum instantaneous power output of the entire hydro fleet in the entire United States. In the United States, hydro produces power at about 40% of this maximum instantaneous capacity, averaged over the whole year, for an average yearly power of about 31 GW.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/how-much-dam-energy-can-we-get/

    Thus, your opening post is manifestly incorrect, and it appears that you didn't even do a modicum of research to support your position, and instead relied - quite unwisely - on the honesty, integrity, and accuracy of Mark Jacobson. (And Mark Jacobson can kiss my ass. If he sues me, he'll see me in court.)

    So, Mark Jacobson attempts to defend this model by saying that we'll add a bunch of turbines to the existing dams. Let's talk about what it would mean to add more turbines to existing dams. Quoting one of the posters above:

    > but as an example, for half of the simulated day of 15th of January 2055, hydropower is depicted as supplying ~84% of total system load, averaging 1.3 TW (1,300 GW) over a period of 13 hours, or approximately 9 times the theoretical maximum instantaneous output of all installed conventional hydropower and pumped storage combined. [...] It is not feasible for an installed hydropower capacity of 87.48 to 145.16 GW (depending on whether pumped hydro is included in these figures in the hydro output or in non-underground thermal energy storage output) to produce 1,300 GW for hours at a time.

    This other poster is correct. It cannot be done. It has to do with the sheer volume of water in the reservoir.

    Based on this source:
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
    Hoover dam's instantaneous storage is very probably less than 4.5e14 Joules. How long would that store last at a discharge rate of 16 * 2 GW?
    4.5e14 J / 32 GW = about 3.9 hours.

    So, Mark Jacobson, seemingly by his own admission, ignored the costs of adding additional turbines. He ignored the costs of magically increasing storage capacity by a large number, apparently(?) at least an order of magnitude - no easy feat let me tell you. He also ignored the environmental damage that would happen from increasing flow rates. In order to use existing hydro installations in this way, you would have to increase the downstream water flow rate by a factor of 16! Downstream flow rates are carefully controlled and cannot exceed certain operational limits. With this sort of flow rate, even for a few hours, you're going to destroy everything downstream, flood a bunch of cities, etc.

    PS:
    For further reading, I suggest these blogs posts:
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/how-much-dam-energy-can-we-get/

    Disclaimer: The author is generally reliable in my experience, /except/ when he talks about nuclear, where it's clear that he has not even read the Wikipedia page on the nuclear technologies that he's commenting on. (Ex: In one blog post, he says that LFTR uses liquid sodium, which is manifestly untrue. It's right there in the name, "Liquid Fluoride (Thorium Reactor)", not "liquid sodium".)

  41. EnlightenmentLiberal, it is not clear to me how you believe to have shown anything I said false. For instance, you cite the nameplate capacity of hydropower stations then claim this somehow shows I am wrong to say that value is the annual, average production rate. This appears to be a non-sequitur as the nameplate capacity for facilities is given in hour average production rates. Nameplate capacity is not the maximum instantaneous discharge rate of a facility.

    You can choose to use as much rhetoric as you want, but no amount of verbiage will make nameplate capacity stop being a measure of sustained, long-term output of a facility (under ideal circumstances) given in terms of hourly production. Anyone who does "a modicum of research" will see that is what nameplate capacity refers to.

  42. Joshua, I loved your content free response. Did you actually look at any of my source material? Intimidation in politics was common in the 19th Century when Malefactors of Great Wealth posted signs telling their workers that if Bryan won they were fired. The mafia was expert at these tactics. However, in the modern era, we usually had higher standards. Nixon was hounded from office for a break in designed to dig up dirt on his opponents. I think the evidence is that we are much lower than that now. This is not a left/right issue. Glen Greenwald is equally angered by this trend as are many good government liberals. Cleaning up politics is after all a traditionally Progressive cause.

  43. Are we speaking past each other?

    Nameplate capacity is /not/ a measure of actual production in the wild. Capacity factor is actual production divided-by nameplate number. For example, a solar panel with a 100 W nameplate capacity will actually achieve closer to an actual power production of 20 W, daily average, due to less solar radiation than the "full sun" power rating which is used to calculate nameplate capacity. For example, typical capacity factor of a wind turbine is 30%, which means that a typical wind turbine with a nameplace capacity of 100 W will produce an actual 30 W, daily average.

    Hoover dam nameplate capacity:
    = 2,080 megawatts ... https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
    = 2.08e9 W

    Hoover dam total yearly energy production, average for years 1999 to 2008:
    = 4.2 billion kilowatt-hours ... https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
    = 1.512e16 J

    Hoover dam average power, same period:
    = 1.512e16 J / 1 year
    = approx 4.79e8 watts

    These two numbers are not the same. This is because Hoover dam achieves less than 100% of the theorized ideal of its nameplate capacity. From the numbers from the above source, Hoover dam has a capacity factor of roughly:
    = 4.79e8 watts / 2.08e9 W
    = 23%
    This also matches the Wikipedia calculation of the same number.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/how-much-dam-energy-can-we-get/
    (Taking minor liberties with the representation of the table in simple text)

    > The table shows each dam’s nameplate (peak) capacity, height, implied flow at peak generation capacity (after which spillways must be activated; assumes 90% efficiency), and capacity factor.
    > Dam Name, Capacity (GW), [...]
    > Hoover, 2.079, [...]

    This author correctly identifies "nameplate capacity" as "peak generation capacity (after which spillways must be activated; [...]", and also identifies Hoover dam as having a peak generation capacity of 2.079 GW. Again, this is the peak instantaneous generation capacity due to the physical limits of how fast you can shove water through the turbines and other equipment.

    Do you need further sources for this? I'll find the specs of the actual turbines used in Hoover dam. Alternatively, I'll find the peak water flow rate and dam height (top of water in reservoir to turbine) and therefrom calculate the maximum power (assuming a full reservoir) (a simple enough calculation).

  44. Brandon, Congratulations on framing this as an "all or nothing" issue. That's a classical fallacy. One doesn't have to take a totally black and white position. Generally, Tobis gives a lot of detail about the merits of the papers. I didn't realize Jacobson's paper was NOT peer reviewed. The question here is about remedies. Filing a libel suit will not convince anyone (if anything it will harden the opposition to him) so Jacobson must be motivated by a desire to intimidate or perhaps to make his $10 million dollars so he can retire. Either is a terrible motive. Science is about convincing people, so scientists naturally will draw the logical conclusion that this action will harm science. That's why the vast majority of real scientists disagree with you and the other non scientists commenters here.

    You seem to be focused on legalistic details about the papers in question. That can easily be addressed if Jacobson wants to publish a rebuttal. I would urge you to step back from the small details of the science (which you and I are vastly less competent to judge than Tobis and Curry or in fact the 20 authors of the response to Jacobson, which WAS peer reviewed) and thoughtfully read Tobis' piece and argue it out in your own mind as to the available remedies and their desirability.

  45. . I think the evidence is that we are much lower than that now.

    Yet you haven't shown any (longitudinal) evidence that describes a trend over time. Why not? Longitudinal evidence is required to describe a trend.

    Just repeating your argument by assertion might lead some to think that you don't have any such actual evidence. How might we distinguish your argument from alarmist drama-queening?

  46. Btw, David -

    This is also very good:

    Filing a libel suit will not convince anyone (if anything it will harden the opposition to him) so Jacobson must be motivated by a desire to intimidate or perhaps to make his $10 million dollars so he can retire.

    You complain about Brandon making it a black and white issue, and then go on with total confidence to present an argument that there are only two possible explanations for Jacobson's actions, when obviously there are many that are possible (the most obvious alternative being that he truly believes that he was libeled and seeks validation for that belief through the courts).

    Surely you realize that judging the motives of others is very tricky, and a process very susceptible to projection and bias?

  47. EnlightenmentLiberal:

    Are we speaking past each other?

    That is possible. You seem to think you are disagreeing when you say:

    Nameplate capacity is /not/ a measure of actual production in the wild.

    But you are not. I never claimed nameplate capacity is a measure of actual production in the wild. In fact, I've said the opposite. I have said it is the long-term sustained rate a facility is rated at under ideal circumstances. Ideal circumstances never happen so facilities never meet their nameplate capacity. As you point out, the ratio between what they output and what their rated for is given as the capacity factor.

    None of that contradicts anything I have said. Neither would finding a facility whose maximum instantaneous discharge rate (before measures must be taken) happens to match its nameplate capacity. Many facilities are not designed to allow for storing energy, meaning their nameplate capacity is effectively the maximum it can discharge at any given point without causing damage to the facility.

    To demonstrate, suppose I have a 500 kW generator. So long as I provide it with fuel, it can run for months on end. However, a crisis like a hurricane happens and I decide I need more electricity than the generator is currently providing. I rev up the generator's engine beyond the point it is supposed to run out and get it to product 550 or 600 kW. It breaks down ten days later because I ran it too hard. Obviously, 550-600 kW was not a sustainable output for my generator rated at 500 kW, but for a period of time it was a rate I could get.

    With facilities like the Hoover Dam, you would never want to do the same. Even if you could increase the output over the nameplate capacity, you wouldn't want to because the costs of the damages would outweigh any benefits. Given that, your nameplate capacity may match the maximum instantaneous output you're willing to provide (though not necessarily the one you could possibly provide).

    However, we can consider a different scenario. Suppose you are building a dam in a river and you know you will have X kinetic energy each day to use with your turbines to produce electricity. Now suppose you decide to make twice as many turbines as are necessary to handle that X kinetic energy. Finally, you decide to build your dam high enough you can back up several days worth of water.

    Day 1, you let the water flow normally, letting your turbines convert X/24 energy each day into electricity. Day 2, you decide to slow the flow of water, allowing only X/2 to flow through. Day 3, you do the same. At the beginning of Day 4, you have a day's worth of water stored up. You decide to let that extra water flow evenly throughout the day, causing X/12 kinetic energy to be transferred to your turbines each hour instead of the normal X/24. The result is your electricity production for Day 4 is twice as high as Day 1 and four times as high as Day 2 or 3.

    What would the nameplate capacity for that facility be? Would it defined by the amount of electricity produced on Day 4? No. That amount was not a sustainable amount. It could not be produced in the long term. Instead, the nameplate capacity would be defined by the amount produced in Day 1, as that day showed how much electricity could be produced from the kinetic energy of the water flowing through the dam on a sustained basis.

    This example obviously ignores things like inefficiencies, but it shows the difference between nameplate capacity and instantaneous discharge rates. Some facilities may be designed so the two are mostly equitable, but facilities can be designed where instantaneous discharge rates far exceed the sustained production rates. Facilities could even be designed where the nameplate capacity was 0 (or less) yet the instantaneous discharge rate was positive, as I discussed above.

    If I was a more DIY person, I'd totally build an artificial stream and power it with a hose to demonstrate this. That, or maybe take two water tanks and hook them up to demonstrate PHS technology. Use the classic setup where you create electricity by pedaling a bike and use that to power a pump which pumps the water from one tank to the other (obviously stored at a higher elevation). Then, let the water flow from the higher tank to the lower tank to power a water wheel/turbine which then produces electricity. It'd be a cool project where you show how one can store energy (which can be converted into electricity) just by doing something as simple as raising the elevation of some water.

  48. I'm glad that we agree on nameplate capacity. Let me throw out some more math.

    Dam head (height difference between top of water in reservoir to turbine):
    590 ft maximum = about 180 m
    https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/faqs/powerfaq.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

    Maximum flow rate through the turbines:
    3,600 cfs * 17 turbines = 61,200 cfs = about 1.732e3 m^3/s
    http://www.hydroworld.com/articles/hr/print/volume-28/issue-6/featured-articles/cover-story/equipment--turbine.html

    Consider a 1 cubic meter volume of water going through the power plant. The pre-conversion energy at the turbine is simply the gravitational potentional energy
    = mass g height
    = (1000 kg) (9.8m/s^2) (180 m)
    = 1.764e6 J

    For the sake of argument, assume a 95% conversion efficiency in the turbine.

    At maximum flow rate, at maximum reservoir height, the electricity output is:
    = (water flow rate) (energy per unit of water) (95%)
    = (1.732e3 m^3/s) (1.764e6 J / 1 m^3) (95%)
    = about 2.90GW

    So, I don't know how they picked the "nameplate capacity" of Hoover Dam of about 2 GW. According these calculations, ideal maximum instantaneous power is about 2.9 GW.

    The takeaway lesson is this: Nameplate capacity numbers are often worse than useless. In order for a nameplate capacity number to be meaningful, one needs to know how it was calculated / determined. For example, nameplate capacity numbers for solar panels are calculated assuming a "full sun" incoming solar radiation, aka 1000 W / m^2. I don't know how they calculated the "nameplate capacity" of hoover dam. It's theoretical maximum power seems to be about 2.9 GW, and it's nameplate power is about 2.0 GW, and it's actual average power is about 0.48 GW.

    For example, solar radiation can exceed the "full sun" value of 1000 W / m^2 during periods of time, in which case the instantaneous power output of a solar panel can exceed it's nameplate capacity, e.g. it can have a capacity factor above 100% for short periods of time.

    Having said all of that, "nameplate capacity" is typically calculated to match theoretical maximum according to reasonable assumptions. Again, I don't know what assumptions were used to come to the value of 2 GW nameplate capacity for Hoover dam.

    PS:
    I want to emphasize my earlier points, and add a few more points:

    For most dams, nameplate power capacity is pretty close to actual max instantaneous power production capacity. Close enough for our purposes. The maximum possible instantaneous power production for all hydro in the US right now is in the neighborhood of 100 GW.

    Increasing water flow rates for conventional dams by a factor of 16 means that the dams won't have sufficient capacity to run for more than a few hours, which is not good enough for Mark Jacobson's model which requires substantially more storage. Increasing number of turbines increases power, at the cost of available time of that power. In other words, the energy storage is fixed by the size and shape of the reservoir(s). It's a good trick for a paper, but it's not terribly useful in the real world.

    Increasing water flow rates for conventional dams by a factor of 16 for a few hours means that everything downstream is destroyed. You're releasing the total water inventory in the span of a few hours. That's basically the same as just breaking the dam, and breaking dams tend to have "very bad consequences" on things downstream.

    Increasing pumped hydro energy storage to the levels needed is basically impossible, and it would be an ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions to even try. To supply enough energy for just the US alone for a week, you would need reservoirs roughly equal to several of the Great Lakes of Michigan. Even 1 day of storage is completely outrageous.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

    The point is that Clack et al are entirely right that Jacobson's modelling / modelling assumptions are flagrantly BS.

    Again, I encourage everyone to read this to understand just how ridiculous it is to suggest that pumped water storage will solve the problem.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

    I also want to emphasize the following passages from that link:

    > This tendency is a reflection of my quest to understand how we might face the tremendous energy challenges ahead. The first step is always to assess the potential of a solution relative to the full-scale demand. If it wipes the floor with an excess capacity, then great: it is inarguably a no-brainer go-to solution. If it comes up short, that’s very informative too.

    > Yes, a diverse portfolio of a half-dozen inadequate solutions may be able to add to an adequate solution. But a half-dozen woefully inadequate solutions cannot pull off the same stunt. So far, my quest keeps turning up the woefully inadequate type. The scale of fossil fuel replacement is so daunting that we very quickly get into trouble when putting numbers to proposed solutions.

  49. David Young, I can't agree a libel lawsuit would convince nobody. At a minimum, it could obviously convince a judge and jury. If they were convinced, any number of onlookers might decide there must have been a good reason. Even if they weren't convinced by that, they might well look at the topic more closely and/or become convinced by the evidence eliicited at trial.

    Similarly, there are obviously more reasons this lawsuit might be filed than you suggest. One obvious one is if the lawsuit were successful, it is less likely the journal and authors of this paper would resort to blatant lies in publication again. That would be a good outcome. Another outcome might be that a settlement is reached in which the journal and authors issue a statement acknowledging their wrongdoing, retract the paper and pay Jacobson some amount of money for his troubles. That would also be a good outcome.

    Simply insisting things are a certain way while providing no evidence or reasoning to support what you say seems seems unlikely to convince anybody your views are correct.

  50. >First, I have to ask, why do you cherry-pick the SI to make this claim?

    The paper refers to the SI while making its claims so I read the SI as well as the figures they referenced in Jacobson's paper.

    Meanwhile, you have cherry picked a line from the paper, while leaving out the previous that I quoted above.

    >If you think what I said there was wrong, I'm happy to hear why you think that, but it seems strange to raise an issue I discussed before without making any mention of or reference to what I've already said about the issue.

    After seeing the power vs energy error, I only skimmed thru the rest, figuring I'd read it after it was fixed.

    > According to Clack, the model has the hydro not operating for many months, even tough the Jacobson paper says that there is a certain limit of non-use, at which point hydro becomes a primary source.

    From the Clack SI, referring to Fig 2 in Jacobson:
    hydroelectricity provided in month 12 of the simulation totaled ∼150-175 TWh of electricity. Assuming the mean value of this range (162.5 TWh), such generation would represent an average
    hourly power output for the month of 218.4 GW. That is over twice the installed capacity of hydroelectricity in 2015 generating
    electricity constantly for an entire month. Moreover, 162.5 TWh is∼v40% of the allocated hydroelectric energy allowed.
    Therefore, the water would need to have been stored from earlier in the year. Indeed, no hydroelectricity production from months 2 to 6 for the first year of the simulation (a common pattern followed for the other years).

    >Are you saying you think Jacobson's reply suggests the 57.68 GW in question is from UTES? If so, I have no idea how you reached the conclusion. I don't see anything which suggests that idea, and UTES is "underground thermal energy storage." They are entirely different things.

    Perhaps it's nonUTES. Jacobson's counterreply on hydro started by saying Clack erred in using 145 GW instead of 87. I think this means the PHS should not be counted as hydro at all.

    Wouldn't pumped hydro that is just keeping water within be net zero production, or negative with losses? Now I'm not sure where the 57 GW comes from.

    I just don't see the lie you claim. I'm not sure if it's OK for Clack to respond to details about turbines made in e-mail that are not in the paper itself.
    Clack makes some arguments about turbines and it is not possible to increase hydro that much, writing it up as a 24% cost increase, while Jacobson's update puts it at 3%.
    Perhaps if he had posted his update sooner, he would have a point.

  51. EnlightenmentLiberal, if we agree on the difference between nameplate capacity and instantaneous discharge rates, that is good progress. For whatever reason, that appears to be the point on which most discussion is getting hung up on.

    As for the rest of what you say, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't respond to it in any detail. Nothing in it struck me as wrong at a first pass, but at the same time, none of it seemed to address anything I've been discussing. I have no problem with people arguing Jacobson's model and paper were wrong. The idea hydropower discharge rates could be scaled up that much seems implausible to me, and I certainly don't think it would be an economical process. I will be interested to see what Jacobson's future work says on this topic to address these (and other) concerns people have raised. I'm also curious to see what papers written by other people will say.

    But while I would like to learn and discuss more of the technical issues which go into Jacobson's model and paper, those issues are ultimately, irrelevant to the issues raised by his lawsuit. No matter how good or bad Jacobson's paper might be, there is no excuse for intentionally lying about what it says. Even if I thought Jacobson's paper was the worst paper ever published (it most certainly is not), I wouldn't think that means it is okay to lie about what it says. You may believe some politician is a total sleazeball, corrupt through and through, but that wouldn't make it okay to fabricate a fake story in which you say he murdered a hooker. The same is true here.

    If Jacobson's work is bad, people are free to discuss what is wrong with it. If they lie to fabricate fake problems in the paper, they should be condemned, and yes, possibly sued. They should especially be condemned if the paper is bad. Ethics aside, telling lies is bad on a tactical level. After all, if you tell lies about a paper, you make it more difficult for people to see any potentially real problems the paper might have. And if people realize you lied about the paper, they are less likely to believe any other criticisms of the paper, whether or not those criticisms are true.

    I have no problem with people discussing this paper and how (im)plausible its conclusions might or might not be. They're welcome to do so here if there's interest. I'm not going to tell them to stop. All I am going to do is ask, as a starting point, we all agree lying about a paper to fabricate claims of errors in it is wrong and should not be tolerated. That's all I want.

  52. By the way EnlightenmentLiberal, a couple of your comments have landed in moderation. The reason is the number of links you're including. Any comment which includes more than a certain number of links should automatically land in moderation. I'm actually surprised your first one didn't.

    I try to fish comments out of moderation as quickly as I can, but I figured I'd let you know since it may be a while before I notice one has landed there.

  53. Ok. I need to read the original sources in more detail, because I've read the OP several times, and it's still confusing, and it's far from clear that this was a purposeful lie, or even a falsehood.

  54. MikeN:

    The paper refers to the SI while making its claims so I read the SI as well as the figures they referenced in Jacobson's paper.

    I didn't ask why you referred to the SI at all. I asked why you referred to the SI while not referring to the paper. You say you read the paper and it directed you to the SI, but being directed to the SI doesn't explain why you ignored what the paper said.

    After seeing the power vs energy error, I only skimmed thru the rest, figuring I'd read it after it was fixed.

    That error was in the post. The text I quoted was in a comment I wrote responding to you. Did you not realize the text was from a comment, not the post, or are you saying you decided to only skim any and all comments I posted on this page due to an error in the post? The latter seems extreme.

    From the Clack SI, referring to Fig 2 in Jacobson:

    That's an interesting claim for them to make. I'd like to see the actual data/code to verify it (I've been too lazy to e-mail Jacobson thus far). It would help quite a bit as the authors only eyeballed graphs when writing their paper, and it would be impossible to see if some production happened during the specified months due to the obscuration of the line for "Wave+tidal+geo." Even if what they said on this issue were true, it would be impossible for them to know that.

    Additionally, the claim this is "a common pattern followed for the other years" is readily demonstrated as false as the figure they refer to show production in every month of every subsequent year, save month 3. Saying 5 months went without production in year one, a common pattern found in subsequent years would never make a person thing subsequent years might show no production for only one year.

    Perhaps it's nonUTES. Jacobson's counterreply on hydro started by saying Clack erred in using 145 GW instead of 87. I think this means the PHS should not be counted as hydro at all.

    Wouldn't pumped hydro that is just keeping water within be net zero production, or negative with losses? Now I'm not sure where the 57 GW comes from.

    As you note, PHS facilities are not net producers of electricity (and in fact, are net consumers due to inefficiencies). The 57 GW was listed as the instantaneous discharge rate of such facilities. This should not have been combined with the annual average production rate of hydropower stations. That Clack et al. did so shows their continued insistence on treating hydropower average production rates (under ideal circumstances) as instantaneous discharge rates.

    Given the errors you make, maybe I should start skimming your comments 😛

  55. EnlightenmentLiberal, while it can never hurt to reread things, this claim was most certainly an error. Clack talked to Jacobson before publishing this paper asking why there was such a difference between the 87.48 GW value listed in Jacobson's paper and the 1,300 GW value seen in the one figure. Jacobson told Clack about how his model assumed a large increase to the maximum instantaneous discharge rate while keeping the overall production even. Clack acknowledged this assumption and discussed why he thought it seemed implausible (if only for economic reasons).

    He then turned around and published a paper in which he falsely claimed the 87.48 GW was a maximun instantaneous discharge rate and professed ignorance as to how that value could co-exist with the much higher discharge rate shown in Jacobson's figure. His e-mails to Jacobson show that portrayal was not only fasle, but he knew fully well that it was false.

    On top of this, Clack et al. then said it was unclear if the maximum instantaneous discharge rates of PHS facilities was meant to be included and added the values for them to those for the hydropower stations (while screwing up the arithmetic), meaning he added the annual average production rates of hydropower facilities to the instantaneous discharge rates of PHS facilities, despite knowing the two reflected entirely different things. I cannot stress this enough: Clack spoke to Jacobson about the distinction between those two things. He performed calculations in order to discuss the issues arising from the distinction. He could not have done this unless he understood the distinction between the two values, one he must have intentionally hid and professed ignorance of when he published his paper. I cannot see any other interpretation, and nobody else has even attempted to provide one.

    And this is just one of the issues on which Clack et al. lied. There were several more. I haven't discussed the other ones because of how much time and space I've spent on this one.

  56. Brandon, You just made my point for me:

    "Similarly, there are obviously more reasons this lawsuit might be filed than you suggest. One obvious one is if the lawsuit were successful, it is less likely the journal and authors of this paper would resort to blatant lies in publication again. That would be a good outcome. Another outcome might be that a settlement is reached in which the journal and authors issue a statement acknowledging their wrongdoing, retract the paper and pay Jacobson some amount of money for his troubles. That would also be a good outcome."

    Thats a classical case of intimidation to silence someone with whom you disagree. The paper should not be retracted unless it contains obvious errors in its analysis. Jacobson should publish a rebuttal if he could get it past peer review. It is odd that a paper that passed peer review and is free of personal attacks should be retracted based on legal action. Scientists almost unanimously agree with my analysis and disagree with you.

  57. David Young, winning a libel lawsuit requires showing a claim made was not only false, but that the authors should have known it was false (for non-public figures) or that they knowingly disregarded the potential falsity of what they said (for public figures). If Jacobson cannot make a prima facie case showing that, the lawsuit gets thrown out immediately. If he cannot prove it to the satisfaction of the judge/jury, he loses the suit.

    Filing a lawsuit because you claim to be able to prove someone lied about you is not using intimidation tactics to silence them. Demanding a paper which contains statements its authors knew to be lies be retracted is not using intimidation tactics to silence them. Intimidation is one reason these things might be done, but other reasons exist. For example, things like this can be done because a person is seeking redress for having been wrong.

    As for the claim Jacobson should publish a rebuttal, that's silly. First off, it ignores that Jacobson did exactly that. Second, Jacobson is suing the journal in this case for being complicit in promulgating lies. Demanding he make such an accusation in a publication within another journal is outrageous. That's true even if we ignore the general concerns of gatekeeping people like Judith Curry have raised. I can't see how a person maintains a straight face while saying "journals are guilty of gatekeeping" and "people who have been lied about within scientific publications should publish their responses within journals."

    For the record, I bet if Michael Mann had published a paper flagrantly fabricating claims of errors in the work of a person he disliked, I bet 75% of the people complaining about this lawsuit would support a lawsuit filed against him.

  58. > EnlightenmentLiberal, while it can never hurt to reread things, this claim was most certainly an error. Clack talked to Jacobson before publishing this paper asking why there was such a difference between the 87.48 GW value listed in Jacobson's paper and the 1,300 GW value seen in the one figure. Jacobson told Clack about how his model assumed a large increase to the maximum instantaneous discharge rate while keeping the overall production even. Clack acknowledged this assumption and discussed why he thought it seemed implausible (if only for economic reasons).

    I want to go back to what you said earlier:

    > If a power station produces 100 GW every hour, no more, no less, would we say it is impossible for it to output 1,000 GW in a single hour? I would hope not. If the station's electricity wasn't needed for 10 hours, it might store up 1,000 GW.

    If I understand you right, and I'm not sure that I do, then this is a really, really confusing and unclear way to talk about things. If the maximum instantaneous power-producing capability of a hypothetical power system is 100 GW, then it's 100 GW, and it cannot be producing a higher amount of power at any instant. That's the limits of the system, by definition. This is simply what words mean. If you were to add stuff to the system, i.e. storage, i.e. pumped hydro, then the composite system can have a different maximum instantaneous power-producing capability, a higher capability, but the capability of the smaller system still remains unchanged.

    In other words, in the context where the term "conventional hydro" has seemingly been defined to exclude "pumped hydro", it is exceptionally confusing to give a number for "the instantaneous power capability of conventional hydro" which includes substantial installation of non-conventional hydro e.g. pumped hydro.

    Do I have a correct understanding here?

    Also:

    I'm sorry, I'm still not understanding here.

    To be clear, conventional hydro and pumped hydro storage (PHS) are separate non-overlapping categories, right?

    87 GW is the "nameplate capacity" of conventional hydro in Jacobson's model, right?

    The maximum instantaneous power-producing capability of conventional hydro in Jacobson's model is therefore in the neighborhood of 87 GW, right? At least far less than 1,300 GW, right? Hopefully I've shown this to be true to your satisfaction regarding all real-world conventional hydro installations .

    You say this:

    > The 57 GW was listed as the instantaneous discharge rate of such facilities [PHS, aka pumped hydro storage].

    So, 57 GW is the maximum instantaneous power-producing cability of PHS in Jacobson's model, right?

    Where does this 1,300 GW value come from then?

    maximum instantaneous power-producing cability of conventional hydro
    + maximum instantaneous power-producing cability of pumped hydro storage
    = about 87 GW + 57 GW
    = 144 GW

    144 GW is a lot less than "1,300 GW" for "hydroelectric output".

    This seems like a massive inconsistency, which seems quite reasonable to point out.

    Is there another kind of hydro that I'm ignoring? Is there another kind of hydro besides conventional hydro and pumped hydro storage?

    As hinted-at by another poster, is Jacobson including substantial amounts of non-hydro storage power production in this number of "1,300 GW" "hydroelectric output" ? As I mentioned in my rant at the start of this post, if so, that is an /extremely/ confusing way to talk about things. It's an extremely confusing to say "(instantaneous) hydroelectric (power) output", and actually mean "instantaneous thermal storage power output". If this is the defense that Jacobson is going to rely on, and there is no other clarification in the original paper, then the defamation charge here seems to be a sham.

    Also, I don't think I care about any private communication. The private communication doesn't change the contents of the original Jacobson paper. /Intent is not magic/. They are attacking the paper, and not the person, and to that extent, the paper should mostly stand on its own, and the evaluation of defamation charges should not depend on external information, esp. not external private communication. In other words, if Jacobson's paper has an error, then the paper still has an error even if Jacobson later explains what he meant to write in the paper.

  59. EnlightenmentLiberal:

    If I understand you right, and I'm not sure that I do, then this is a really, really confusing and unclear way to talk about things. If the maximum instantaneous power-producing capability of a hypothetical power system is 100 GW, then it's 100 GW, and it cannot be producing a higher amount of power at any instant. That's the limits of the system, by definition. This is simply what words mean.

    I am completely sure what you mean by "instantaneous power-producing capability," but if you are referring to the discharge rate of the facility (as I believe), then I agree on a conceptual level what you say is right. You are simply not talking about the same thing as me.

    What I described is a system which can generate a fixed amount of energy in a fixed period of time but could potentially discharge a different amount of energy in the form of electricity in a different period of time. As an example, a dam with pump-back storage uses electricity it produces to pump water into an elevated reserve in order to store excess energy which can later be converted back into electricity. The result is the dam's electrical discharge rate varies based on how much energy it is putting into/taking away from the resevoir.

    In other words, in the context where the term "conventional hydro" has seemingly been defined to exclude "pumped hydro", it is exceptionally confusing to give a number for "the instantaneous power capability of conventional hydro" which includes substantial installation of non-conventional hydro e.g. pumped hydro.

    Dams hold reservoirs of water even without pump-back technology. How quickly they let those reservoirs drain affects how much electricity they can output at any particular time. Adding additional components to a dam could allow the dam to have greater variance in how much water it lets flow through (and thus electricity produced) at any particular moment without increasing the overall electrical production of the dam.

    To be clear, conventional hydro and pumped hydro storage (PHS) are separate non-overlapping categories, right?

    87 GW is the "nameplate capacity" of conventional hydro in Jacobson's model, right?

    The maximum instantaneous power-producing capability of conventional hydro in Jacobson's model is therefore in the neighborhood of 87 GW, right?

    Yes, save that hydropower and PHS are not non-overlapping. PHS is a form of hydropower, and some facilities are hybrid facilities where they use conventional hydropower and PHS in the same location. That said, the overlap is largely immaterial as not a net producer of electricity. If we are only interested in the amounts of electricity being generated, PHS is a non-factor. (It exists to smooth out demand/availability curves)

    144 GW is a lot less than "1,300 GW" for "hydroelectric output".

    This seems like a massive inconsistency, which seems quite reasonable to point out.

    You should not be adding those two values (and if you are going to add them, you should use more significant digits so rounding doesn't introduce errors). You should also see what I say above about how dams can vary their output rates if so desired.

    That said, I have no problem with questioning the feasibility of Jacobson's model assuming a massive increase in the discharge rate of hydropower stations which doesn't involve altering their overall production. Personally, I think his assumption on the issue is not plausible at all. Had Clack et al. simply argued that, as Clack did when talking to Jacobson directly, there would have been no problem.

    As hinted-at by another poster, is Jacobson including substantial amounts of non-hydro storage power production in this number of "1,300 GW" "hydroelectric output" ? As I mentioned in my rant at the start of this post, if so, that is an /extremely/ confusing way to talk about things. It's an extremely confusing to say "(instantaneous) hydroelectric (power) output", and actually mean "instantaneous thermal storage power output". If this is the defense that Jacobson is going to rely on, and there is no other clarification in the original paper, then the defamation charge here seems to be a sham.

    I have no idea where that other user got this idea from, but it is completely unconnected to anything Jacobson said.

    Also, I don't think I care about any private communication. The private communication doesn't change the contents of the original Jacobson paper. /Intent is not magic/. They are attacking the paper, and not the person, and to that extent, the paper should mostly stand on its own, and the evaluation of defamation charges should not depend on external information, esp. not external private communication. In other words, if Jacobson's paper has an error, then the paper still has an error even if Jacobson later explains what he meant to write in the paper.

    While you may hold this sentiment yourself, no court in the world shares it. I am fine with judging the scientific merits of papers based on their content, but personal communication is highly relevant when judging cases of slander. Nobody could be expected to judge someone's motivations based solely upon the scientific papers they publish. Libel lawsuits often have discovery, where private communication is forced to be disclosed by the court, because of such impossibilities.

    And for the record, this communication was only "private" in the loosest of sense.s. Clack sent Jacobson an unsolicited e-mail, with no request for it to be kept private. He did nothing to indicate he opposed the idea of his e-mail being shared with anyone. Jacobson had every right to show it to anyone and everyone he might wish to show it to. There would be no breach of trust of Jacobson sharing the communication. Calling this exchange "private" is like saying if you talk to someone while riding an elevator, your discussion was "private" since nobody else was in the elevator. In reality, the person you spoke to would be free to share what was said with anyone as there is no expectation of privacy in such situations.

  60. If a hydroelectric dam can maintain a certain power output for half a day, then it's nameplate capacity should be at least that value. This is what the term "nameplate capacity" means. See:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity

    > For dispatchable power, this capacity depends on the internal technical capability of the plant to maintain output for a reasonable amount of time (for example, a day), neither momentarily nor permanently, and without considering external events such as lack of fuel or internal events such as maintenance.[10] Actual output can be different from nameplate capacity for a number of reasons depending on equipment and circumstances.[10][11]

    Similarly, I showed that for Hoover dam, for the nameplate capacity that is repeated by basically everyone - this nameplate capacity is largely determined by the number of turbines, water capacity of each turbine, and the inlet flow speed which is determined by the dam head. In the case of Hoover dam, nameplate capacity is a rough measure of the maximum possible achievable instantaneous power output. It seems quite obvious to me that the same will be true for all other hydro dams that exist in the real world and their listed nameplate capacities.

    Jacobson's sim shows the combined hydro fleet producing an average of 1300 GW for 13 hours. 13 hours is about a day (see Wikipedia definition), and that's more than long enough to set a floor for the nameplate capacity. The nameplate capacity of the combined hydro fleet must be at least 1300 GW in order to produce 1300 GW average for 13 hours. This is simply what these words mean. This is true whether or not the dams are retrofit with a bunch of additional turbines.

    If Jacobson did not explicitly define his particular nonstandard usage of the term "nameplate capacity", then Clack et al are entirely reasonable to assume the standard meaning.

    You're asking me to believe in an alternate interpretation, where, AFAICT, Jacobson uses the term "nameplate capacity" to instead refer to more like the average power rating over one year over ideal conditions, or some such. I'm still not quite sure, because you haven't yet given an alternative definition that fits the facts (your position: 1300 GW average for 13 hours does not require a 1300+ GW nameplate capacity).

    You're also asking me to believe that Jacobson believes that the combined modern fleet of hydro dams can be upgraded with additional turbines and run at 16x their previous nameplate capacity for 13 hours. Such performance in the real world is impossible. There's not enough water in the reservoirs for that power rating and length of time. It's not obvious to me that a purported expert would make be so incompetent as to much such a wrong claim.

    You're also asking me to believe that Jacobson ignored the problem of the downstream devastation that would result from increasing flow rates by 16x nameplate capacity for 13 hours. That's an absurd modeling decision, and it's not obvious to me that a purported expert would be so incompetent as to overlook a basic modeling constraint that it vital to his project.

    So, I have to choose between one set of incompetent mistakes vs another set of incompetent mistakes. It's not obvious which incompetent set of conclusions Jacobson meant to make. Also not having read the full paper, I do not know if Jacobson clearly defined his terms and data sufficiently to make this clear. If he did not, someone critiquing the paper cannot be held responsible.

    PS:
    I am not a lawyer, but I know a fair bit about the law. In the United States, for defamation, the truth is an absolute defense. If they keep their assertions solely to the contents of the paper, and not to the person's beliefs, then outside communication is basically irrelevant to determining whether the assertions are true or false. You are just wrong, and I'm pretty confident that a court would agree with me, not you.

    Of course, the extra communications may be useful to show that Clack et al acted with /malice/, but extra communications are basically immaterial to show that the assertions concerning the contents of the paper are /false/, and the truth of the assertions are an absolute defense to defamation in the United States.

  61. 'Jacobson claims the Clack, et al., critique is damaging his reputation and exposing him to “ridicule.” '
    That is true - and richly deserved ridicule, at that. For what it's worth, Clack also co-authored a paper which claimed that the US could be powered with substantially less carbon dioxide emissions, using a considerable increase in wind and solar - but keeping all existing nuclear, and a certain amount of gas, for balancing. Since photovoltaic solar goes to zero over the whole continent for roughly half the period of demand, much less in winter, and to about ten percent of nameplate capacity under cloud, while wind can go down to five percent of nameplate over areas a thousand miles across, for a week ( the size of a slow-moving high ), and since hydro, as Clack and Murphy's Do The Math blog point out, can't really go from average 6% of production to 80% whenever the wind drops, if you really want to cut CO2 AND keep the lights on, you'd be better off building more nukes. For evidence, have a look at the generation and emission profiles of Ontario and France, mainly nuclear, versus Germany and Denmark, allegedly renewable stalwarts but actually totally dependent on coal. https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=CA-ON

  62. Whoops, that carbon and power world map used to show about forty countries and territories, with more added all the time. Now the data for much of Europe, plus the US, seems to have vanished. I hope service resumes, as the information is instantaneous as well as over the day. While they were all up, though, countries with a lot of hydro and nuclear were definitely the cleanest of the pack.

  63. Joshua, Other than demanding that others do your work for you, do you have anything of substance? You are aware of Donna Brazile are you not? You are aware of Glen Greenwald are you not? You are aware of Thor Halverson are you not? Laziness is not the royal road to credibility.

  64. Brandon writes: "As for the claim Jacobson should publish a rebuttal, that's silly. First off, it ignores that Jacobson did exactly that. Second, Jacobson is suing the journal in this case for being complicit in promulgating lies. Demanding he make such an accusation in a publication within another journal is outrageous. That's true even if we ignore the general concerns of gatekeeping people like Judith Curry have raised. I can't see how a person maintains a straight face while saying "journals are guilty of gatekeeping" and "people who have been lied about within scientific publications should publish their responses within journals."

    There is no contradiction in Curry's positions. You are fallaciously arguing from your opponents supposed inconsistently. Science does need to work on the gate keeping issue as it is very real. The remedy for a detailed technical disagreement is to argue your technical position vigorously in technical forums. You keep repeating the charge that "someone lied about Jacobson", which is a legalistic and really unprovable charge. Why is this not simply a detailed technical disagreement?

  65. For those who are not aware of it, the idea of the "chilling effect" of threats of or actual libel suits is well entrenched in American jurisprudence.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect

    Of coarse legal action has its place for economic issues or actual damages, but it should not become a common method to settle scientific disputes.

  66. David -

    You made the claim, so it is your work to provide evidence. Your repeated failure to do so only strengthens the possibility that you can't come up with any.

    Once again, listing discrete examples is not evidence of a trend of increase. Jesus. That's about as basic as you can get.

    An argument by assertion, listing discrete examples, w/o any evidence describing a TREND, does not describe a TREND.

    I'm sure we could all come up with thousands of discrete examples of political intimidation from throughout history. That would tell us nothing about a TREND.

    It's one thing to make such an assertion w/o providing evidence, as it's a very common thing to do. It's part of our makeup to try to find trends from an assemblage of discrete data. But to keep doubling down in doing so, in the face of a request for evidence of an actual TREND seems (IMO) to be a lack of accountability for a normal and commonly found habit of biased reasoning.

    When I point that out, why do you keep just citing discrete examples as if that justifies your assertion of a TREND?

  67. David -

    Of coarse legal action has its place for economic issues or actual damages, but it should not become a common method to settle scientific disputes.

    It's almost as if you didn't even read Brandon's post, or his exchanges with the commenters who made similar points in objection. It seems to me that he has made it quite clear that he would agree that legal action should not be a method to settle scientific disputes, (let alone a common method for doing so).

    His perspective, whether you agree or not, is that Jacobson isn't bringing a lawsuit to settle a scientific dispute.

    So offer an actual argument that would make the case that the lawsuit is, in actuality, about a scientific dispute - as opposed to an author knowingly lying about what another author wrote. It might be interesting to read. But why would you make repeat the same type of argument that seems completely unresponsive to Brandon's argument - in a way that one might do if they had never even read Brandon's post?

    This thread has really been quite remarkable. The same pattern plays out over and over - where by Brandon makes an argument and a bunch of people respond with, basically, a non-sequitur, or at the very least, a totally non-responsive argument.

    What can explain such behavior? I say the power of motivated reasoning, which in this context is being played out as cultural cognition and identity-protective behavior.

  68. Hey Brandon, did you read this comment by jddohio?

    https://judithcurry.com/2017/11/01/stanford-prof-sues-scientists-who-debunked-him-demands-10m/#comment-861081

    The DC court’s public records procedures reflect on the competency and ethics of the court (Or potentially the Clerk of Courts, if the Clerk is an office independent of the Court.) I asked for the complaint and the attachments and was told that they would be emailed to me. Over the phone was not told that I would be charged. In any event, I received an email that requested that I pay $129 for the emailing of public records. Here is the email:
    ...

  69. EnlightenmentLiberal:

    If a hydroelectric dam can maintain a certain power output for half a day, then it's nameplate capacity should be at least that value. This is what the term "nameplate capacity" means. See:

    The article you cite does not support what you say (and indeed, refers to nameplate capacity being a sustained, full-load output, with even dispatchable power being rated over a day's length), though rather than discuss that, I'll just direct you to one of the references used in it, an article named, "Designed to Go Above Nameplate Capacity." Another source in the same article says:

    The Paulinia Adipic Acid unit was not package-delivered but built by Rhodia. This explains why the nameplate capacity is best defined as the yearly capacity of the unit, determined by the best daily production rate (BDP) multiplied by 365 days/year. The BDP and the resulting nameplate capacity for complex production units can only be determined by a test run where the unit is operated at a stable regime for at least 24 consecutive hours. In the case of the Paulinia adipic acid plant such a test run was done from May 5th to 7th in 2003 for 3 consecutive days at 260 tons per day as the new BDP. This was verified by DNV in the project validation as stated in the validation report. The official nameplate capacity at the end of 2004 was therefore 260 x 365 = 94,900 t/y.

    It shows a chemical plant defined its nameplate capacity by doing a test run of its facility over a couple days, took the best production rate in a 24 hour period and used that to generate its average value for determining its nameplate capacity. Not only was this a 24 hour period, but it was one chosen from within a period of only a couple days. It is likely if they examined every 24 hour period in an annual cycle, they would have found a greater BDP. The point here isn't to show how nameplate capacity is defined (if it were, I'd be looking at the regulations the energy industry has in coming up with the values), but to show how simply providing a link to an article does not mean the article says you are right. As we've seen here, you can cite a source which contradicts your claim yet say it proves you right.

    Similarly, I showed that for Hoover dam, for the nameplate capacity that is repeated by basically everyone - this nameplate capacity is largely determined by the number of turbines, water capacity of each turbine, and the inlet flow speed which is determined by the dam head. In the case of Hoover dam, nameplate capacity is a rough measure of the maximum possible achievable instantaneous power output. It seems quite obvious to me that the same will be true for all other hydro dams that exist in the real world and their listed nameplate capacities.

    While you are free to find things "quite obvious," that is in no way an argument other people must find convincing. It certainly does nothing to show how my explanation of how dams, such as the Hoover Dam, could be changed in ways which would invalidate the results of your analysis.

    If Jacobson did not explicitly define his particular nonstandard usage of the term "nameplate capacity", then Clack et al are entirely reasonable to assume the standard meaning.

    Ignoring everything else, I'll note you can maintain this position only by maintaining a willful blindness to the fact Clack directly acknowledged he was aware of this assumption, something you say you wish to do because you don't care to consider private communications. That is, Clack could openly state he was lying in an e-mail to another person, and your position is we should disregard that because it wasn't part of a paper.

    You're asking me to believe in an alternate interpretation, where, AFAICT, Jacobson uses the term "nameplate capacity" to instead refer to more like the average power rating over one year over ideal conditions, or some such. I'm still not quite sure, because you haven't yet given an alternative definition that fits the facts (your position: 1300 GW average for 13 hours does not require a 1300+ GW nameplate capacity).

    I don't know why you claim I have not provided such a definition when I have provided it, many times. As I've said, nameplate capacity in this paper is the annual average electrical production of facilities under ideal circumstances, given in an hourly rate. That you may wish to pretend I have not said this, multiple times, does not change the fact I have said it, multiple times.

    Quite frankly, I have no interest in an exchange if this is the approach you are going to take. If you're just going to make things up about what has and has not been said, I don't see how progress can be made. Similarly, when you say things like:

    I am not a lawyer, but I know a fair bit about the law. In the United States, for defamation, the truth is an absolute defense. If they keep their assertions solely to the contents of the paper, and not to the person's beliefs, then outside communication is basically irrelevant to determining whether the assertions are true or false. You are just wrong, and I'm pretty confident that a court would agree with me, not you.

    It is laughable. No court in the world would say that it should ignore Clack's acceptance of Jacobson's claims as to what the assumptions of his model were simply because he did so in an e-mail. His e-mails show he did not believe what he claimed in his paper, meaning he did not believe it to be true. If the lead author of a paper did not believe what it said to be true, that is compelling evidence it was not true.

    Moreover, the e-mail exchange with Jacobson showed Jacobson acknowledged a problem with his paper and said it would be updated to address this issue. That means the discussion a scientific discussion which advanced the knowledge of the issue. It was a form of scientific work. That it was done in a conversation rather than a published paper doesn't somehow make it off-limits.

    And again, this cannot be stressed enough, Clack accepted the assumption Jacobson used was in fact one he used. He agreed Jacobson's paper said what Jacobson claimed it said. The lead authors of both papers agreed about what Jacobson's paper said. The only person who currently disagrees is you, a person who has never once quoted the paper in question, examined what it said or how it described the numerical values it provided.

    Willful blindness may allow you to remain convinced of your beliefs, but it does not mean anyone should be expected to agree with you.

  70. David Young:

    You keep repeating the charge that "someone lied about Jacobson", which is a legalistic and really unprovable charge. Why is this not simply a detailed technical disagreement?

    Asking this question can only mean you have not read this post or you are willfully ignoring what the post says. Either way, it's clear proof your contribution to this discussion is not tied to what I've said. Given that, I can't see what value there would be in engaging your comments any further.

    I'm fine with people disagreeing with what I said, but I don't see any value in them expressing a disagreement if they have no idea what it is I say.

    Canman, I hadn't, but I don't understand his complaint. The court's office would charge him 50 cents per page he has them scan and e-mail to him. Maybe that cost is excessive, the cost he suggests (five dollars, or less than two cents a page) seems absurd as well. The last time I asked a librarian to copy pages for me it ran me ten cents a page. Fifty cents doesn't seem incredibly unreasonable like he claims.

    For the record, he often makes wildly exaggerated complaints like this. For instance, he portrays the current dispute as being over something we could never expect a judge or jury to understand due to its technical complexity. In reality, an eight year old could understand it.

    In any event, I'll upload the complaint and exhibits later today.

  71. All this stuff's already been posted. Why do they need to copy it all again? Can't Google Drive just give people access or is Google and the DC court system in collusion with the green blob?

    OT: Why can't I get my avatar to show up?

  72. Canman, the court didn't post anything online before. The plaintiff shared the documents they filed with the court online. I don't know why it stopped being available. Perhaps Jacobson changed the permissions to make the file private, took down the documents or something else happened which made them unavailable. Whatever the case, it has nothing to do with the courts. As far as the courts are concerned, someone e-mailed them about documents field with the court. To provide those documents, the court would have to pull send someone to pull them out of filing, scan 250+ pages, create a PDF file (or multiple files, depending on how they group the pages) and e-mail them to the person who made the request. Charging a bit of money for that is reasonable. Maybe 50 cents a page is too much, but I don't think there's a clear answer on what would be an acceptable amount.

    As for your avatar, I have no idea. I know how to manage the avatars of users who are logged in, but this site doesn't have a registration feature enabled so people can't log in. As it stands, all I know is my server isn't showing any display image coming from Gravatar for your comments. I don't know if that helps you figure anything out.

  73. Thanks for the links Brandon. Judging from the first couple pages from the exhibits, I think the DC court system must've decided to cut costs by buying the surplus mimeograh machine from my old grade school back in the 60's.

    As for avatars, my Gravator uses a different email address than I use here, so I changed my website to my Blogger blog.

  74. > Did you not realize the text was from a comment, not the post, or are you saying you decided to only skim any and all comments I posted on this page due to an error in the post?

    Kind of. When I wrote my response, I assumed it was from your post, and figured I must have skimmed over it. I read your comment at the time, but I think it didn't register because I wasn't understanding the issue enough.

  75. Quoting me:
    > If a hydroelectric dam can maintain a certain power output for half a day, then it's nameplate capacity should be at least that value. This is what the term "nameplate capacity" means. See:

    Quoting you:
    > The article you cite does not support what you say (and indeed, refers to nameplate capacity being a sustained, full-load output, with even dispatchable power being rated over a day's length),

    Quoting the link that you also quoted:
    > [...] the nameplate capacity is best defined as the yearly capacity of the unit, determined by the best daily production rate (BDP) multiplied by 365 days/year.

    You say that as though it contradicts my point, but it does not. It reinforces my point, not yours. Again, Jacobson's model calls for 1300 GW sustained production over 13 hours. This cannot be satisfied by a system with a nameplate capacity of 87 GW. Your source and your own arguments support my point. I am thoroughly flabbergasted.

    Even assuming you're going to be stickler for exactly "1 day", which is rather silly and arbitrary and against the spirit of what nameplate capacity should be, that still comes out to (1300 GW * 13 hours / 24 hours) = about 704 GW as the minimum nameplate capacity of a system which can meet the use case of 1300 GW sustained for 13 hours.

    You need to slow down and read for comprehension.

    Going further, your definition of "nameplate capacity" is not how "nameplate capacity" is defined for many other applications, such as solar and wind. No solar cell will ever get more than 25% of its nameplate capacity for a contiguous 24 hour period in the real world. Similarly, only rarely rarely will you get a wind turbine to produce 100% or more of its nameplate capacity for a contiguous 24 hour period in the real world. You are misusing the term "nameplate capacity". Nameplate capacity refers to a standardized measure of the maximum theoretical output of some system, according to standardized metrics or reasonable metrics for the maximum sustainable power production for some reasonable period of time. For solar, this means about an hour at noon, with no clouds, under an idealized "1000 W / square meter" of solar radiation. For wind, this means some short period of time during a sustained wind of a certain strength. For hydro, this means a short period of time while the reservoir is full and all of the turbines are running are full strength.

    Again, /you/ are grossly misusing the term "nameplate capacity".

    I didn't read the rest of your post, except for a portion about the legal arguments, because there's no point continuing until we settle this issue.

    PS:

    > His e-mails show he did not believe what he claimed in his paper, meaning he did not believe it to be true.

    It does not matter if he believes that the assertion is false if the assertion is actually true. Again, the truth is an absolute defense in American law for defamation. Malice alone does not make defamation. "Reckless disregard for the truth" alone also does not make defamation. "A belief in the speaker that the assertion is false" alone does not make defamation. At a minimum, the statement must be false. If the statement is not false, then it is not defamation.

  76. As much as I hate to admit it, I think you might be right and that Rod Adams and EnlightenmentLiberal (both bright guys) are missing the point. I don't think there's any real confusion about adding extra turbine power capacity and average generation (although I could be missing something). I'm now entertaining the depressing thought that Jacobson could actually win this thing. He certianly looks a lot better prepared than Michael Mann. Watching Jacobson's presentations, I see that he has a lawyer like mentality where he'll argue every possible point for his vision. You can be sure he's dotted every "i" and crossed every "t"!

    Here's one of his most prominent critics(Blair King):

    Now let’s be clear here. Nothing Dr. Jacobson has done is unethical or scientifically inappropriate. Dr. Jacobson is not trying to trick us in any way. He works hard to makes all his assumptions as transparent as possible which is exactly what we would expect from a good scientist. He then he uses those transparent assumptions to make predictions. This is also the work of a good scientist. The only “problem” with his work is that the assumptions he uses are consistently inconsistent with the scientific consensus. There is no law that says you can’t use VSL to assess health costs even though it is inconsistent with the actual definition of VSL. Similarly, there is no law that says that you cannot choose a high outlier value for SCC. Ultimately, it would be at the peer-review stage of the work that the peer-reviewers would be expected to ask pointed questions about the choices made in the paper, but even then, as I noted, all the decisions are transparent so the peer reviewers might even let them go. It is up to the reader, therefore, to recognize that many of these assumptions are manifestly ridiculous and that the resultant conclusions are similarly out to lunch. ...

    https://achemistinlangley.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/debunking-the-leap-manifestos-100-wind-water-and-sunlight-annual-energy-health-and-climate-cost-savings/

    The "conspiracy ideationist" in me suspects that the DC court system will be sympathetic to his views and keep the skids greased. In Mann's case, they see it as such an embarrassment that they'll try to let drag on til the litigants are dead.

    I wouldn't even be surprised to see a settlement with a retraction or corrigendum with a nominal amount. I hope Steve McIntyre writes a post.

  77. Enlightenment Liberal, let me see if I can answer.
    Brandon understands power vs energy and his pumped hydro example is in error. Also, this is not the source of Jacobson's increase to 1300 GW.

    >You're asking me to believe in an alternate interpretation, where, AFAICT, Jacobson uses the term "nameplate capacity" to instead refer to more like the average power rating over one year over ideal conditions, or some such.
    >
    >You're also asking me to believe that Jacobson believes that the combined modern fleet of hydro dams can be upgraded with additional turbines and run at 16x their previous nameplate capacity for 13 hours.

    Yes, that is Jacobson's argument. There is a footnote in the table that lists hydro that says it varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply. He argues in e-mail and in his update that more turbines will be added to boost the instant hydro output to this high number.
    Alternatively, he also argues that this can be done with CSP increase of some sort.
    Also, Jacobson and PNAS editors are aware of these arguments thru e-mail, but they are not in the paper.

    The issue isn't whether they are feasible, but whether Clack are being honest in their rebuttal paper when they ignore Jacobson's claims and write things like
    "This error is so substantial that we hope there is another explanation for the large amounts of hydropower output depicted in these figures. "
    They are ignoring the explanation provided to them in e-mail is the argument.

  78. Brandon, I have not ignored the paper.
    >The paper never goes on to say anything like what you discuss.

    "Furthermore, the conclusions in ref. 11 rely heavily on free, nonmodeled hydroelectric capacity expansion (adding turbines that are unlikely to be feasible without major reconstruction of existing facilities) at current reservoirs without consideration of hydrological constraints or the need for additional supporting infrastructure (penstocks, tunnels, and space); massive scale-up of hydrogen production and use; unconstrained, nonmodeled transmission expansion with only rough cost estimates; and free time-shifting of loads at large scale in response to variable energy provision. None of these are going to be achieved without cost. Some assumed expansions, such as the hydroelectric power output, imply operating facilities way beyond existing constraints that have been established for important environmental reasons. Without these elements, the costs of the energy system in ref. 11 would be substantially higher than claimed. "

    This appears to be a reference to Jacobson's argument which is not in the paper.

  79. > I don't think there's any real confusion about adding extra turbine power capacity and average generation (although I could be missing something).

    If Jacobson does not clearly explain /in the paper/ that he uses the term "nameplate capacity" refers to "power production, averaged over a contiguous year, under reasonable conditions", then I strongly suspect that this point of defamation will not stick, no matter what was communicated in email. He's taking a term of art, and flipping it on its head.

    If Jacobson sticks to this position in the defamation case, and if Jacobon's paper did not make clear this non-standard usage, then all the other side will have to do is say "but that's not in the paper, and we're addressing the paper", and that should be sufficient to show that their assertions about the /contents of the paper/ are true.

    Having said that, statements by Clack et al like this

    >This error is so substantial that we hope there is another explanation for the large amounts of hydropower output depicted in these figures.

    are legally problematic. This goes beyond a rebuttal of the paper itself, and maybe this opens them up to defamation. Pedantically, this particular statement is not factually false, but I am worried that if there is a collection of similar statements, the court may find that they are making assertions about the broader positions that Jacobson has made in his broader work, and that would be bad for Clack et al.

    I would have to read the entire rebuttal paper to comment further, and I haven't had the time yet.

  80. Canman:

    As much as I hate to admit it, I think you might be right and that Rod Adams and EnlightenmentLiberal (both bright guys) are missing the point. I don't think there's any real confusion about adding extra turbine power capacity and average generation (although I could be missing something). I'm now entertaining the depressing thought that Jacobson could actually win this thing. He certianly looks a lot better prepared than Michael Mann. Watching Jacobson's presentations, I see that he has a lawyer like mentality where he'll argue every possible point for his vision. You can be sure he's dotted every "i" and crossed every "t"!

    Here's one of his most prominent critics(Blair King):

    I have no problem with this assessment or the quote which followed (I'm cutting that for space). I'm not sure I agree as I'm not familiar enough with the field to know what "consensus" positions are on all the various issues, but there are things in Jacobson's work I find implausible.

    However, even if Jacobson's conclusions are as far-fetched as Blair King suggests, that's okay because people are allowed to do work which may wind up being outlandish. Part of how science works is people being wrong. In many cases, people who are wrong help us learn a great deal because they force us to examine what we know, what we believe, what we suspect and what gives us our varying levels of confidence for each.

    Jacobson has admitted he made a mistake in his paper by not disclosing the assumption which allowed his model to have far higher hydropower discharge rates than are currently possible despite not increasing overall production. He acknowledged that by doing so, he failed to model the costs involved in that. That's a real problem with his work, and when he was asked about it, he was up front and honest about it. That gave Clack et al. two options. The honest option was to argue why they believed the model was implausible, which is what Clack did while talking to Jacobson. The dishonest option was to lie about what Jacobson's paper said in order to fabricate a seemingly stronger argument.

    The thing which fascinates me about this isn't that Clack et al. lied. While that is bad and something I would condemn, it's not something I would get overly involved in. However, the journal which published the lies had ample and repeated warning, along with direct quotes as evidence, the paper included lies. It all but ignored those warnings. That's obscene.

    I don't know how to feel about Jacobson's work as I don't know enough about the topic to judge any number of issues involved with it. I know I find some of his assumptions implausible, but I haven't examined the model to see what effect that'd have on his results. If hydropower's instantaneous discharge rate was dropped and other technology used to picked up the dispatchable load, would that significantly alter his conclusions? Maybe. Maybe not. His critics haven't even examined that question. As far as I know, they haven't even asked to see the model so they can see what (in their view are) more plausible assumptions might do to the results.

    If critics of a paper are lazy and sloppy, or even outright dishonest, I find it difficult to be confident the paper's conclusions are that far-fetched. After all, why would critics produce bad "rebuttals" if it the work was so flawed it should be easy to produce good ones? Are they just so bad at what they're doing they can't manage even an easy task? If so, where are the critics who could?

  81. > Jacobson has admitted he made a mistake in his paper by not disclosing the assumption [...]
    > [...]
    > The dishonest option was to lie about what Jacobson's paper said in order to fabricate a seemingly stronger argument.

    But that's not a lie! If it wasn't in the paper, then it wasn't in the paper!

    Maybe it's disingenuous, or unethical, etc., for Clack et al to ignore extra communication when critiquing the paper, but doing so is definitely not making false assertions. Nor is it lying. They are accurately describing the paper.

  82. MikeN:

    This appears to be a reference to Jacobson's argument which is not in the paper.

    Intriguing. Here is the text from a previous draft of the paper:

    Furthermore, the conclusions in ref. 11 rely heavily on free, nonmodeled hydroelectric expansion;

    After Jacobson complained several times, this text was changed to:

    Furthermore, the conclusions in ref. 11 rely heavily on free, nonmodeled hydroelectric capacity expansion (adding turbines that are unlikely to be feasible without major reconstruction of existing facilities) at current reservoirs without consideration of hydrological constraints or the need for additional supporting infrastructure (penstocks, tunnels, and space);

    I hadn't noticed this change before because Clack et al. mention this in their introduction to the errors they supposedly found yet not in the section which actually discusses those (supposed) errors. Like with the SI, this creates a situation where two statements seemingly contradict one another. If this change was made because the journal and/or Clack et al. knew about Jacobson's assumption, then why would they allow the paper to falsely say:

    For example, the numbers given in the supporting information of ref. 11 imply that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW

    If the statement you found shows Clack et al. knew about the assumption of scaling up discharge rates of hydropower facilities (without altering the overall production rates), then it means they knew the values listed in the Jacobson paper were not maximum instantaneous discharge rates as they then went on to claim.

    I don't see how any of the text you refer to helps the Clack et al. case MikeN. In both cases, what you've found shows Clack et al. presenting two different, mutually exclusively, arguments, as to what Jacobson did. When it was only once, in the SI, I assumed it might be due to simple sloppiness. Now, knowing they did it in both the paper and SI, I can't see sloppiness being a plausible explanation.

    I apologize for failing to notice that text had been slipped into the final version of the paper (then not referenced in the section about the issue), but I don't see how you hope to reconcile what Clack et al. says in these examples. If Clack et al. acknowledge Jacobson's model scales up the discharge rates of hydropower facilities, he cannot simultaneously claim the listed values were maximum discharge rates. It would be completely contradictory.

  83. > For example, the numbers given in the supporting information of ref. 11 imply that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW

    This statement is not false. It is largely true. This is the clear and simple meaning of "nameplate capacity", especially in the context of a system with nameplate capacity 87 GW producing 1300 GW sustained for 13 hours. Again, see my earlier, recent posts on this topic. I would grant that this statement is false for the purpose of defamation if Jacobson clearly specified in the paper that he is using a non-standard definition of "nameplate capacity" and if he gave an alternative definition in the paper. Did he? I'm assuming not, because otherwise you probably would have trotted it out by now.

  84. EnlightenmentLiberal, I'm sorry, but given your standard for ethical behavior/honesty as expressed here:

    But that's not a lie! If it wasn't in the paper, then it wasn't in the paper!

    Maybe it's disingenuous, or unethical, etc., for Clack et al to ignore extra communication when critiquing the paper, but doing so is definitely not making false assertions. Nor is it lying. They are accurately describing the paper.

    I have no interest in talking to you any further. Jacobson made a model and published a paper about it. The paper failed to disclose one assumption and include a certain parameter in the model. Clack talked to him about this, and Jacobson was completely open about this and said he would update the work to address the error.

    Clack then published a paper in which he said Jacobson had stated numerical results were one thing when in fact they were another. Clack knew those values were not what he claimed because he spoke to Jacobson about this, and Jacobson's paper said what the values actually were.

    You say that is not a lie because a model parameter and assumption not included in Jacobson's paper somehow makes it not one. How? You don't say. You don't say how Jacobson failing to disclose the assumption and parameter in question somehow makes it okay to claim Jacobson said one set of values were one thing when he actually said they were another.

    Quite frankly, I don't care what your explanation for this is either. I'm tired of this. You have consistently misread and misinterpreted things over and over to find any excuse to defend Clack et al., seemingly for no reason other than a dislike of Jacobson's work. I think you've made this abundantly clear with statements like:

    It does not matter if he believes that the assertion is false if the assertion is actually true.

    Where you suggest Clack et al. were right despite Clack not believing what he said was true. That is, you're seriously arguing Clack et al. were right about a point Clack says they were wrong about. If you want to argue there is no defamation because everybody except you is wrong, you're free to. I'm not going to waste my time on it. I am certainly not interested in wasting my time arguing semantics with a person who falsely claims I never provided a definition for a term despite me having done so multiple times. In fact, you continue to ignore the definition I give by saying, "Even assuming you're going to be stickler for exactly '1 day', which is rather silly and arbitrary" which directly contradicts the definition I provided. So as a final remark, I'll simply note you just said:

    Going further, your definition of "nameplate capacity" is not how "nameplate capacity" is defined for many other applications, such as solar and wind. No solar cell will ever get more than 25% of its nameplate capacity for a contiguous 24 hour period in the real world. Similarly, only rarely rarely will you get a wind turbine to produce 100% or more of its nameplate capacity for a contiguous 24 hour period in the real world.

    Saying it is possible for wind turbines to produce more than 100% of their nameplate capacity, potentially for 24 hours at a time. This means nameplate capacity is not a boundary for instantaneous discharge rate over a period as long as 24 hours. If maximum instantaneous discharge rate for 24 hours can exceed nameplate capacity, your claim:

    The nameplate capacity of the combined hydro fleet must be at least 1300 GW in order to produce 1300 GW average for 13 hours. This is simply what these words mean.

    Must be false. You made this claim based on the idea maximum instantaneous discharge rate was 1,300 for 13 hours would require the nameplate capacity be defined as at least 1,300 as that "is simply what these words mean." However, you've now said a different example's instantaneous discharge rate could exceed 100% nameplate for as much as 24 hours. These two statements cannot be true at the same time.

  85. Uh-oh, did I find a chink in Jacobsons armor? From 72/216 of the exhibits:

    I also want to clarify that my position is that it is irrelevant what their opinion about the statements of fact are (unless they agree to withdraw every false and misleading statement I am objecting to). I consider these statement[sic] defamation and libel, and if they are published, they will cause unjust damage to my reputation and financial damage as well. [retyped by me]

    Their opinions are not irrelevant -- his case is that their opinions are that the statements are false.

  86. > I have no interest in talking to you any further. Jacobson made a model and published a paper about it. The paper failed to disclose one assumption and include a certain parameter in the model. Clack talked to him about this, and Jacobson was completely open about this and said he would update the work to address the error.

    > If you want to argue there is no defamation because everybody except you is wrong, you're free to. I'm not going to waste my time on it.

    I have explained to you the legal standards for legal defamation in the United States several times, and I have explained in detail how you are wrong several times, and you have acknowledged these conversations, and you offered no substantive rebuttals to my legal arguments, and yet you continue to assert that Clack et al are guilty of the crime of defamation, which IMO is seemingly a false assertion. Furthermore, due to this context, one might show that you acted with malice and/or "reckless disregard for the truth" when continuing to make these false assertions. You are now displaying reckless disregard for the truth, and you might be dangerously close to being liable / guilty of defamation against Clack et al.

    You are also accusing Clack et al of something that may be a crime (as opposed to merely civil action), the crime of defamation. In most states, accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se, which means that statutory damages apply, and if they hypothetically sue you, they do not need to show any actual damages in order to receive damages from you.

    I am not saying that this is how it would go in court, but you are dangerously close enough that you should rethink your current course of action. Publicly accusing someone of a crime is serious business, and it should not be done lightly.

    The law is not about what is right. The law is not about what is ethical. The law is not about what is moral.

  87. This is a simple question: Can a system with power production nameplate capacity of 87 GW have a power production value of 1300 GW which is sustained for 13 hours? Yes or no. If "no", then Clack et al are factually correct concerning this critique of the paper, and their assertion is not false. If you answer "yes", I have no idea what you're talking about, and I think you need to go re-read my posts talking about the definition of "nameplate capacity".

  88. I think the totality of the response invalidates lying, and only by cherry-picking can you reach a different conclusion.
    A number of issues are raised with hydropower beyond the 1300 GW from a 150 theoretical max, that looks like they
    have considered Jacobson's explanations without going into extra detail since his paper does not include them.

    This is the discussion in Jacobson's paper about hydro(items in single quotes are edited):

    Abstract says (and repeated in Significance insert)
    "Solutions are obtained by prioritizing storage for...electricity (in phase-change
    materials, pumped hydro, hydropower, and hydrogen),"

    Materials and Methods lists:
    "time-dependent hydropower" as an input to LOADMATCH, PHS as a storage technology treated,
    and "Hydropower (with reservoirs) is treated as an electricity source on demand, but because
    reservoirs can be recharged only naturally, they are not treated as artificially rechargeable storage."

    2413 TWh hydro in Table 2, out of 93000 total supply, footnote d says the capacity factor increases to 52.5%.
    Table 4B, shows hydro reaching 1300 GW for 12 hours, and over 500 for other 12 hour blocks.

    End of the paper says
    'in sum, an all sector WWS energy economy can run with no load loss over at least 6y, at low cost. ... key elements are ...
    iii) pumped hydropower to store electricity for later use...vi)hydropower as last-resort electricity storage'

    SI Page 11 says
    "Also, although not modeled, grid frequency regulation is provided by ramping up/down
    hydro power, stored CSP or PHS;..."

    SI Table S2 lists PHS under nonUTES, 57.68 GW assumed maximum discharge rate, 808 GWh storage capacity, 5.42% of total storage,
    80% charge-discharge efficiency, and capital cost of storage is $14/maximum-deliverable-KWh-th (th?)
    Footnote 'PHS storage charge/discharge rate equals U.S. installed capacity plus pending licenses and permits "

    Table S2 lists hydropower as 87 GW in 2013 and 2050, capital cost =$2.82 million/MW, rated capacity 1300 MW/device, 67 devices in 2050
    Footnote 4 "Hydro power use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply. When hydropower storage
    increases beyond a limit due to non-use, hydropower is then used for peaking before other storage is used."

    Figures S4 and S5 but not S6 are daily profiles where hydro is used above 500 GW for 4-6 hours at a time, and 200+GW for about 12 hours.

    Here is Clack's references, much more than Jacobson's:

    "asserting, as the authors do, that rapid and complete conversion to an almost
    100% wind, solar, and hydroelectric power system is feasible with little downside
    (12). It is important to understand the distinction between physical possibility
    and feasibility in the real world. "

    "Relying on 100% wind, solar, and hydroelectric power could make climate
    mitigation more difficult and more expensive than it needs to be. "

    'In our view, to show that a proposed energy system is feasible, a study must show,
    with transparency, that the required technologies have been commercially proven
    at scale, can provide adequate and reliable energy; and that deployment is plausible
    and does not violate environmental regulations. We show that refs. 11 and 12 do not meet
    these criteria and, accordingly, do not show the feasibility of a 100% wind, solar, and hydro-
    electric energy vision.

    "As we detail below and in SI Appendix, ref. 11 contains modeling errors; incorrect, implausible,
    and/or inadequately supported assumptions; and the application of methods inappropriate to the task. "

    "Furthermore, the conclusions in ref. 11 rely heavily on free, nonmodeled hydroelectric capacity expansion (adding
    turbines that are unlikely to be feasible without major reconstruction of existing facilities) at current reservoirs
    without consideration of hydrological constraints or the need for additional supporting infrastructure (penstocks, tunnels, and space); "

    "Some assumed expansions, such as the hydroelectric power output, imply operating facilities way beyond existing
    constraints that have been established for important environmental reasons. "
    "As we detail in SI Appendix, section S1, ref. 11 includes several
    modeling mistakes that call into question the conclusions of the
    study. For example, the numbers given in the supporting infor-
    mation of ref. 11 imply that maximum output from hydroelectric
    facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW (SI Appendix, section S1.1),
    about 50% more than exists in the United States today (15), but
    figure 4B of ref. 11 (Fig. 1) shows hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW. "

    Fig 1 repeats Fig 4B from Jacobson, showing high hydro use.
    Fig 2 shows Hydro going from 101 GW in 2015 to 1300 GW capacity.

    Discussion of capacity factor for hydropower.
    (quoting Jacobson)'the capacity-factor multipliers are slightly greater
    than 100% on account of being used more steadily than in the base year.'
    In addition to being inconsistent with their statement that hydropower is “used only as a
    last resort” (11), this explanation shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the
    operation of electricity markets and the factors determining hydroelectric supply.
    With near-zero marginal costs(free “fuel”), hydroelectric generators will essentially run when-
    ever they are available; ...

    "Therefore, in addition to needing 1,300 GW of peak power from 150 GW of capacity,
    there also needs to be an extra 120 TWh of hydroelectric generation on top of the 280 TWh available.
    Additional difficulties in raising hydropower capacity factors are described in SI section S2.5."

    All of this is in the main paper before getting to the SI. Apologies for length of post, was not expecting this when I started.

    Edit: I didn't see your comment above until I finished this.

  89. David -

    Note how MikeN is engaging with Brandon in a way that has direct relevance to the argument Brandon made in the original post.

    Perhaps you might choose to use that as a model for future online engagement?

  90. While I am not interested in discussing the issue of what "nameplate capacity" means (or much of anything else)with EnlightenmentLiberal at the moment, I am not opposed to the idea of discussing what Jacobson listed his results as and how they would have been understood. I can't embed images in comments so I can't show the visual difference in his tables where he shows discharge rates for one set of facilities and production rates for others, but here are two relevant quotes from his SI:

    s. Whereas, PHS is
    commonly used primarily for short-terms storage (hours to days between charging and
    discharging), hydropower discharging can be used to supply short- or long-term gaps in
    power. In this study, hydropower discharging is used as a last resort to fill gaps in supply.

    This quote indicates hydropower facilities are only used to produce electricity "as a last resort." That is, under favorable cirumstances, they will not be producing electricity. If one chooses to believe Jacobson listed values for hydropower as instantaneous discharge rates, not production rates, that would mean hydropower facilities didn't store up excess energy.

    But if hydropower facilities weren't storing excess energy, why then would they only be used to produce electricity as a last resort? That would be nonsensical. It would mean hydropower facilities simply chose to waste energy by letting water flow through without using it to produce electricity.

    Then in a footnote for the entry on hydropower:

    Hydropower use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply. When hydropower storage
    increases beyond a limit due to non-use, hydropower is then used for peaking before other storage is used.

    This refers to "hydropower storage" in regard to hydropower. This footnote says hydropower facilities store up energy, and if they reach a storage limit, they discharge electricity.

    Not only does this make it clear Jacobson's model relies on hydropower facilities storing energy for periods of time, but it shows the table for the hydropower results is not a maximum discharge rate. One wouldn't list instantaneous discharge rates for power generation types while discussing storing energy.

    Supposing one was uncertain about what these values meant, Jacobson's paper states data is available upon request. Anyone who might have been confused as to what was meant when Jacobson wrote "installed capacity" knew they could contact Jacobson and ask for data. If someone were confused but decided to not take such a simple step to try to resolve their confusion, they would have no excuse for coming up with erroneous conclusions.

    I think rather than have semantic discussions of what terminology should mean (especially when that terminology is used in different ways in different fields/on different types of products), it would help if people simply looked at what Jacobson did or did not say. For instance, if Jacobson were saying "CONUS installed" was maximum discharge rate, why would he label values in another table, "Assumed maximum charge (discharge) rate of technology"? If "installed" values were maximum discharge values, why wouldn't he have labeled the other values "installed" as well?

    The obvious answer is he used to two different terms to refer to two different things.

  91. Enlightenment liberal, I share your frustration. I really hesitated to comment here due to the presence to the serial obfuscator Joshua. I just wanted to point out for Brandon to consider Michael Tobis' excellent blog post on the subject. It shows that this issue has nothing to do with "tribalism" (Joshua's favorite whipping boy) but is about freedom of thought and expression.

    BTW, It appears that neither Brandon nor Joshua looked into the Supreme Court doctrine of legal actions having a chilling effect on free speech. It is obvious that Brandon is pretty far outside the mainstream of settled case law. That's OK with me since Brandon is not really going to influence this case. It would be troubling if Jacobson's suite is allowed to go forward or even God forbid to trial. That's unlikely as the vast majority of scientists think this is a dangerous precedent.

  92. Canman:

    Their opinions are not irrelevant -- his case is that their opinions are that the statements are false.

    There are two points here. First, while Jacobson could speak to what Clack's opinions were due to having communicated with him, there were 21 authors of the paper. Jacobson might not necessarily want to claim Jacobson's opinions were those of the authors as a whole.

    The second point is more relevant. While it is true those opinions would be relevant for libel lawsuit, Jacobson was talking to the journal about how they shouldn't publish the paper. In that regard, whether the authors were lying or not shouldn't matter. What should matter is if what they said were true. We shouldn't expect a person to use the same standards in a discussion about why a paper should not be published as they would in a libel lawsuit. If nothing else, a journal probably doesn't want to hear a lot of discussion of "X lied!" What they are, or at least ought to be, interested in is if what X said was reasonably accurate.

  93. > why would they allow the paper to falsely say:
    >
    > For example, the numbers given in the supporting information of ref. 11 imply that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW

    Hate to sound like EL, because that is what the numbers in the paper imply. Even when it says it varies, it says it is limited by the annual supply(yes I know this means it doesn't vary).
    I'm not sure what the protocol is for using pers comm in research, but how can they respond to a paper that doesn't mention the hydro assumptions and just act like they are in the paper.
    They added in an objection to the assumptions used but unstated, which is correct to say it is unmodeled. Indeed, they are on solid ground being truly defamatory and saying the hydro assumptions are total junk and not worthy of a scientist, and I suspect you would then defend them, but since they held back, now you declare them liars and should be judged guilty.

    > If Clack et al. acknowledge Jacobson's model scales up the discharge rates of hydropower facilities, he cannot simultaneously claim the listed values were maximum discharge rates. It would be completely contradictory.

    Yet, he placed the contradictory sentences right next to each other in the SI. It is not reasonable to give the interpretation that he is lying about it when he contemplates the correct reasoning immediately afterwards, this time writing it as 'build capacity in hydroelectric plants for free within the LOADMATCH model'. I may have misunderstood this, and perhaps it was written before they communicated with Jacobson.

    If Clack had said it is 'impossible' to have 1300 GW when the max is 87 GW having received the info from Jacobson that is quite different from 'not feasible'. The failure to use 'impossible' and instead use 'feasible' is itself informative. It could be sardonic, but it should be interpreted here to mean that use of 1300 GW is not impossible with a max of 87 GW, and they go on to discuss one possibility.

    Aside, Jacobson's directory has many other papers, and I think the non-hydro but with CSP storage is evaluated in one of them.

  94. EnlightenmentLiberal, limiting my response to your claims regarding the legal system, you say:

    I have explained to you the legal standards for legal defamation in the United States several times, and I have explained in detail how you are wrong several times, and you have acknowledged these conversations, and you offered no substantive rebuttals to my legal arguments, and yet you continue to assert that Clack et al are guilty of the crime of defamation, which IMO is seemingly a false assertion. Furthermore, due to this context, one might show that you acted with malice and/or "reckless disregard for the truth" when continuing to make these false assertions. You are now displaying reckless disregard for the truth, and you might be dangerously close to being liable / guilty of defamation against Clack et al.

    You are also accusing Clack et al of something that may be a crime (as opposed to merely civil action), the crime of defamation. In most states, accusing someone of a crime is defamation per se, which means that statutory damages apply, and if they hypothetically sue you, they do not need to show any actual damages in order to receive damages from you.

    I am not saying that this is how it would go in court, but you are dangerously close enough that you should rethink your current course of action. Publicly accusing someone of a crime is serious business, and it should not be done lightly.

    I will state, for the record, this narrative is deranged. You are correct to say I have not "offered [any] substantive rebuttals to [your] legal arguments," but I have chosen not to do so because you have provided no basis for your claims as to how the legal system would work. What you have said previously, and especially what you say now, is wrong. Anyone familiar with libel law would see this.

    Despite that being true, it is neither my responsibility nor my intent to provided substantive rebuttals to every baseless claim regarding libel law people might throw out. That you state something as true, based on nothing more than your supposed personal knowledge, does not oblige me to do anything to show it is false.

    People who post deranged and baseless claims are unlikely to find it convincing when people respond in the manner of, "That's not true." That doesn't make those responses inappropriate or incorrect.

  95. MikeN:

    Hate to sound like EL, because that is what the numbers in the paper imply.

    You have done nothing to show this. I never even considered that possibility when I looked at the tables due to the fact Jacobson clearly referred to discharge rates in one table but referred to install values in another (as discussed here). That point and the others I make in the linked comment are enough anyone planning to criticize the paper should have at least wondered if the value were in fact the same thing.

    I'm not sure what the protocol is for using pers comm in research, but how can they respond to a paper that doesn't mention the hydro assumptions and just act like they are in the paper.

    Personal communication gets cited in published papers, and even if it could not be, the authors could have still described the values published by Jacobson correctly. I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest Clack et al. were justified in saying Jacobson listed maximum instantaneous discharge rates when they knew that was false, regardless of the reason. It's obscene to suggest it's okay for an author to say things they know to be false simply because they might have learned those things via personal communication like you are here:

    Yet, he placed the contradictory sentences right next to each other in the SI. It is not reasonable to give the interpretation that he is lying about it when he contemplates the correct reasoning immediately afterwards, this time writing it as 'build capacity in hydroelectric plants for free within the LOADMATCH model'. I may have misunderstood this, and perhaps it was written before they communicated with Jacobson.

    You don't dispute Clack knew what he published was false, but you say it wasn't a lie because he also discussed the true issue as well. That's complete nonsense. "I'm going to lie about what you say, but it's okay because I'm also going to address the point you actually made. That means I didn't lie!" Even Michael Mann's defenders haven't resorted to such a disgusting defense.

  96. To brandon:
    Again, I am simply sharing for your own benefit. Again, in short, you should be more careful when so forcefully publicly accusing others of a crime, because that is serious business, and you should be especially circumspect about avoiding appearances that you don't really care whether it's actually a crime when making the accusation that it's a crime. From my perspective, you did have the appearance that you don't care if it's technically a crime. That's not a good idea. This advice is not deranged. This is good advice. You should follow it, for your own good.

  97. >You don't dispute Clack knew what he published was false,

    Actually, I dispute it now even accepting your version. From his Twitter, referenced in Jacobson's complaint, it
    look like Clack et al did not believe Jacobson's statements about hydro and thought he was covering up an error.

  98. In general, when you have two seemingly contradictory statements, the plain reading is to assume the writer's intent is that they are not contradictory if possible.
    It doesn't make sense to say someone is lying(and you have excluded that they are innocently wrong I think) and then not be consistent with the lie.

    Does Jacobson's complaint about fabrication completely misuse the term?

  99. > If "installed" values were maximum discharge values, why wouldn't he have labeled the other values "installed" as well?

    Because one is a table of storage technologies where discharge rate is relevant.

  100. Quoting Brandon
    > Then in a footnote for the entry on hydropower:
    > > Hydropower use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply. When hydropower storage increases beyond a limit due to non-use, hydropower is then used for peaking before other storage is used.
    > This refers to "hydropower storage" in regard to hydropower. This footnote says hydropower facilities store up energy, and if they reach a storage limit, they discharge electricity.

    ??!

    When people give specs for energy storage systems, whether it's electrochemical batteries, pumped hydro storage, flywheels, etc., they almost always give that number! The two vital numbers for any storage system is the storage capacity, measured in Joules, and the maximum reasonable sustainable power output, measured in Watts. Both numbers are crucially important to describing a storage system, and especially for a grid simulation like that of Jacobson's paper!

    In the OP, you have an image of a table from Jacobson's paper: "Table S2. CONUS installed WWS electric/thermal generator installed capacities [...]". This table clearly lists "Hydropower [...] 87.48 GW". This number is substantially similar to the modern hydro capacity of 78 GW, which is an approximate measure of the maximum sustainable power output of the combined hydro fleet that can be sustained for a reasonable period of time (several hours) under ideal conditions. Again, this limit is a brute fact about the amount of installed turbines in real world hydro installations, and the power production cannot be (substantially) increased beyond this number. Because "87.48 GW" is so close to the modern value of "78 GW", I have every reason to believe that "87.48 GW" in Jacobson's paper refers to the same sort of measurement of maximum power output for a short period of time (i.e. several hours). The title of this table refers to this number as "installed capacity", and that phrase seems like a reasonable description for this interpretation.

    In the real world, the modern hydro fleet does not run at 78 GW for a yearly average. The modern hydro fleet runs at about 40% * 78 GW as a yearly average. The modern hydro fleet has a capacity factor of 40%. When Jacobson in the footnote says "hydropower use varies during the year [...]", the obvious meaning to a reasonable reader is that Jacobson is simply describing the brute fact that a realistic hydro fleet has an actual yearly average production which is less than the maximum sustainable production which can be sustained for a reasonable period of time (i.e. several hours) under ideal conditions. In other words, the obvious meaning to a reader is that Jacobson is simply describing the brute fact that a realistic hydro fleet has a capacity factor that is less than 100%.

    In the real world, hydro is limited by available water. This is why it cannot run at 100% capacity factor - there isn't enough water for the entire year. (Also stuff like maintenance and repair schedules.) To a reasonable observer, when Jacobson says "is limited by its anual power supply", the obvious meaning is that Jacobson is simply describing this brute fact about water supplies and how it relates to hydro capacity factors.

    Furthermore, when Jacobson says "When hydropower storage increases beyond a limt due to non-use, hydropower is then used for peaking before other storage is used", the obvious meaning to a reasonable reader is that he's simply repeating more brute facts about hydro: Real world hydro installations have limited reservoir capacities, and when these reservoirs become full, they must be emptied to prevent damage / destruction of the dam. When this occurs, we might as well empty the reservoir by moving water through the turbines instead of a spillway.

    While noting all of this, it seems that Jacobson makes an error in the footnote by implying that real world hydro dam reservoirs have sufficient capacity to store the water for an entire year of typical use, but I admit that it's ambiguous whether the footnote clearly makes this error.

    To summarize, in context, the "87.48 GW" of hydro in this table in Jacobson's paper is clearly referring to the typical measurement of modern hydro known as "nameplate capacity", which is a rough and approximate description of the maximum sustainable power output that can be sustained over a short period of time (i.e. several hours).

    Therefore, later, when Jacobson's model calls for the hydro fleet to produce 1300 GW sustained over 13 hours, this poses a serious problem.

    AFAICT, Jacobson has admitted in separate communication that he forgot to mention in the paper that his model depends on substantial increases in the number of turbines in his hydro installations compared to typical hydro installations. Taking this admission at face value, this means that the table "Table S2. CONUS installed WWS electric/thermal generator installed capacities" contains a serious error, which Clack et al rightly point out.

    Having said all of this: In your world, where the sky is not blue, what is "87.48 GW" supposed to mean? I'm still not entirely sure what you think it means. I think that you think that "87.48 GW" is meant as some sort of measure of maximum average power output of the hydro fleet over an entire year under realistic conditions (primarily limited by available water supply). However, for the reasons that I've already stated, this seems to be far from clear from the paper itself, and further, the clearly obvious plain meaning from the paper itself is that "87.48 GW" is meant as a nameplate capacity of the hydro fleet, and again I support this notion because "87.48 GW" is so close to "78 GW" which is the nameplate capacity of the existing real world hydro fleet. The alternative interpretation is a drastic increase in the number of hydro installations. A factor of (87.48 GW ) / (40% * 78 GW) = about 2.8x, e.g. a 180% increase in the amount of hydro capacity compared to modern day. This is not the most obvious reading of the paper.

    I do not care if Jacobson later communicated that he forgot to mention that his plan called for installation of a large number of additional turbines at existing installations. This is not part of the paper itself, and the paper itself should be criticized for this oversight.

    If Clack et al do entirely elide mention that Jacobson offered this correction in separate communication, I would call shenanigans, and say that this is less than perfectly ethical, but this is far, far from defamation. However, it appears that Clack et al do mention that Jacobson admitted this error.

    Further, Jacobson admitted the error, and offered a correction to the paper in an unofficial separate medium (he meant to include substantial additional turbines). Still, Clack et al are ethically obliged to critique the paper as it exists in isolation, because the correction was not made in an official capacity, and therefore other persons who read Jacobson's paper will probably be unaware of these corrections, and these people who are unaware of the separate corrections is this audience to whom Clack et al's critique is aimed. If Jacobson does not like this, then he should publish a second version of the paper with the necessary corrections, and retract his earlier paper.

  101. MikeN:

    >You don't dispute Clack knew what he published was false,

    Actually, I dispute it now even accepting your version. From his Twitter, referenced in Jacobson's complaint, it
    look like Clack et al did not believe Jacobson's statements about hydro and thought he was covering up an error.

    If you're going to raise a new issue, such as the possibility of Jacobson having lied, it would be nice if you would not wait until after someone points out an issue in your stated position. Waiting to spring it in a moment like this is poor form and kind of rude.

    But since you're now bringing up a new idea, do you have any basis for suggesting Jacobson lied about the values in question were? Clack didn't say that. Clack's tweets say Jacobson did not intentionally include the assumption of greatly increased hydropower discharge rates in his model, and is simply saying it was intentional now to cover up his error. If that were true, it would still mean the values published by Jacobson were (ideal) annual average production rates, not maximum discharge rates as Clack et al. claimed. After all, this position requires believing Jacobson's maximum discharge rate for hydropower was over 1,300 while the value listed in his paper was under 90.

    Either you acknowledge the value Jacobson published for hydropower was not an instantaneous discharge rate like Clack et al. claimed, or you... what, say he fabricated data? Do you say he lied about the table being production rates instead of discharge rates and also didn't publish the real discharge rates within it?

    Please, if you're going to suggest a person lied, at least give us some specifics or describe the scenario you proposed happened. As it stands, I can't begin to imagine what you're thinking.

  102. > do you have any basis for suggesting Jacobson lied about the values in question were?

    I do. Jacobson is a well known serial liar in his peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers and articles. Therefore, it would not surprise me if he lied again. This is what serial liars do.

    And yes, I am aware that this would be defamation were it false. It is not false, and I am prepared to defend this assertion in a court of law. If Jacobson sues me, he will see me in court.

  103. MikeN:

    Because one is a table of storage technologies where discharge rate is relevant.

    I'm pretty sure discharge rates are relevant to any sort of facilities. Are you saying that's not true, or do you have some other point when you say "discharge rate is relevant" for storage technologies?

  104. > Waiting to spring it in a moment like this is poor form and kind of rude.

    I only read the complaint then. Had no idea before.

  105. > Clack's tweets say Jacobson did not intentionally include the assumption of greatly increased hydropower discharge rates in his model, and is simply saying it was intentional now to cover up his error.

    Yes, that's how I interpret it. Not following your logic. I think Clack believes Jacobson messed up, meant the 87 GW as a max instant rate, and created the story about more turbines to cover up the error. Is that what you are saying?

    I don't personally believe Jacobson meant 87 GW as a max rate.

    >Either you acknowledge the value Jacobson published for hydropower was not an instantaneous discharge rate

    Acknowledged. I don't see a contradiction with my interpretation of the Tweets.

  106. > I don't personally believe Jacobson meant 87 GW as a max rate.

    What do you think he meant it as? A measure of the power output, as a yearly average, under realistic conditions? That implies an increase of existing hydro by a factor of approx 2.8x, e.g. 180% increase in installed hydro capacity compared to present day. Do you think he meant this? I'm highly dubious.

  107. Hell, even assuming that Jacobson meant 87 GW as some sort of yearly average under realistic conditions, it still doesn't work.
    Modern-day maximum sustainable hydro power output, sustainable for a few hours = 78 GW (approx)
    Modern-day yearly average, actual production = 78 GW * 40%
    Increase in hydro factor = 87 GW / (78 GW * 40%) = about 2.8

    Assuming typical hydro installations, including typical hydro capacity factors:
    Jacobson's plan, maximum sustainable hydro power output, sustainable for a few hours = 78 GW * 2.8 = about 218 GW.

    That's still way less than the 1300 GW used by his sim.

    This only works with non-standard, unconventional hydro installations, i.e. hydro installations with many more turbines than is typical. Jacobson failed to mention that he is using a non-standard, unconventional hydro installations, right? This is something that he must mention in the paper. If he didn't mention it, then the only reasonable thing to do is to critique the paper assuming typical hydro installations.

  108. EL your claims about defamation and libel by Brandon are absurd, and are more in line with silencing speech as that being done by Jacobson. Even if you are correct, he doesn't appear bothered by it as he has written about Mann's fraud.

    I agree with you that the hydro assumptions are ridiculous. Jacobson would look worse if Clack had gone into detail. I hope you will file an amicus brief along those lines that Jacobson is better off for Clack's behavior.

    The issue is whether Clack lied. You highlighted the issue with we struggle for another explanation.
    There is also an issue of Canadian hydro in the numbers, another error Jacobson claims was made by Clack, though he didn't notify them beforehand.

    >If he didn't mention it, then the only reasonable thing to do is to critique the paper assuming typical hydro installations.
    Except the authors are aware of the issue.

    > believe Jacobson meant 87 GW as a max rate.
    >
    >What do you think he meant it as?

    Interesting point. I might have to reconsider that Clack is justified in calling it a mistake.

  109. MikeN:

    Yes, that's how I interpret it. Not following your logic. I think Clack believes Jacobson messed up, meant the 87 GW as a max instant rate, and created the story about more turbines to cover up the error. Is that what you are saying?

    Under this scenario, Jacobson must have lied on multiple issues, including disjoint ones. First, under this scenario we know he must be lying now with his story of this being an undisclosed assumption in his model. He must also be lying about the table shown in my post being a long-term production rate rather than an instantaneous discharge rate.

    However, in this scenario he lies must go beyond this. Jaccobson's paper clearly shows hydropower having a maximum nstantaneous discharge rate of at least 1,300 GW. If the table shown in his post is intended to be maximum discharge rates as this scenario posits, then why does it list the hydropower value as 87.48?

    Is it remotely plausible Jacobson ran a model, generated figures, wrote a paper and published it without noticing he was showing hydropower discharge rates greater than 1,300? Is it remotely plausible none of Jacobson's co-authors noticed such an enormous discrepancy? If they didn't miss it, then they must have knowingly published that table with it including fake results... while providing figures which clearly showed the results were fake.

    But let's suppose the authors did somehow miss this enormous discrepancy when doing their analysis and writing their paper. Let's suppose at some point after the paper was published they noticed the discrepancy and decided to cover it up. They know the 87.48 value is fake, and to fix that and explain the large hydropower output, they decide to lie and say the table was long-term production rates all along, and they just forgot to include an assumption in their discussion.

    Is that the scenario you propose happened? If not, how do you propose Jacobson got model results with hydropower discharge rates exceeding 1,300 yet published a table which said they were only 87.48? Whatever scenario you propose, you have to explain not just what the table is, but why the value listed in it does not match the displayed model results. If you say Jacobson is lying about that table being about the table not being discharge rates, you have to explain why the listed maximum discharge rate for hydropower doesn't come close to the actual maximum discharge rater of the model.

  110. MikeN:

    I don't personally believe Jacobson meant 87 GW as a max rate.

    To be clear, if one does not believe that value was a maximum discharge rate, there can be no basis for saying Jacobson's lied about his assumption. If one agrees it was a production rate then Jacobson's paper shows no discrepancy on this issue. The only way there is an inherent discrepancy on this point is if that value was intended as a maximum discharge rate.

    People are free to question the validity or sensibility of the assumption of ramping out instantaneous discharge rate in hydropower facilities, and I would likely join them in the process, but if that value really was a long-term production rate then there's no reason to think Jacobson's claims about what the assumption was are false. In that case, his explanation of what he assumed fits the situation perfectly. That's true even if his assumption was a bad one.

    So if one thinks Jacobson did not believe the 87.48 value was a maximum, then then only sensible interpretation is that Jacobson told the truth.

  111. > EL your claims about defamation and libel by Brandon are absurd, and are more in line with silencing speech as that being done by Jacobson.

    It's really not. First, I'm not advocating that anyone sue anyone, and so I'm not silencing anyone. I am simply stating matters of fact concerning the law as best as I understand them, as a non-lawyer. If that is silencing, then the law itself is silencing, and the law should be changed. As to whether I'm right about the law, I think I am. You do not publicly accuse someone of a crime while also showing extreme indifference to the technical details of whether it even was a crime, as Brandon has done in this thread in his engagement with me. Showing such extreme indifference to the actual matter of "is it defamation?" while also accusing someone of defamation seems like a good way to demonstrate "malice" or "reckless disregard for the truth". Again, "unethical" is not the same thing as "defamation".

    > > If he didn't mention it, then the only reasonable thing to do is to critique the paper assuming typical hydro installations.

    > Except the authors are aware of the issue.

    So what? As I said before, /intent is not magic/. Clack et al have an ethical obligation to critique the paper in isolation because other readers are going to read the paper in isolation without knowing about the external corrections. Clack et al are ethically obliged to mention any external corrections if they are aware of them, but Clack et al are still ethically obliged to judge the papers without those external corrections. Again, if Jacobson doesn't like this, then he should retract that paper, and publish a new paper with corrections.

  112. Brandon, I am attributing to Clack certain thoughts that Jacobson is lying. I thought you agreed with this interpretation. So all of your Jacobson lies that you say I must believe, are things that Clack must believe, if has thought it through. Why you jump from there to I say Jacobson is lying, I don't follow.

    My point is if Clack thinks Jacobson messed up and is now covering up an error with stories of turbines, which is what I think is how you interpret the tweets,
    then he doesn't know that he is publishing false information.

  113. Brandon, do you have an explanation for how the average rate in Jacobson for hydropower in 2050 is almost exactly equal to the maximum instantaneous rate in the US currently(that is the combined max instantaneous rates for each plant)?

  114. MikeN, your interpretation requires Clack et al. believe Jacobson told a wide web of lies, including lies Clack et al. have never identified. On top of this, the interpretation is readily shown to be false by Clack's communication with Jacobson where he accepted what Jacobson said as true.

    I don't think Clack believes the scenario I described above. I think he knows fully well the the table I show in this post shows long-term production rates not instantaneous discharge rates. I think, for whatever reason, he intentionally lied about that in his paper. I think during revisions of his paper, a few small changes were made to give a fig leaf of deniability while not correcting statements which were clearly lies.

    Brandon, do you have an explanation for how the average rate in Jacobson for hydropower in 2050 is almost exactly equal to the maximum instantaneous rate in the US currently(that is the combined max instantaneous rates for each plant)?

    I don't have an explanation for that offhand as I'm not aware of that being true. As far as I know, the demonstrated maximum instantaneous discharge rate for hydropower in the united states is under 50 GW.

    That's based on actual measurements of total production though. I've never seen a breakdown of each facility with the maximum rate it has ever produced. If one had a list like that, they could sum the peak values seen in each facility and ay, if every facility peaked at the same point, the amount they'd produce is that total. Have you seen a source which does something like that? If not, where do you get the idea these two values are almost exactly equal?

  115. Oh, I just had horrifying thought. MikeN, please tell me when you say:

    Brandon, do you have an explanation for how the average rate in Jacobson for hydropower in 2050 is almost exactly equal to the maximum instantaneous rate in the US currently(that is the combined max instantaneous rates for each plant)?

    Please tell me you are not basing this on the fact the table I show in this post lists hydropower at 87.42 for current values and 87.48 for 2050 values. Jacobson has repeatedly said the values given in that table were long-term average production rates. Clack et al. say the values were maximum instantaneous discharge rates. I'm having this horrifying thought where your question is based upon accepting what Jacobson said is true for the 2050 values but accepting what Clack et al. said is true for the current values.

    Please tell you were referring to some source nobody has mentioned thus far. Please. If this really was the basis for your question, I don't now what I'll do. Probably stare at my screen with my mouth wide open for a couple minutes.

  116. >Please tell me you are not basing this on the fact the table I show in this post lists hydropower at 87.42 for current values and 87.48 for 2050 values.

    Yes I am. However, I think the annual current average production rate is not 87 GW but more like 35 GW. If I am mistaken about this, I withdraw the question.

    >I don't think Clack believes the scenario I described above.

    I don't see how to reconcile that with your interpretation of his tweet. Clack perhaps hasn't thought it through, but if he posted in July that it was definitely a mistake by Jacobson, then presumably he doesn't believe Jacobson's claims about turbines, and thinks its an ad hoc excuse.

  117. I am speechless. I'm struggling to even form sentences. I just...

    I need vodka. Lots, and lots of vodka.

  118. I don't know why you are speechless. If the US average production in 2015 is 87 GW, then there should be total US hydroproduction of about 760 TWh.
    If the number is something close to this, then my question is based on a false premise and withdrawn.
    If the number is more like 300 TWh, then it means the number for 2015 is not based on an annual average.

  119. There is the possibility that the 87 GW in 2050 is also not the actual average, but I thought we had been assuming it was.

  120. > As far as I know, the demonstrated maximum instantaneous discharge rate for hydropower in the united states is under 50 GW.

    > That's based on actual measurements of total production though. I've never seen a breakdown of each facility with the maximum rate it has ever produced. If one had a list like that, they could sum the peak values seen in each facility and ay, if every facility peaked at the same point, the amount they'd produce is that total. Have you seen a source which does something like that? If not, where do you get the idea these two values are almost exactly equal?

    I linked to it already up-thread. 78 GW according to official government source.
    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/
    (see "3_1_Generator_Y2015.xlsx)

    Wikipedia says 80 GW.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States

    Various other sources also agree with this number. This is not a hard number to look up.

    I even went to the difficulty of looking up the stats for Hoover dam, and confirmed that the entry in the spreadsheet, 2 GW, actually matched a measure of the theoretical maximum sustainable power output of Hoover dam. (I also calculated this to be 2.9 GW based on other figures, but Hoover dam has also been upgraded since the nameplate capacity was given, AFAICT, and I don't know if they officially upgraded Hoover's nameplate capacity after the upgrades.)

    PS: Wikipedia also says actual yearly production was 282 TWh, and 282 TWh / 1 year = about 32 GW, and 32 GW / 78 GW = about 41%. I've been citing 40% as the actual capacity factor for many posts.

    Wow, it's like I know what I'm talking about, because I spent 15 minutes doing some research with google before my earlier posts.

  121. >based upon accepting what Jacobson said is true for the 2050 values but accepting what Clack et al. said is true for the current values.

    It's not clear that Jacobson said this, but if so I accept it. There is no need to consider what Clack said about current values. They are current values and can be checked.

  122. Seriously people, you're making it difficult for me not to insult you. ue, you say:

    I don't know why you are speechless. If the US average production in 2015 is 87 GW, then there should be total US hydroproduction of about 760 TWh.
    If the number is something close to this, then my question is based on a false premise and withdrawn.
    If the number is more like 300 TWh, then it means the number for 2015 is not based on an annual average.

    This claim responds to the idea of the values Jacobson listed being an actual annual average production rate. While I have referred to it being an "annuaol average production rate," I count at least six seperate times I immediately followed that with "under ideal circumstances." As a general rule, facilities do not meet their nameplate capacity 24/7, 365 days a week.

    EnlightenmentLiberal continues cocking his ridiculous attitude while saying things like:

    I linked to it already up-thread. 78 GW according to official government source.
    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/
    (see "3_1_Generator_Y2015.xlsx)

    Wikipedia says 80 GW.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States

    Various other sources also agree with this number. This is not a hard number to look up.
    ...
    Wow, it's like I know what I'm talking about, because I spent 15 minutes doing some research with google before my earlier posts.

    Where he cites nameplate capacity values and acts haughty despite the fact what he responded to was a remark about demonstrated maximum instantaneous discharge rates, a very different issue. He even says:

    PS: Wikipedia also says actual yearly production was 282 TWh, and 282 TWh / 1 year = about 32 GW, and 32 GW / 78 GW = about 41%. I've been citing 40% as the actual capacity factor for many posts.

    Citing the same capacity factor ue cited to claim these values were not annual average production rates (under ideal circumstances)... while citing sources about nameplate capacity, which is tied to the long-term sustained output of facilities under ideal circumstances.

    And MikeN, you take the cake. What you said was literally so dumb it damaged my mind. I am not kidding. I was rendered unable to vocalize anything but weird sounds and gibberish for hours due to you breaking my mind. You asked me:

    Brandon, do you have an explanation for how the average rate in Jacobson for hydropower in 2050 is almost exactly equal to the maximum instantaneous rate in the US currently(that is the combined max instantaneous rates for each plant)?

    Jacobson said the table listed nameplate capacity. Clack et al. said it listed maximum instantaneous discharge rate. What they both agreed on is the table listed one or the other, not both. You, in some Herculean leap of logic, decided to ask me how I reconcile the 87.42 "CONUS installed 2013 (GW)" maximum instantaneous discharge rate with the nearly identical 87.48 "Proposed existing plus new CONUS 2050 installed (GW)" average rate.

    I don't want to be rude. I prefer not to insult people. But... dear dog.

  123. By the way MikeN, this statement does not help matters at all:

    It's not clear that Jacobson said this, but if so I accept it. There is no need to consider what Clack said about current values. They are current values and can be checked.

    The fact we can check current values means we can verify what they are stated to represent. Normally, a person would not say that means they're irrelevant so we should focus on figuring out what the 2050 vavleus represent. Normally, a person would say, "Hey, we can verify what the 2013 values represent. The 2050 values will represent the same thing, so that means we can verify what both mean!"

    The idea the 2013 and 2050 values are almost exactly the same numerically but represent different variables is absurd. It's absurd even if we ignore Jacobson said his model did not include ramping up the overall production rate of hydropower, meaning we would expect any variables representing any feature of production rates to stay about the same.

    I can't do this. I literally cannot do this. Trying to fathom the mental contortions you guys go through would break my mind. My mind cannot bend and twist itself into a pretzel. I don't mean the shape of a pretzel. I mean my mind cannot bend and twist itself until it becomes physically manifest as a soft baked bread product someone could drizzle cheese on and eat.

    But I wish it could because that seems less painful than dealing with the sort of nonsense people are coming up with to try to defend Clack et al.

  124. ue was my post. You've been talking about it as an annual average, and that was how I'd been interpreting the number.
    If it was intended as nameplate capacity that's a different matter. Then I'm confused as to what was meant by 'hydropower varies but is limited by its annual power supply' I took that to mean the total for the year is limited to this number, while allowing for others might interpret it as a max instant value. But if this is not the annual supply, and also not the instantaneous capacity, what is it's meaning as a limit? Does he mean the number varies from year to year?

  125. I posted at 11:40 that other possibility that came to mind. Now your boggled that I was treating it as an annual average after you were saying the same. I caught the 'ideal circumstances' when you wrote it, but it didn't sink in and I've been thinking of it as the annual average for 2050.

  126. > Jacobson said the table listed nameplate capacity. Clack et al. said it listed maximum instantaneous discharge rate. What they both agreed on is the table listed one or the other, not both.

    What you don't understand is that "nameplate capacity" and "instantaneous discharge rate[?]" are roughly the same thing for hydro power. They're also roughly the same thing for solar cells, wind turbines, coal plants, nuclear plants, etc. I have no idea where you got this obnoxiously wrong idea that these are radically different numbers. I've demonstrated this already for Hoover dam. The nameplate capacity of Hoover dam is basically a function of the number and kind of turbines, and the dam head (water height), and the water mass flow rate, e.g. the maximum instantaneous power output that is possible from the equipment under ideal conditions.

    Obviously, they're not exactly the same, i.e. solar can temporarily produce more than 100% nameplate capacity, but these two numbers are still going to be quite close. The difference is not going to be enough to explain how a 87 GW nameplate capacity system can produce 1300 GW sustained for 13 hours. Even interpreting "87 GW" as actual annual average output, assuming a real-world capacity factor of about 40%, and that's still not enough to explain how the system produces 1300 GW for 13 hours. The math simply does not add up no matter how you slice it.

    The most obvious conclusion is that 87 GW is nameplate capacity, which is roughly equal to the maximum possible instantaneous output, and that Jacobson either 1- forgot to mention in the paper that his plan requires extreme retrofits of existing facilities, or 2- IMO more likely Jacobson's model was deficient and his model simply limited hydro by total annual energy output perhaps some unspecified storage capacity, and otherwise assumed the production is infinitely flexible - as suggested in the footnote - and when he was called on this modelling deficiency later, he lied about it, and invented this cockamamy explanation of 16x turbines at existing installations, in order to save face.

    PS:
    I'm glad that you have sufficient maturity to avoid calling someone names who disagrees with you strongly. However, you're not getting a cookie for it. It's not some amazing feat that you should be congratulated on. It's the basic minimum standard for human decency. I'm appalled that you wrote that you are barely able to stop yourself from ad hom.

  127. EL, as explained, Jacobson is theorizing a massive improvement to all hydropower that increases the number to 1300 GW or so, without calling it nameplate capacity.

  128. To MikeN: Did he say that anywhere in the paper? I'm interpreting no. Thus, this is a severe deficiency in the paper. Further, that was mostly aimed at Brandon, who still has some severe misunderstandings about the meaning of basic terms.

  129. MikeN:

    Then I'm confused as to what was meant by 'hydropower varies but is limited by its annual power supply' I took that to mean the total for the year is limited to this number, while allowing for others might interpret it as a max instant value. But if this is not the annual supply, and also not the instantaneous capacity, what is it's meaning as a limit? Does he mean the number varies from year to year?

    Nameplate capacity is a theoretical annual average production rate. The theoretical output of hydropower facilities is limited by the amount of water that can flow through in a year. The actual production rate, accounting for all the many forms of inefficiencies involved in producing electricity with these facilities, is always going to be smaller than the theoretical output, but even so, it will still be limited by the amount of water able to flow through the facilities.

    I posted at 11:40 that other possibility that came to mind. Now your boggled that I was treating it as an annual average after you were saying the same.

    I am somewhat baffled at the idea people could still have difficulty understanding the idea what Jacobson listed was nameplate capacity, despite that being pointed out many times. That the listed values were theoretical annual average production rates, not actual annual production rates, seems simple enough to understand and it has been said many times already.

    But I am far more baffled by you asking me a question where you say the 2013 rate is a discharge rate while the 2050 rate is a production rate. You've not said a single word as to why anyone should think the two values are intended to represent different types of rates, and the idea is Jacobson switched what kind of rate he was listing between the two columns is ludicrous.

  130. To Brandon

    > The idea the 2013 and 2050 values are almost exactly the same numerically but represent different variables is absurd. It's absurd even if we ignore Jacobson said his model did not include ramping up the overall production rate of hydropower, meaning we would expect any variables representing any feature of production rates to stay about the same.

    Tu quoque.

    Even if you interpret this number as actual annual average output, assuming a real-world capacity factor of around 40%, this still cannot satisfy a use case of 1300 GW for 13 hours. Not even close.

    Also, 78 GW to 87 GW is a substantial increase. I assume this is what Jacobson referred to.

    Again, the alternative explanation, retrofitting existing installation with 16x number of turbines is obscene. It's ridiculous. It's absurd. This is not a more-obvious interpretation of the paper. Jacobson is bad for suggesting in extra communications, and he should feel bad. IMHO, it was probably an asspull used to retroactively fix a bad paper.

  131. Qouting Brandon:

    > Nameplate capacity is a theoretical annual average production rate. The theoretical output of hydropower facilities is limited by the amount of water that can flow through in a year.

    *head explodes*

    Quoting Brandon from upthread:

    > refers to nameplate capacity being a sustained, full-load output, with even dispatchable power being rated over a day's length

    Quoting Brandon from upthread:

    > Another source in the same article says:
    > > [...] the nameplate capacity is best defined as the yearly capacity of the unit, determined by the best daily production rate (BDP) multiplied by 365 days/year.

    Are you seriously doing this? You're contradicting yourself from several posts up-thread. You do realize this, right?

  132. For the record, and because this is a pet peeve of mine, I want to point out something in response to something EnlightenmentLiberal said:

    I'm appalled that you wrote that you are barely able to stop yourself from ad hom.

    There's this strange myth a lot of people believe where any insult is inherently an ad hominem attack. That isn't true. Ad hominem attacks are logical fallacies where one uses an attack against a person as an attack against that person's argument. The fallacy is defects in a person are not defects in his arguments.

    That fallacy is not present when one simply insults another person. Saying, "You're an idiot" is not an ad hominem attack. It's just an insult. It's only an ad hominem attack if one says or implies, "You're an idiot therefore your argument is wrong. Note, that is different from, "Your argument is wrong therefore you're an idiot." The latter is not an ad hominem attack. Neither is, "You're an idiot."

    I'm not sure that matters to anyone but me, but it bugs me how often people misuse the phrase to imply people have committed a logical fallacy. Plus, it further shows why I have no interest in discussing semantics with him. The point that instantaneous discharge rates can be increased without increasing production rates is a simple one, but it's one he refuses to examine squarely. Dealing with his attitude, insults and misrepresentations to explore that would not be worthwhile.

  133. I see EnlightenmentLiberal is now taking quotations out of context to try to make an argument. He quotes me saying:

    > refers to nameplate capacity being a sustained, full-load output, with even dispatchable power being rated over a day's length

    Which ostensibly contradicts:

    > Nameplate capacity is a theoretical annual average production rate. The theoretical output of hydropower facilities is limited by the amount of water that can flow through in a year.

    However, the first quotation was not a statement from me about what nameplate capacity is. It was my description of what a source EnlightenmentLiberal provided said it is. I provided that description because EnlightenmentLiberal claimed the article proved a discharge rate over 13 hours would necessarily be given as a nameplate capacity (if no other higher discharge rate was observed). The point of my statement was merely to show EnlightenmentLiberal's source contradicted him.

    Which again shows why I don't see any value in having a discussion of semantics with him. I have consistently stated Jacobson provided annual average production rates and used that as my definition of nameplate capacity. That I am willing to accurately describe what is said in a Wikipedia article EnlightenmentLiberal cites does not mean I have changed what I say the term means.

    (As I've said before, if I were going to examine what "nameplate capacity" means in terms of power facilities, I would look to the formal standards used in coming up with those values. There are many regulatory issues involved in coming up with those values which make the values tractable. What I would not do is use a short Wikipedia source on nameplate capacity which covers many different types of facilities, not just power production ones. After all, the standards used for setting the nameplate capacity of a AA battery are not the same as the ones used with power facilities.)

  134. > I have consistently stated Jacobson provided annual average production rates and used that as my definition of nameplate capacity.

    >But I am far more baffled by you asking me a question where you say the 2013 rate is a discharge rate while the 2050 rate is a production rate. >You've not said a single word as to why anyone should think the two values are intended to represent different types of rates,

    Perhaps because you have said annual average production rate was what was provided. Really simple. After EL's post at 8:40, I was thinking the two values did have a different meaning, and was trying to reconcile it.

  135. To Brandon
    And the source that you found and cited yourself, the second quote, still agrees with me and disagrees with you! Copy-pasting again:

    > Another source in the same article says:
    > > [...] the nameplate capacity is best defined as the yearly capacity of the unit, determined by the best daily production rate (BDP) multiplied by 365 days/year.

  136. I see...
    And wow. I cannot believe we're still arguing about this. What the hell do you think capacity factor is, if nameplate capacity is actual annual average power output? In my world, capacity factor is (actual annual energy output) / (1 year * nameplate capacity). For example, Hoover dam has IIRC approx 23% capacity factor in recent years, and the modern hydro fleet average is a little higher at 40%.

  137. To Brandon
    Again, you're wrong about the meaning of terms, and it's quite obvious and apparent based on a few minutes of googling. From several of the first hits on google:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
    > The maximum possible energy output of a given installation assumes its continuous operation at full nameplate capacity over the relevant period of time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nameplate_capacity
    > Nameplate capacity, also known as the rated capacity, nominal capacity, installed capacity, or maximum effect, is the intended full-load sustained output of a facility such as a power plant,[1][2] a chemical plant,[3] fuel plant,[4][5][6] metal refinery,[7] mine,[8] and many others. [...] Power plants with an output consistently near their nameplate capacity have a high capacity factor.

    sunmetrix.com/what-is-capacity-factor-and-how-does-solar-energy-compare/
    > Types_of_Energy_GenerationOne of the most confusing aspects of renewable energy is the difference between installed (nameplate) capacity and the actual output that is obtained from these systems. It is dead simple to determine the installed capacity. For example, if we install 10 solar panels rated at 250 watts each, we will have a capacity of 2500 watts, or 2.5 kW.
    [...]
    > The capacity factor is simply the ratio of actual power generation over a time period (typically a year) divided by the installed capacity.

    http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factor-of-wind
    > The capacity factor is the average power generated, divided by the rated peak power.
    [...]
    > The peak power (nameplate power, nameplate capacity) is usually used to help identify the particular turbine: together with the diameter of the area swept by the blades, it defines a lot of the operational characteristics of a turbine. As of 2014, typical grid-scale wind turbines had ratings of one to six megawatts (MW), with seven- to ten-megawatt designs being progressed.

    https://energymag.net/capacity-factor/
    > The all-important capacity factor captures the amount of actual power generated by a power plant as compared to its nameplate capacity or rated output. It can be externally measured, as the actual output of the plant over a period of time, divided by the output it would have generated in ideal conditions based on its nameplate capacity.

    I can go on indefinitely.

    To repeat the title of this blog post and thread: "Lying Is Not Okay".

  138. EL, agreed. For awhile, I got confused and thought the 87 GW was the actual production value.
    I am still confused as to the meaning of
    ' Hydropower use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply.'

  139. To MikeN
    I have a post sitting in moderation with half a dozen links about the definitions of terms which I thought we could take for granted.

    The obvious and simple meaning of

    > Hydropower use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply.

    is simply this: Hydro cannot run at 100% installed capacity, aka nameplate capacity, aka rated capacity, etc., for an entire year generally because there's not enough rainfall, snowmelt, etc., to get enough water in the reservoir, to power the turbines at the nameplate capacity for an entire year. The phrase "its annual power supply" most obviously refers to the annual supply of water from nature.

    IMO

    For hydro, the two biggest reason why yearly-average actual power output is less than nameplate capacity is water supply from nature, and maintenance schedules, and water supply is a much bigger source of downtime compared to maintenance.

    For example, IIRC, Hoover dam has 17 turbines, and they more or less shut down 1 turbine every year in a round-robin cycle, in order to service it / preemptively repair and replace. That alone limits its capacity factor to be no higher than (16/17) * 100%. Yet, the actual capacity factor of Hoover dam is IIRC 23%, and that's simply because they have way more turbines than annual water supply.

    AFAICT, except during rare high-rain events, there's more than enough turbine to handle daily water supply. That's because they overbuild turbine capacity in order to harvest power during the best times of the years, and that capacity is sitting idle for most of the year.

  140. EL, I don't think that was the intended meaning by Jacobson, as it is not needed for a paper at this level.
    I think 'varies' was a reference to the extra turbine capacity.

  141. Out of the house at the moment, but I had a minute. MikeN, don't forget Jacobson's paper talks about hydropower storage, saying when the storage gets too full from non-use, hydropower discharge is given priority (in his model).

    The paper failed to discuss the necessary increase in hydropower discharge rates, but it's clear one is assumed by the model and that explains the seemingly anomalous results. The line you referenced (and others) refer to the practice of this being done, so while they do not specify the Jacobson assumption, they do involve it.

  142. How else do you interpret the phrase "annual power supply" except as a reference to annual water supply from nature? IMO, my interpretation is the only one that makes sense of the whole footnote in context.

  143. I note the table S2 rated capacity for output per device is 1300 megawatts, not gigawatts.
    While a small, 1000 times , discrepancy only did you notice it and does it change the basis for Jacobsen asserting a lie?
    It does seem a bit off to list capacity 2013 and 2050 in gigawatts, have no change (perhaps one small dam upgrade) and then list potential output as much smaller megawatts.

  144. On a tangent, Lazard released their annual LCOE and LCOS(torage) reviews the other day. I think these reports are fairly widely followed though not by any means uncritically. Certainly meaty.

    Overview here: https://www.lazard.com/media/450353/lazard-releases-annual-levelized-cost-of-energy-2017.pdf and link within that to the detailed reports.

    Contra Jacobson:

    "Although alternative energy is increasingly cost-competitive and storage technology holds great
    promise, alternative energy systems alone will not be capable of meeting the baseload generation
    needs of a developed economy for the foreseeable future. Therefore, the optimal solution for many
    regions of the world is to use complementary conventional and alternative energy resources in a
    diversified generation fleet."

  145. To angech
    I'm sorry. I'm not sure that I follow. First, you should notice that 67 devices * 1300 MW per device = about 87 GW total, which matches the value in Jacobson's table for installed hydro capacity. I assume that he's introducing this as a reasonable simplifying assumption for the purpose of modelling. Modelling a bunch of different hydro with different capacities, power outputs, etc., is hard / annoying, and it's easier to just take some idealized and simplified model versions of existing hydro, with some small but significant additional installations, to go from about 78 GW capacity today to about 87 GW capacity in Jacobson's model.

    To be clear, the number "1300" also appears in an additional, entirely separate, context, and I have been focusing on that. Clack et al wrote the following (according to a poster up-thread):

    > for half of the simulated day of 15th of January 2055, hydropower is depicted as supplying ∼84% of total system load, averaging 1.3 TW (1,300 GW) over a period of 13 hours, or approximately 9 times the theoretical maximum instantaneous output of all installed conventional hydropower and pumped storage combined.

    I hope this clears up any confusion that you might have.

  146. Brandon has provoked a very interesting, thorough and thoughtful discussion. Jacobson is in trouble. No way he is going to prove that Clack et al. deliberately lied. Any jury would be cross-eyed in 20 minutes with the technical mumbo jumbo and the ambiguities. This case should never go to trial. If justice is ever served in this case, it will be by defendants filing a defamation case against Jacobson. Defamation per se. Am I right, Counselor EL?

    What he said sums it up in a nice little nutshell:
    Mark Heslep
    November 7, 2017 at 11:36 pm

    Joshua is really something.

  147. > If justice is ever served in this case, it will be by defendants filing a defamation case against Jacobson. Defamation per se. Am I right, Counselor EL?

    I am not a lawyer.

    In my non-professional opinion, no. First, the other side has the decency to not sue. Second, Clack et al almost certainly lack a sufficient evidence to sue, similarly to how Jacobson apparently also lacks sufficient evidence. Both sides should count as "public figures" for the public figure defamation standard, which means that for either side to win a defamation suit, not only do they have to show that some factual statement is clearly false, but they also have to show state of mind: they have to show that the false statement was made with malice, and/or with reckless disregard for the truth. IMO, that seems exceptionally unlikely. Finally, for damages, excepting damage per se, they also have to show that they were financially harmed and/or their business reputation was harmed, and put a dollar amount to it. No point winning a defamation case if you cannot show any actual damages (unless you also win lawyer fees, or unless your goal is just to annoy the other side and/or issuing an unofficial threat that anyone else who criticizes you will face the threat of litigation).

  148. Angech, that annoyed me as well. EL has it right. Weird coincidence.

    EL, reckless disregard, Jacobson has a case when he has sent e-mails detailing the issues and can claim he was ignored and they instead said 'I hope there's another explanation.'

    >How else do you interpret the phrase "annual power supply" except as a reference to annual water supply from nature? IMO, my interpretation is the only one that makes sense of the whole footnote in context.

    That would assume the model includes water flows. While it is a possible explanation, he didn't say 'water supply' but 'power supply'. So I would think the limit has something to do with power.
    One possibility is that hydropower is somehow limited to not exceed its nameplate capacity as a yearly average. Another explanation is that hydropower is limited to its nameplate capacity in every 30 second increment. Jacobson assures us that LOADMATCH code shows this not to be the case. That doesn't disprove Clack. It actually proves it is a modeling error if his intention was to set hydro max at 87 GW.

    EL, where do you get 78 GW from?

  149. To MikeN

    Where do I get 78 GW?

    From this government source, for total US hydro capacity, for 2015.
    https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia860/
    See "3_1_Generator_Y2015.xlsx". Then, add up the capacity column for all hydro.

    The "Do The Math" blog, one of my favorite sources (except concerning nuclear topics) also mentions 78 GW as the modern US hydro capacity.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/12/how-much-dam-energy-can-we-get/

    For reference, Wikipedia says the US hydro capacity is 80 GW for 2015.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectric_power_in_the_United_States

  150. MikeN:

    One possibility is that hydropower is somehow limited to not exceed its nameplate capacity as a yearly average. Another explanation is that hydropower is limited to its nameplate capacity in every 30 second increment. Jacobson assures us that LOADMATCH code shows this not to be the case. That doesn't disprove Clack. It actually proves it is a modeling error if his intention was to set hydro max at 87 GW.

    From what I can see, it seems clear to me what happened. Jacobson allowed hydropower's instantaneous discharge rate to far exceed its nameplate capacity. As a result, his model had hydropower go unused for periods of time to store up energy then consume that energy to get much higher instantaneous discharge rates than the rates of their average production.

    That's what Jacobson has said all along, and as far as I can tell, nobody has done anything to cast doubt on the claim. As much verbiage as you guys are spilling and as much vitriol as has been thrown out, nobody has made any sort of case that Jacobson's claims as to what his model are untrue. Not even Clack et al. have. If what Jacobson claims weren't true, it'd be easy to prove by looking at his model. So far, nobody has even bothered to try.

    I know Don Monfort and others have tried to claim this issue it too complex for a jury, but the reality is it is very simple. Some people just seem to be trying very hard not to understand things.

  151. >MikeN, don't forget Jacobson's paper talks about hydropower storage, saying when the storage gets too full from non-use, hydropower discharge is given priority (in his model).
    >
    >The paper failed to discuss the necessary increase in hydropower discharge rates, but it's clear one is assumed by the model and that explains the seemingly anomalous results. The line you referenced (and others) refer to the practice of this being done, so while they do not specify the Jacobson assumption, they do involve it

    My post Nov 9, 6:25 PM lists all mentions of hydropower in Jacobson, and some of Clack.
    While he mentions hydro storage, it is also consistent with no increase in capacity at hydroelectric plants.
    The increase in hydro discharge rates is assumed by the model and explains the results. However, not only do the lines in the paper not specify the Jacobson assumption, they do not make this assumption necessary.

    So I'm seeing two possibilities:
    B) Jacobson left out a description from his paper where hydropower is changed to be able to produce 1300 GW on occasion. When asked about discrepancies, he explained to Clack this assumption and gave a cost estimate that was ~10% of the amount Clack estimated. Clack then lied or failed to correct his paper properly, leaving some parts to make it appear as Jacobson is breaking the laws of math and thus a total idiot. Result- Clack should apologize to Jacobson at a minimum and correct the paper in places, or pay damages if it was a deliberate lie.

    M) Jacobson intended 87 GW as the max production rate, with frequent use well below this level and below the typical 40% amount to build up storage, allowing production at max level when needed for load matching. His model incorrectly leaves out this limitation, producing extremely high hydropower use on occasions. When Clack asked about this, Jacobson provided an explanation about expanding hydro capacity by a factor of 15 to make the numbers match the model output. Clack did not believe this story as the expanded hydro is unlikely for environmental reasons alone, and wrote his paper to contest what was in the Jacobson paper, ignoring Jacobson's e-mailed explanations. Result- Clack should be found not guilty as he has not written something he knows to be false. Jacobson should be thankful to Clack for disregarding his claims, allowing him to maintain some dignity as a scientist rather than looking like an idiot for his assumptions about hydropower expansion.

  152. Also:

    > EL, reckless disregard, Jacobson has a case when he has sent e-mails detailing the issues and can claim he was ignored and they instead said 'I hope there's another explanation.'

    I agree that this statement is legally problematic. I'm not sure if that rises to actual defamation - I am not a lawyer - but that seems unethical if they leave it at that. I have been led to believe that Clack et al do mention Jacobson's extra correction elsewhere in their paper, which greatly mitigates the legal and ethical problems.

    As I've said several times here, Clack et al should be ethically obliged to mention any explanation of which they are aware of, and we know that that they are aware of one. Having said that, Clack et al are also ethically obliged to mention this explanation, but then they must critique the paper as the paper stands in isolation. An later outside correction / addition by Jacobson should be mentioned, but the paper must still be critiqued as it stands alone, because the typical reader of the paper is not going to be aware of that outside correct ion / addition.

    This is what I would have done:
    "We notice this inconsistency in the paper. In a subsequent private communication, Jacobson informed us that he meant 'X'. We will critique the paper as it stands, using some principle of charity as guided by this outside correction. However, the paper clearly says the opposite of the correction, and thus we are forced to critique the paper as it actually is, and not according to how Jacobson wished it to be. (Intent is not magic.) However, for the sake of completeness, we will also critique the paper in a following section as if the paper had this additional correction."

    Having said all of this, Jacobson's later correction is ridiculous and obscene. Jacobson says that he wrote the paper assuming that typical hydro installations would have many additional turbines installed to increase the capacity from 87 GW to 1300 GW (or some such), and he simply forgot to mention this in the paper. This is ridiculous and obscene because:

    1- This is no trivial matter. This is akin to rebuilding all of those installation. You cannot increase the capacity of an installation by a factor of 15 without basically starting from scratch.

    2- If anyone tried this ridiculous plan and released 15x the current maximum-rated water flow for a period of 13 hours, as called for by the model, that would flood and destroy everything downstream, like as if the dams were destroyed. This idea is a complete non-starter. Jacobson should have known this.

    This is why I have a strong suspicion that Jacobson invented this "correction" ad-hoc after the fact (e.g. lied), and the likely situation is that he simply used a deficient model that simply assumed that hydro had a certain maximum energy storage with an uncapped power output.

    That's how it seems to me.

    (I also base this strong suspicion off the well known reputation of Jacobson as a liar when it comes to his renewable papers.)

  153. To Brandon:
    Jacobson listed the capacity of the hydro fleet as 87 GW, not 1300 GW, but then the model has at least one half-day (13 hours) where the hydro fleet produces 1300 GW sustained. I believe we agree.

    I hope we agree about the proper meaning of "nameplate capacity" and "installed capacity" now.

    Therefore, this is a problem in the paper. I don't care if it's later corrected by a subsequent correction - the paper itself is still flawed, and this should be called out. Intent is not magic, and Jacobson's intent does not change the contents of the paper and does not change the fact that the paper is flawed.

    > That's what Jacobson has said all along, [...]

    It is not what he has said all along. It was not said in the paper. It was a later correction made well after the paper was published. Generously, it was a later "clarification", but practically speaking, it was a correction. Being generous, this is a gross material omission in Jacobson's paper. The paper didn't even estimate the cost of rebuilding the entire US hydro fleet! That's no trivial thing. It is not reasonable to interpret the paper to require rebuilding the entire US hydro fleet when the paper didn't mention anything about rebuilding the entire US hydro fleet.

  154. MikeN:

    M) Jacobson intended 87 GW as the max production rate, with frequent use well below this level and below the typical 40% amount to build up storage, allowing production at max level when needed for load matching. His model incorrectly leaves out this limitation, producing extremely high hydropower use on occasions. When Clack asked about this, Jacobson provided an explanation about expanding hydro capacity by a factor of 15 to make the numbers match the model output. Clack did not believe this story as the expanded hydro is unlikely for environmental reasons alone, and wrote his paper to contest what was in the Jacobson paper, ignoring Jacobson's e-mailed explanations. Result- Clack should be found not guilty as he has not written something he knows to be false. Jacobson should be thankful to Clack for disregarding his claims, allowing him to maintain some dignity as a scientist rather than looking like an idiot for his assumptions about hydropower expansion.

    This scenario is.., I'm not going to even try to find an adjective for it. I'll just say this, if this is the only alternative possibility one can come up with to Clack et al. having lied, then Jacobson's lawsuit should be an easy win.

    I guess at least this isn't as bad as suggesting Jacobson listed the "installed" amounts for 2013 as instantaneous dishcharge rates yet listed the 2050 "installed" rates as production rates?

  155. > if this is the only alternative possibility one can come up with to Clack et al. having lied, then Jacobson's lawsuit should be an easy win.

    In addition to MikeN, I also find this to be a very plausible, even likely, description of how the events played out. I expect that any jury will have members that will share our interpretation. Therefore, there's basically no chance that Jacobson will win defamation on this point. There's no way that they can meet the necessary standard for defamation of a public figure on this point, given this quite plausible alternative description of events.

  156. I was going to discuss why that scenario is a terrible one to hypothesize, but I thin it's actually better for me not to. You've changed positions on various issues many times in response to things I've said. Maybe it'd be better to just let you nail down a narrative you are willing to stick with.

    I have to say though, it's weird watching people propose scenarios to defend people against accusations of lying by saying other people lied yet acknowledging the accused said things which weren't true. I'd love to see just how weird the reasoning you guys use would be if you actually tried to write this up in a cohesive manner.

  157. > Jacobson's claims as to what his model are untrue.

    Yes, I think everyone is in agreement that Jacobson's model uses high discharge rates for certain periods of time that are 20x-100x the typical rate.
    However, this is not the same as saying that Jacobson's model does what Jacobson intended it to do.

    >if this is the only alternative possibility one can come up with to Clack et al. having lied, then Jacobson's lawsuit should be an easy win.

    There are two other possibilities.
    1) Scenario B includes the possibility of Clack et al were negligent in not correcting the section that addressed the hydro issue while talking about it elsewhere. There is a max of 4 days from receiving complaint to making the corrections.
    2) Jacobson acted as in scenario B, but Clack believed it happened as in scenario M. Again not a deliberate lie by him.

    I'm a little uncomfortable basing most of my argument on a Twitter post. I think we agree on the meaning of this tweet, so I'm confused why you are so hostile to Scenario M, given that Clack thinks in July 2017 Jacobson made a mistake.

  158. > You've changed positions on various issues many times in response to things I've said. Maybe it'd be better to just let you nail down a narrative you are willing to stick with.

    I change my mind based on what I'm seeing. I'm also arguing with EL to try and get him focused on the actual issues in play.
    I am actually undecided between Scenario B and M, with Twitter causing me to lean towards M, or the B/M hybrid.

    Like I said at the outset, I don't know much about hydropower, but it seemed ridiculous just hearing about it(when I still thought it was pumped hydro).
    If El is correct in validating my suspicions, then I should add that regardless of scenario B or M, Jacobson should be grateful that Clack did not discuss his assumption.

  159. From Jacobson's update:
    it is assumed here that 1,282.5 GW of turbines are added to
    existing hydropower dams to increase the maximum instantaneous discharge rate of
    hydropower to a total 1,370 GW without changing the reservoir size or maximum
    potential annually averaged discharge rate of hydropower of 87.48 GW.

    This is a lie. In his e-mail to Clack, Exhibit 4, there is no discharge limit in the model. The 'assumed here' is only useful for a cost estimate AFTER running the model and seeing the max value, but it is not an assumption built into the model.

    Also, 9 GW of the 87 GW comes from Canada, and I don't think he can assume this discharge rate increase for Canada in his paper.
    Indeed, he could have lowered his numbers, since some sources claim Canada will increase hydropower by 160 GW capacity from the current 75, though again he doesn't have the instant discharge increase.

  160. > I'm also arguing with EL to try and get him focused on the actual issues in play.

    Please. I trying to engage as honesty as I can. Please let me know if I'm missing something, or should be focusing on something else.

  161. I you publish what purports to be a scientific study of a solution to the growth of atmospheric CO2 in a couple of centuries from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, and which therefore needs the abolition of the fossil carbon industries, if it actually is rubbish and your critics point to even one devastating weakness that makes if so, then you cannot complain that you have been lied about when they do so.
    It is crucial to the so-called "renewables" that their intermiitency, more correctly called their capriciousness, be very solidly backed up. When California in 2000 and 2001 had inadequate hydro reserve (snowfall and rain), the backup was gas turbines, sometimes running on idle but at full rpm. That is NOT 100% low carbon.
    In fact the production factor PF times the "nameplate capacity" in MW of a wind turbine assembly, a wind energy factory, gives the average power, but a 1200 MW wind factory running at PF=1/3 needs a lot more than the average wind speed to produce 400 MW. If the faceplate power is what they produce at the usually required wind speed of
    12 m/s (metres/second) and up, then because the wind power is proportional to the cube of its speed, 9 m/s produces 27/64, i.e. less than half, and 8 m/s : 8/27, which is less than 1/3.
    So the most obvious flaw is, as I believe the critics said, that Jacobson made s slipshod job of this requirement.

  162. Wait, 9 GW of the 87 GW is from Canada? 87 GW - 9 GW = 78 GW, which is the same as the existing modern US hydro fleet capacity! Interesting...

  163. EL, under my theory, then for Clack to believe Jacobson is making things up, he has to think this about all of the explanations Jacobson gave, particularly that the loads are not maximum values but averages. Is this explanation equally ridiculous? See Table 1 of Jacobson, and discussion in S1.2 of Clack.

  164. Perhaps a more glaringly suspicious part of this lawsuit is that the lawyers representing the plaintiff, routinely represent those industries which the plaintiff's paper, if it were valid and carried out, would put out of business.

  165. MikeN:

    > You've changed positions on various issues many times in response to things I've said. Maybe it'd be better to just let you nail down a narrative you are willing to stick with.

    I change my mind based on what I'm seeing. I'm also arguing with EL to try and get him focused on the actual issues in play.

    I don't think it is wrong for people to change their mind during a discussion. However, it is tedious to put a meaningful amount of effort into examining an issue and writing about it to then spend hours having people who are unaware of numerous basic details offer numerous different arguments.

    I hope you understand why I might get tired of dealing with every new idea you come up with only to have you discard it shortly after. I'm not saying you should stop talking, but it might be nice for me to take a step back and let you figure out for yourself what you want to believe/conclude rather than respond to each new idea you come up with. I mean, I'm sure you would have figured out on your own things like, PHS is not UTES. Was there really any benefit in me chiming in at the point you suggested it was?

    This is a lie. In his e-mail to Clack, Exhibit 4, there is no discharge limit in the model. The 'assumed here' is only useful for a cost estimate AFTER running the model and seeing the max value, but it is not an assumption built into the model.

    What is your basis for claiming that is a ile?

    Also, 9 GW of the 87 GW comes from Canada, and I don't think he can assume this discharge rate increase for Canada in his paper.

    Could you clarify where this comes from?

  166. >PHS is not UTES.
    There was nothing for me to figure out as the point was it wasn't part of hydro. You corrected on an irrelevant detail.

    > 9 GW of the 87 GW comes from Canada, and I don't think he can assume this discharge rate increase for Canada in his paper.
    >
    >Could you clarify where this comes from?

    I asked EL about where he got 78 GW. This is the difference. It comes from Jacobson's list of false statements.

  167. Albert Rogers:

    I you publish what purports to be a scientific study of a solution to the growth of atmospheric CO2 in a couple of centuries from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, and which therefore needs the abolition of the fossil carbon industries, if it actually is rubbish and your critics point to even one devastating weakness that makes if so, then you cannot complain that you have been lied about when they do so.

    This is a fascinating position for you to adopt. Personally, I think it is reasonable for anyone to complain when they've been lied about, regardless of what they may or may not have done. I'm curious how one draws a line under a view like yours between when a person is allowed to complain of lies told about them and when they are not. Could you elaborate?

    Perhaps a more glaringly suspicious part of this lawsuit is that the lawyers representing the plaintiff, routinely represent those industries which the plaintiff's paper, if it were valid and carried out, would put out of business.

    I was going to comment on how you don't mention the business interests of the authors of Clack et al., but then I realized what you actually said. You claim if the plaintiff's (Jacobson's) paper were valid and carried out, "would put out of business" people/companies "the lawyers representing" Jaconson routinely represent. That would definitely be suspicious. Why would lawyers who routinely represent things like the nuclear industry be representing Jacobson in his lawsuit?

    I'm skeptical of this portrayal, but if true, it would definitely be suspicious.

  168. MikeN:

    >PHS is not UTES.
    There was nothing for me to figure out as the point was it wasn't part of hydro. You corrected on an irrelevant detail.

    Given you were unaware PHS was not part of the hydropower figures, and given Clack et al. profess a similar ignorance, I would not label PHS an irrelevant point. It seems strange to say PHS is irrelevant when you and Clack et al. used it in calculations.

    I asked EL about where he got 78 GW. This is the difference. It comes from Jacobson's list of false statements.

    I couldn't find a claim like you describe in Jacobson's ilsts of complaints, but there are several, so I may have missed it. Could you clarify at least which list you're referring?

  169. We get that you are not a lawyer, EL. It was half in jest. However, unlike PNAS and Clack et al. Jacobson has publicly and specifically called the defendants liars, for publishing deliberately false science. They are scientists, not movie stars or politicians. It's like accusing a physician of deliberate malpractice. It's called defamation per se. They probably won't sue the clown, but when he fails to prove they are liars in court, they will have a very good case should they decide to retaliate for the trouble, time and expense that clown has caused them.

    Brandon:"I know Don Monfort and others have tried to claim this issue it too complex for a jury, but the reality is it is very simple. Some people just seem to be trying very hard not to understand things."

    Check yourself, Brandon. Calling this issue simple is ridiculous. Have you read through this discussion of interested and mostly intelligent individuals? What do you all agree on? What's the verdict? Have you ever been on a jury? I haven't, because most intelligent people have better things to do and know how to avoid service. They called me a couple of weeks ago. The jury pool was at least 30% foreign born and at least a half dozen couldn't speak or understand English well enough to follow simple instructions on how to fill out a questionnaire. They were still there when I had been dismissed. They will probably serve on the jury. Attempted murder case. It's a joke. It's not a trial by jury of your peers around here, unless you are a foreign born Asian. Point is, the average person knows squat about this issue and cares less.

  170. As a head's up, I've updated this post to address the unit error MikeN pointed out. I'm still not convinced there was any error, but I am terrible about getting units right so rather than spend more time trying to figure out what would be correct, I changed the example to remove the issue.

    More importantly, during my examination of the complaint Jacobson filed and all the other things involved, I rushed to conclusions on an aspect of how hydropower would be used in Jacobson's modeling. The result was I initially mixed mixed PHS and regular hydropower facilities into one thing in my mind. The general concept of what I wrote was sound, but my description of how hydropower facilities go about storing energy was inaccurate. It didn't take me long to correct my understanding of the subject, but despite writing many comments with the correct understanding, I forgot to go back and fix the post's description.

    I apologize for that. It was bad enough I made the error, but to not realize it afterward was even worse. The updated post should be free from errors/misconceptions now, and no substance of the post should be affected. Of course, saying it "should be" free from such things doesn't mean it is. If you spot any issues I missed, please let me know.

  171. Don Monfort:

    Check yourself, Brandon. Calling this issue simple is ridiculous. Have you read through this discussion of interested and mostly intelligent individuals?

    You mean this discussion which has been dominated by people doing things like suggesting PHS is a type of UTES?* Yeah, I've read it. The reality is much of the disagreement on this page has stemmed from people saying things that were not only false, but silly. That people can raise nonsensical arguments doesn't mean the topic is complex.

    Consider, for instance, how nobody has tried to write a cohesive defense of Clack et al. You get remarks here and there and people viciously attacking one statement or another, but nobody has actually tried to make any sort of singular case. If they had, it would have been easy to show what they wrote is false. When people move beyond throwing spitballs (a phrase I love for its peculiarity) at Jacobson and his case, it quickly becomes apparent they have no real defense of Clack et al.

    *This is not the most absurd thing which has been said here, but it is certainly one of the strangest. There wasn't any basis for it, and if a person has any idea what PHS and/or UTES are, they would know the idea makes no sense at all. Even if one didn't now anything about PHS and/or UTES, just looking at where Jacobson's paper (actually his SI) lists PHS values would show they were listed in the non-UTES category. That there has been a lot of discussion here of totally bizarre ideas doesn't mean Jacobson's case is actually complex. It means when you chase people down rabbit holes, you wind up wasting a lot of time and ink on things which nobody should have even wasted time thinking about.

  172. Brandon:"The reality is much of the disagreement on this page has stemmed from people saying things that were not only false, but silly."

    You should sue them. They should counter sue you for calling them silly liars.

    Brandon:"I apologize for that. It was bad enough I made the error, but to not realize it afterward was even worse."

    I hear a chorus shouting that you didn't make an error, you lied.

    This is a very sensible take on this foolishness:

    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-06-27/100-renewables-a-few-remarks-about-the-jacobsonclack-controversy/

    Several articles linked at the bottom of this one are also good. Jacobson is variously quoted as describing Clack et al. as:

    “the most egregious case of scientific fraud I have encountered in the literature to date.”

    and:

    "opinion"

    If it's opinion, it ain't defamation. You understand that, don't you Brandon? There is no way in hell that Jacobson is going to prove that Clack et al. is deliberate calculated conspiratorial scientific fraud involving the work of a score of scientists that has somehow gotten past peer review and extraordinary editorial review to end up in the PNAS. Was it really some vast right-wing denier conspiracy, funded by evil fossil fuel and nuclear oligarchs? PNAS is not some fly by night pay for play journal of last resort, like the one BEST landed in. Jacobson has made some very bizarre charges and he is going to get his clock cleaned. The defendants should counter sue his silly butt.

    You are wrong on this one. I wouldn't lie to you.

  173. Don Monfort, there's a reason I've made a habit of not responding to you. Your latest comment shows it well. Comments like this:

    You should sue them. They should counter sue you for calling them silly liars.
    ...
    I hear a chorus shouting that you didn't make an error, you lied.

    Are stupid. I often can't tell if you believe what you say has any validity when you make remarks ilke this or if you're just trying to score some cheap rhetorical points. Whatever the case, it's just not worth dealing with that sort of nonsense. Boring trolls are boring. You'd have to be willfully obtuse to say things like:

    Several articles linked at the bottom of this one are also good. Jacobson is variously quoted as describing Clack et al. as:
    ...
    "opinion"

    If it's opinion, it ain't defamation. You understand that, don't you Brandon?

    What Jacobson said was Clack et al. wrote an "opinion" piece. That doesn't mean everything said in it is merely an opinion. Opinion pieces typically contain factual content. It's been long established opinion pieces are not immune ilbel lawsuits simply because they run as op-eds. To falsely suggest Jacobson views the false claims Clack et al said as opinions, not fact, requires one intentionally put blinders on. Similarly, you are being obtuse when you say:

    There is no way in hell that Jacobson is going to prove that Clack et al. is deliberate calculated conspiratorial scientific fraud involving the work of a score of scientists that has somehow gotten past peer review and extraordinary editorial review to end up in the PNAS.

    One of Jacobson's complaints is 18 of the 21 of the Clack et al. authors did not contribute in any meaningful way to the paper. That many extra people put their name on a paper doesn't give the paper some special credibility. The same thing has been seen in the hockey stick debate. I'm sure you wouldn't make the same sort of argument regarding the EoS response to Soon & Baliunas.

    There's plenty more I could say, but the simple reality is you can contribute useful; content when you choose to. I wish you would choose to more often. Every time you resort to resort to the stupid sort of blustering seen in this comment, all you wind up doing is making yourself an incredible bore.

  174. Now you are clutching pearls. You have been making disparaging and condescending remarks about folks here, who haven't readily succumbed to your less than persuasive haranguing. Now that you have belabored the case for Jacobson ad nauseum, poll the jury. I am sure Joshua is with you. No wonder you are lonely.

  175. Don Monfort, if the whole subject is too confusing for a jury, and the only thing they understand is "Plaintiff sent e-mail to defendant explaining the issue in detail. Defendant published 'This is a terrible mistake. I hope there is some sort of explanation.'", Clack should just write a check for $10 million right now.

    >PHS is not UTES.
    > There was nothing for me to figure out as the >point was it wasn't part of hydro. You corrected >on an irrelevant detail.
    >
    < It seems strange to say
    <PHS is irrelevant when you and Clack et al. used

    What is irrelevant is whether PHS is UTES or nonUTES. You corrected that it is not UTES. In both cases it is not part of hydro just as I said Jacobson said. You corrected on an irrelevant point. I don't mind that you did, it was an obvious objection.

    >I couldn't find a claim like you describe in Jacobson's ilsts of complaints,

    Neither can I right now. Exhibit 24-25 is on topic, but doesn't say 9GW. Not sure where I saw it.
    I don't understand the issue either about the losses and the capacity factor that they are in disagreement.

  176. > rather than spend more time trying to figure out

    I think it's worth the time. I get them confused a lot(why I stopped reading your post), and find it coming up a lot. For example, there was an argument over whether Teslas could be charged with solar panels, that I couldn't have followed without being able to separate the two.

    I think you still have an error in >The only point of dispute was how much it would affect the costs he estimated.
    'only' does not apply given the discussion over the volume of Lake Mead and other items.

    Don Monfort, I haven't seen this counter-counter-reply mentioned in your link at resilience. Was it published at PNAS?

  177. Mike, the whole subject is not too confusing for a jury. The technical arguments will go over their heads, but they will understand that the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is not a joke and that PNAS editors gave Jacobson a fair shot to make his objections and they published Clack et al., after careful and unusually rigorous review. Why would anybody believe that PNAS would be accomplices to what the hysterical plaintiff calls "the most egregious case of scientific fraud I have encountered in the literature to date.” I suspect you do know that PNAS is a defendant. What this will boil down to, if it ever gets to trial, is a contest between the credibility of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and that fool Jacobson's dubious and unprovable theory.

  178. Brandon:
    'Nameplate capacity' is the capacity stamped or printed on an actual nameplate that is physically attached to a device like a motor or generator. I'm sorry... you have wasted a lot of time over a misconception that it is something else.

    Sustained operation at outputs above a unit's nameplate capacity or where other design limits are disregarded are likely to void the warranty, shorten the unit's life, and possibly much worse. I saw that you tried to explain your reasoning to Ron Adams (above) with an hypothetical example involving a capacitor. For lack of a better example, I will try to explain my reasoning with a real-life example involving an electric generator powered by a hydro turbine. Enjoy:

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a5346/4344681/

    Here's a snippet:
    "Turbine 2--a 1500-ton piece of machinery topped by a power generator--blasted through the floor and shot 50 feet into the air before crashing back down. The penstock water that had been spinning the turbine geysered out of the now-vacant shaft at a rate of 67,600 gallons per second. Like a massive industrial waterjet, it tore down the metal joists over Turbines 1, 2 and 3; the roof there crumpled like aluminum foil and collapsed in a tangle of glass and metal."

  179. Don Monfort, that is the counter-reply. Is there a counter-counter-reply by Clack to Jacobson's counter-reply?

  180. Did you say counter-counter-reply by Clack to Jacobson's counter-reply? I thought you were stuttering. If you don't mind, I will simplify that to Clack's reply to Jacobson's counter-reply. I believe it was, "So sue me and the highly esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, clownboy."

  181. This looks to me like a similar case to the Cook-Lewandowsky 97% bullcrap. They set out to prove a nearly unanimous consensus and as luck would have it...

    Jacobson went for the full 100%, made the necessary assumptions and as luck would have it...

    Political foolishness to support an agenda. Not science.

  182. MikeN, I freed a comment of yours from moderation. I believe it landed there because it is a duplicate of the last paragraph of your previous comment. I'm not sure if there was a point to the repetition, but I didn't see any harm freeing it.

    I think it's worth the time. I get them confused a lot(why I stopped reading your post), and find it coming up a lot. For example, there was an argument over whether Teslas could be charged with solar panels, that I couldn't have followed without being able to separate the two.

    I'd think it worth the time if the point of my example was tied to those units. It wasn't though. Removing the units removed potential room for errors/confusion. For instance, when I went back and looked the last time, I couldn't find an error in the units I used. From what I could tell, my example only listed values for energy, not power, thus meaning there was no reason I should use GWh or the like.

    I think you still have an error in >The only point of dispute was how much it would affect the costs he estimated.
    'only' does not apply given the discussion over the volume of Lake Mead and other items.

    There is no inherent limit on how large the reservoir could be so there is no inherent issue regarding the total volume of Lake Mead. Additionally, Jacobson's model accounted for resevoir capacity, or at least, his paper claims it did. I'm not sure just what discussion you're thinking of, but I can't imagine how it would make the line you quoted from my post inaccurate.

    Don Monfort, if the whole subject is too confusing for a jury, and the only thing they understand is "Plaintiff sent e-mail to defendant explaining the issue in detail. Defendant published 'This is a terrible mistake. I hope there is some sort of explanation.'", Clack should just write a check for $10 million right now.

    Aye. A jury will have no difficulty understanding Jacobson and Clack talked to one another with Jacobson offering his explanation for the issue Clack raised. They will have no difficult understanding accepted that explanation during the discussion. If Clack wants a jury to not believe quotes like the one you provided were dishonest, he's going to need to do some convincing. If he resulrts to technical jargon and complex ideas the jury don't understand, they're going to go with the obvious explanation.

    Neither can I right now. Exhibit 24-25 is on topic, but doesn't say 9GW. Not sure where I saw it.
    I don't understand the issue either about the losses and the capacity factor that they are in disagreement.

    Basically, Clack et al. claimed Jacobson's results show hydropower providing a total amount of electricity in a year that was far too high. Jacobson says Clack et al. overstated how high Jacobson's results say that electricity production would be because Clack et al. failed to account for (increased) losses in the process of distributing the electricity.

    According to Jacobson, his results show significantly lower total electricity provided by hydropower than Clack et al. claim due to that error. According to him, the actual values are reasonable, the only reason Clack et al. could claim Jacobson's results were too high is by misrepresenting what those results actually were.

    I haven't tracked down exactly where the numbers in question originate. If I do, I may write more about this.

  183. Nick Werner:

    'Nameplate capacity' is the capacity stamped or printed on an actual nameplate that is physically attached to a device like a motor or generator. I'm sorry... you have wasted a lot of time over a misconception that it is something else.

    I actually agree with this statement completely. The question was, how do they come up with the number they put on the item? The answer depends on what the item is. For instance, determining what value to use as the nameplate capacity of a battery involves a different process than determining what value to use as the nameplate capacity for a home generator, or a generator in a power facility.

    In this thread, we've had people do things like insist the nameplate capacity is the maximum a facility can possibly produce. As you note:

    Sustained operation at outputs above a unit's nameplate capacity or where other design limits are disregarded are likely to void the warranty, shorten the unit's life, and possibly much worse.

    It is possible to overwork a generator so it runs above its nameplate capacity, but that is generally a bad idea. I made the same point above where I talked about how you could burn out a home generator doing this. The point of that example was to show instantaneous discharge rates can go above nameplate capacity (even if it's not a good idea) because I've had several people tell me it is impossible for that to happen. That was also the point of my example with capacitors - not to say it was a good idea, but to show this wasn't impossible as people have claimed.

    As an aside, it's worth noting nameplate capacity can actually be well below the optimal rate for a generator to run at. That can happen for a variety of reasons, including upgrades to the system. As an example, the Grand Coulee Dam currently has three generators whose nameplate capacity is 600 MW which are known to be capable of producing 690 MW for sustained periods of time without ill effect. Similarly, some power stations have produced above nameplate capacity in one season yet below it in another as seasonal changes affect the facility's abiity to produce electricity.

    On the other hand, with some things it is simply impossible to reach nameplate capacity. I've long hated how that happens with batteries, where I think 80% of the listed value is the highest I've ever seen one go. Conventions for batteries are different than for power stations though (which in turn are different from conventions for refiners which are in turn...).

    Anyway, I don't think you and I actually disagree Nick Werner. I certainly didn't see anything in your comment I would dispute.

  184. >MikeN, I freed a comment of yours from moderation.
    In moderation because I deleted it.

    >I'd think it worth the time if the point of my example was tied to those units.
    It's worth it for other times. Yes, you were wrong. I retract my comments earlier when I told EL you understand the difference and just slipped up.
    Power is measured in GW and is a rate, energy in GWh, power x time, Jacobson also used TWh/h.

    > I'm not sure just what discussion you're thinking of, but I can't imagine how it would make the line you quoted from my post inaccurate.

    It's in the exhibits, the early e-mails between the two. Cost is not the ONLY dispute. The general feasibility is also an issue. Even if Jacobson is right about Lake Mead, Clack does not agree.

    >resulrts to technical jargon and complex ideas the jury don't understand, they're going to go with the obvious explanation.

    The PNAS argument from authority might have some sway too.

    >I haven't tracked down exactly where the numbers in question originate. If I do, I may write more about this.
    I think I got 9GW from the update 11/7.

  185. I am sure Joshua is with you. No wonder you are lonely.

    Poor Brandon, being associated with me. If Brandon weren't Brandon, I imagine the shame would be near unbearable.

    What's funny is that Judith played the guilt by association to Joshua card as she put Steven Mosher into moderation (for the same behavior he always employed, but after he started targeting Judith's opinions in disagreement). It's funny because Brandon, Steven, and I aren't exactly a figurative group of best friends forever when it comes to blog commentary.

  186. Jacobson kindly sent me the data for hydropower production in the figure Clack et al. criticized. It shows, as I suspected above, Clack et al was wrong when they said (in their SI):

    Therefore, the water would need to have been stored from earlier in the year. Indeed, Fig. 2 in ref. [11] shows precisely that; no hydroelectricity production from months 2 to 6 for the first year of the simulation (a common pattern followed for the other years).

    As I pointed out when I discussed this issue before, Clack et al. did not look at the data Jacobon used. They merely eyeballed a graph. That's a rather imprecise approach, and in this case, it was one which could not possibly let them know what they claimed here as another line in the chart obscuring where the hydropower line could be. Here is the data for the first 12 months in Jacobson's hydropower simulation (values in TWh, third column being cumulative):

    1	27.88	27.88
    2	30.13	58.01
    3	0.6	58.61
    4	0	58.61
    5	0	58.61
    6	0.91	59.52
    7	24.83	84.35
    8	44.32	128.68
    9	55.36	184.04
    10	51.1	235.14
    11	14.43	249.57
    12	129.37	378.94

    Which shows I was right in doubting Jacobson's claim. Before anyone attempts to claim this is a non-issue because Jacobson was "close," I want to stress Jacobson said there was precisely "no hydroelectricity production" in those months. Anyone examining the figure Clack et al. relied upon should have realized it was impossible to make that claim with certainty based on the the figure they used given it could not show such information.

    I would say claiming to know values precisely based on information which could not possibly support such a conclusion is bad. It is hardly surprising the actual data for the figure proves what Clack et al. said was precisely true was actually false. Had Clack et al. made any attempt to obtain this data, they could have easily avoided making a claim so easy to prove false.

    But then, if Clack et al. had attempted to obtain this data, they would have had clear documentation the values they claimed were published as maximum discharge rates were not such, as Clack had been informed of before he wrote the paper. Similarly, if anyone defending Clack et al. had attempted to obtain this data, they would have also known what Clack et al. said was false. It's amazing what looking at the data can accomplish.

  187. Brandon, Jacobson had his opportunity to make his objections known to Clack and to PNAS. They studied it but still disagreed with his objections and the Clack paper was published alongside the Jacobson rebuttal. You can nitpick around the edges all you like, but those are the basic facts. Nobody really believes it is practical or remotely likely that Jacobson is right with his theory of 100% renewables replacing blah blah blah by blah blah blah. Let them try to make that case in court.

    This is really a case of Jacobson against the PNAS. Jury will go with PNAS. Case closed.

  188. Joshua:

    What's funny is that Judith played the guilt by association to Joshua card as she put Steven Mosher into moderation (for the same behavior he always employed, but after he started targeting Judith's opinions in disagreement). It's funny because Brandon, Steven, and I aren't exactly a figurative group of best friends forever when it comes to blog commentary.

    I mostly stopped visiting her blog a couple years ago so I can't speak to what you say happened, but it might be informative/interesting/amusing to consider a time I got moderated while in an exchange with Mosher. I almost never had comments there deleted, but one time it did happen. Here is part of what Mosher wrote:

    But you realize that the brandons of the world would remain skeptical. You know there is uncertainty over exactly how many died in the holocaust.

    I responded with a comment:

    Wow. Steven Mosher compared me to a Holocaust denier.

    Then immediately followed up to clarify:

    Holocaust denier might not have been the right term to use there. I don’t know just how to word it correctly though. I’m still too shocked at how repugnant it was to worry about nuance right now.

    Both of those comments got deleted. I am not sure of the rationale one uses to decide expressing shock at being compared to a Holocaust denier is worse than comparing someone to a Holocaust denier. I remarked on this:

    Woah. I just had my comment expressing surprise at being compared to a Holocaust denier disappear while the comment comparing me to a Holocaust denier was left untouched.

    That confuses me.

    That comment was deleted as well. Judith Curry later explained on Twitter:

    @Corpus_no_Logos He did not compare you to a holocaust denier, and I did not want to start an irrelevant flame war on my blog

    Though how she managed to convince herself Mosher had not compared me to a Holocaust denier is something I was never able to figure out. She refused to explain.

  189. I told Shollenberger that he sounded like someone who had either never taken an intro-physics course, or bombed it because he was unable to understand the material.

    He didn't deny it.  He just said he had a different opinion, as if all opinions are equally valid.  The notion that nature has the only vote that counts went right past him.

    I think we are looking at a victim of "liberal arts" education, someone indoctrinated into post-modernism and force-fed disinformation who's never had a real science course of any type.

  190. MikeN:

    In moderation because I deleted it.

    Oh, I'm sorry. That's probably what happened with another comment, one by EnlightenmentLiberal, which showed up in my moderation queue for no apparent reason. I didn't realize the plugin was configured to put messages users Delete in the moderation queue instead of Trash. I'll change that configuration so confusion like this doesn't happen in the future and unapprove that comment of yours.

    It's worth it for other times. Yes, you were wrong. I retract my comments earlier when I told EL you understand the difference and just slipped up.
    Power is measured in GW and is a rate, energy in GWh, power x time, Jacobson also used TWh/h.

    I'm pretty sure you have this backwards. Power is the rate energy is transferred, meaning it is measured in amounts of energy (GW) over a period of time (h).

    It's in the exhibits, the early e-mails between the two. Cost is not the ONLY dispute. The general feasibility is also an issue. Even if Jacobson is right about Lake Mead, Clack does not agree.

    Are you referring to where Clack says the maximum flow rate Jacobson described would be enough tto "empty all of lake Mead in 552.4 hours (23 days)"? He follows that up by quoting Jacobson as saying the "flow rate would be used only infrequently," meaning the fear of emptying Lake Mead due to having that flow rate for extended periods of time is a non-issue. Clack responds to the quote saying, "I understand this." He then goes on to talk about the economics of Jacobson's idea.

    Given Clack directly stated he understood Jacobson's idea of increasing flow rates wouldn't involve having extremely high values used for long periods of time, he shows there is no basis for fearing Lake Mead would be emptied or the like. Given that, I don't see why you think this is a point of dispute. Nobody seems to be saying Lake Mead's volume is an issue here.

    The PNAS argument from authority might have some sway too.

    It could, if people bought it. I doubt they would though. The idea of gatekeeping isn't a partisan one. Alternative medicine, (many) dietary supplements,astrology, and dozens of other things are not accepted in the mainstream yet are accepted by people of all types.

    Plus, that argument is one of the reasons Jacobson's lawsuit claims a breach of contract. The point of that is if one believes PNAS didn't follow its own guidelines in regard to this paper, any claim of "authority" due to its position is discredited. People aren't inclined to trust "authority" when the people asserting it break their own rules.

  191. Engineer-Poet:

    He just said he had a different opinion, as if all opinions are equally valid. The notion that nature has the only vote that counts went right past him.

    I said nothing of the sort. I don't know why you make such a claim when it is trivially easy to prove it false. Then again, I doubt anyone would believe this claim of yours even if I couldn't prove it false.

    The reason I "didn't deny" what you said is people who make absurd claims like you have in order to insult people aren't going to be convinced by anything I say so e-mail exchanges with them aren't going to be productive. Why waste anybody's time by having them?

  192. You and Mike still can't agree on the definition of basic terms, Brandon. And this will easy for the jury?

    Who broke rules, Brandon? That's very sloppy of you. They are called "guidelines" for a reason, Brandon. They are "guidelines". If they were "rules" they would be called "rules". PNAS gave Jacobson's complaints ample review and published them along with the Clack et al. paper. What more would you have them do? Capitulate to Jacobson's whining? Why would the jury sympathize with a whiner, who was given a fair hearing and an opportunity to state his case? You are tripping.

    If this ever gets to court, the issue will be whether or not Clack lied about Jacobson's original paper and whether the highly esteemed Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists was complicit in the alleged lying. Clack et al. is a response to the original Jacobson paper, not a response to some freaking emails. Case closed, again.

  193. Here's the relevant part of what you wrote to me, Brandon:

    I disagree about much of what you say, including on basic factual issues.

    You refused to get any more specific, so I'm assuming this includes basics like the difference between energy (example:  gasoline) and power (example:  horsepower).

    Physics is physics, and your repeated refusal to address the question of whether you've ever taken any real science courses strongly suggests that you are utterly uneducated in such matters.  A whole bunch of people with expertise building and running things in the real world are telling you that your analysis is bunk, and you go on as if your disagreement counts for more than a bucket of warm spit.

    If this was only about you, we'd laugh.  But you're standing on the side of Jacobson the fraudster, while calling Clack et al. liars.

    This suggests that you are a devotee of Green ideology (yet another romantic movement).  You NEED Jacobson to be right more than you care about facts.  This explains why you retreat from any discussion about facts, refuse to disclose your level of education in these matters, and resist all attempts to educate you.  Learning facts which debunk your romantic ideal of bucolic humans living in harmony with nature (also ignoring all the lessons from history which show just how miserable life is when subsisting on "100% renewables) would cause you pain.

    So you shut them out.

    I rather doubt you're able to even consider the consequences of (a) Jacobson being wrong, and (b) the USA attempting to implement his erroneous scheme anyway.  It doesn't look to me like your brain can hold those concepts.  But the inevitable outcome would be (1) astonishing amounts of money wasted, (2) fossil-fuel lock-in for the duration with all the attendant environmental harm, and (3) decay of the only body of experience that would give us the ability to recover from that mistake.  It would be a crime against both humanity and the planet to allow this to happen.

    You're willing to be complicit in such a crime rather than take the time to learn.

  194. Brandon -

    That whole situation with you over at Judith's was par for the course, IMO.

    Judith also had no problem with Steven calling me misogynist and an anti-semite (I'm Jewish), an idiot, etc. She had no problem with Don implying I'm a self-hating Jew, as another example.

    She recently claimed in a comment (as she has many times before) that she deletes insulting comments that have no content. Which was funny because she regularly allows insult-filled (and content free) comments from the links of Don and David Springer and Chief Hydrologist to dominate comment threads. If you read there recently you would see a constant barrage of insults lobbed towards Jim D., even though he never responds in kind and always sticks to content.

    Steven enjoyed the freedom to violate her moderation rules regularly until he started to criticize her views on climate change. As I said above, after he started criticizing her, the exact same behaviors landed him in moderation.

    The funniest aspect is that she basks in the glory of her "denizens" praising her for open-mindedness and unbiased moderation. But the bottom line is that it's her blog and her prerogative to moderate however she wishes. All's fair in love and blogging moderation, IMO. If you weigh into comment threads where people regularly insult other commenters, then you should expect that behavior to continue and potentially directed towards yourself. So I think that if you leave comments at that kind of blog, you shouldn't let insults being directed your way get under your skin.

    I don't think I've ever seen blog moderation that I think is actually unbiased and consistent across ideological dividing lines. But I always see people arguing that any given blogger on their team consistently moderates reasonable guidelines and bloggers on the "other side" moderate capriciously and hypocritically - without ever considering that there might be something suspiciously convenient about their analysis. Best of all, IMO, is when people drama queen about "censorship" when someone deletes their blog comment.

    All that said, I don't recall Don being that much of a whiner when Judith has moderated some of his most over the top commenting (I think he even landed in moderation for a while), but he has played Judith like a top for years (as has Springer) exploiting her propensity toward double-standard moderation without having even a clue apparently, that her moderation isn't even-handed. It's quite a remarkable example of "motivated reasoning" in a very smart person very capable of sophisticated analysis, IMO.

  195. Engineer-Poet, as I told you via e-mail, if it turns out people want to hear a response from me to the things you say, I'll respond. I don't think anyone will want that though. I think everybody reading what you write, except yourself, will see how ridiculous it is and decide it'd be best to just not spend any time dealing with it.

    Joshua, I like to think I've handled moderation well on this site. Excluding comments from bots or where I was asked to delete something by the person who wrote it, I believe I've deleted exactly one comment on this site. I've never even placed anyone in moderation. I'm sure that would all change if I had a higher amount of traffic, but honestly, moderation is not as difficult as some people like to claim. Most of the time you can fix problems just by making a polite request for people to avoid certain types of behavior.

  196. Quoting Brandon:

    > I'm pretty sure you have this backwards. Power is the rate energy is transferred, meaning it is measured in amounts of energy (GW) over a period of time (h).

    You are right that power is a measurement of energy per time, i.e. joules per seconds. For reference, 1 watt is 1 joule / 1 second. However, you goofed, again, by writing "GW" aka giga-watts as a measure of energy. I wasn't around for the start, but I heard that you made similar mistakes in the OP before you corrected them. Considering this, and your lack of understanding of the meaning of "nameplate capacity" and "installed capacity" as terms of art, you may want to be quiet and let the educated people hash it out. I encourage you to retake high school chemistry and physics, where this was all explained, esp. dimensional analysis. While I have no firsthand experience, I hear that there are several great free online resources too for someone of your education level, such as Khan Academy.

    PS: You also have a similar lack of understanding of American defamation law. For just your own benefit, you should be more careful when publicly accusing someone of a crime, and especially if they might not meet the "public person" standard for American defamation law. I am not saying that you went too far. I am honestly unsure, because I am not a lawyer.

  197. Brandon -

    I basically agree. Yes, the amount of traffic is certainly a factor, but I think that
    In practice moderation is usually highly flawed - and only of value in extreme circumstances. I agree that respectfully asking for compliance with certain principles would usually be sufficient. I also think that the tone set by the blogger is a big factor.

  198. I never implied that you are a self-hating Jew, joshie. I don't think you are into being a Jew that much. I was playing you. Brandon and you are a lot alike. Bright, but too serious and too self-important. I just been trying to teach you fellas how to lighten up. Nobody is shooting at you here.

    I don't clearly see any of your copyrighted, patented, fried-died-and-laid-to-the-side alleged "motivated reasoning" in Judith's moderating. It's more like it's haphazard, almost thoughtless. That's an exaggeration. She doesn't spend a lot of time on moderation. Something "catches her eye" she hits it. If you know how to do it, you can bombard her with a lot of sketchy stuff and get her conditioned to accept the lighter bombs as relatively harmless. Springer is a lot worse than I am. I think he has something on her. LOL! But if you don't know how to do it, you feel singled out and whine when she hits you. As far as Judith being motivated by criticism, I guess you haven't noticed me being a little vicious with her when she does something really dumb. Like equating Mann and his suing with the Charley Hedbo terrorists. And when she had that charlatan doing a three part series on commodity investing numerology. Really foolish. Of course, if you make it clear you are only on her blog to nag, harass and criticize her incessantly, then she doesn't like you and treats you accordingly.

    As the years went by, I became less impressed with her judgement. The treatment she has gotten from the consensus goons has had an effect. Since they took her chair, she is more militantly "denier" and seems to my uneducated eye to be less objective on the science.

    Anyway, life is too serious and too short to let these little online discussions with a bunch of strangers get to you. Although, I find Steve Mc's blog very exasperating lately. I used to think he had it together. All these blogs should have the following disclaimer:

    *for entertainment purposes only
    **except for the one about the rest of the world being insane

  199. This may be a little harsh, E-Poet:

    "I rather doubt you're able to even consider the consequences of (a) Jacobson being wrong, and (b) the USA attempting to implement his erroneous scheme anyway. It doesn't look to me like your brain can hold those concepts. But the inevitable outcome would be (1) astonishing amounts of money wasted, (2) fossil-fuel lock-in for the duration with all the attendant environmental harm, and (3) decay of the only body of experience that would give us the ability to recover from that mistake. It would be a crime against both humanity and the planet to allow this to happen.

    You're willing to be complicit in such a crime rather than take the time to learn."

    Don't you think it is more important for Jacobson to have the opportunity to vindicate his honor, in a Court proceeding that he will almost certainly lose, if it ever goes to trial? Let's be serious, now.

  200. > Power is the rate energy is transferred, meaning it is measured in amounts of energy (GW) over a period of time (h).

    That would make power not GWh, but GW/h. Power is the rate energy is transferred. (GWh=energy)/h.

    >Lake Mead would be emptied or the like. Given that, I don't see why you think this is a point of dispute.

    He said he understands it, but I don't think he concedes Jacobson is correct. However, that was just one example of the additional dispute. The overall feasibility issues are discussed. Even when Clack says it might be possible, he includes CSP in the mix, not hydropower alone.

    > Therefore, the water would need to have been stored from earlier in the year. Indeed, Fig. 2 in ref. [11] shows precisely that; no hydroelectricity production from months 2 to 6 for the first >year of the simulation (a common pattern followed for the other years).
    >

    >Which shows I was right in doubting Jacobson's claim. Before anyone attempts to claim this is a non-issue because Jacobson was "close," I want to stress Jacobson said there was precisely "no hydroelectricity production" in those months.

    >Anyone examining the figure Clack et al. relied upon should have realized it was impossible to make that claim with certainty based on the the figure they used given it could not show such information.

    I did realize this and assumed they had data. However, your description of the error is way off. While you have properly used the meaning of precisely, Clack did not say there was precisely 0 production. He said
    ...Figure 2 shows precisely that...
    meaning
    Figure 2 shows precisely (the water would need to have been stored from earlier in the year). At the risk of misusing words I just claimed expertise on, I'll say it isn't very 'precise' to just eyeball the chart, but it does show the claim is accurate.

    The maximum production for a month is 65 TWh.
    Jacobson has consecutive months with hydropower producing at capacity of 38%, 68%, 87%,

  201. MikeN, yeah, I think I need to just stop talking about power/enerngy when I'm writing on the fly. As much as my writing might suggest otherwise, I do know what both are. I just have a horrible time remembering nuances of units if I'm not actively working with that sort of thing.

    I think the thing which throws me off hte most is power is measured in watts, with each Watt being a joule per second. The result W is a rate even though it doesn't show any letter to indicate such. Energy is measured in watt-hours, meaning a watt, or a joule a second, for an hour. In that case, there is a letter indicating a time component, but it's not indicating a rate. I don't know about other people, but my mind doesn't like the fact:

    GW = a rate
    GWh = a total amount

    When I see "hour" I think "rate"; when I don't see "hour" I think "total." It's wrong, and I know it's wrong, but unless I'm taking the time to actively think about the distinction, my mind will switch the two. I'm involved in too many different things with too many different acronyms and abbreviations for my mind to be trusted to keep unintuitive abbreviations straight. If I were actually studying the subject of these papers to do work of my own, I wouldn't screw these things up. I'm not though.

    If people want to take that sort of thing as proving I'm some idiot who knows nothing about what he's talking about, they can. However, of every person who has posted on this page, I am the only one who has looked at the data this discussion has been about. Personally, I think that is more important than being able to keep your unit names straight.

  202. Followed by 78%, 20%, and 200%. If we take out the 9GW Canadian hydro(has he made another mistake putting in 0s because he can't store Canadian hydro?), this becomes a monthly max of 58 GW, for percentages of 27, 60, 82, 72, 10, and 207%

  203. Quoth Don Monfort:

    Don't you think it is more important for Jacobson to have the opportunity to vindicate his honor, in a Court proceeding that he will almost certainly lose, if it ever goes to trial? Let's be serious, now.

    Trial courts are political, devoted to adversarial proceedings rather than the truth.  The truth has already been spoken, in journals and elsewhere.  Jacobson is guilty of academic fraud.  His sponsoring institution should fire him, and his alma mater should revoke his degrees.

    Sadly, none of those institutions have the integrity to do that.

    Schollenberger writes:

    I think I need to just stop talking about power/enerngy when I'm writing on the fly.

    Yes.  Yes, you should.  If you can't think it through and confirm your numbers, you should not write about it.  That way lies gross error.  You must either choose humiliation from admitting you're wrong, or doubling down on falsehood.

    I am the only one who has looked at the data this discussion has been about.

    You flatter yourself.  I bet that several of us disputing your account have been looking at this data longer than you've been alive.  I've been maintaining a blog about it for almost 14 years so far.

  204. MikeN:

    I did realize this and assumed they had data. However, your description of the error is way off. While you have properly used the meaning of precisely, Clack did not say there was precisely 0 production. He said

    Good catch. I missed the semicolon in that sentence because of the small text size of the PDF file on my screen and the fact a semicolon there is ungrammatical. The clause, "no hydroelectricity production from months 2 to 6 for the first year of the simulation" is not a complete sentence due to the lack of any sort of verb. Separating it out with a semicolon like that is inappropriate.

    I have to wonder if maybe my eyes saw the semicolon but my brain automatically removed it for the sake of getting a grammatically correct sentence. I know that can be one of the biggest challenges when proofreading things - you see what you expect to see, not what is actually there.

    The claim by Clack et al. is still wrong, but I overstated the serverity of it by incorrectly interperting their use of an adverb.

    The maximum production for a month is 65 TWh.

    Would you mind clarifying where you got that number?

    Followed by 78%, 20%, and 200%. If we take out the 9GW Canadian hydro(has he made another mistake putting in 0s because he can't store Canadian hydro?), this becomes a monthly max of 58 GW, for percentages of 27, 60, 82, 72, 10, and 207%

    I think the reason I couldn't find information about the Canadian energy is it may be in another paper. Until that's tracked down, I can't say much on the topic. Jacobson's tweet on this issue says they import 45TWh/yr. I don't know if that means Canadian production rates were included in the capacity values provided by Jacobson. An obvious alternative is Canadian imports are used at some points because they're cheaper than US options would be at those points. Since Americans would have the option of whether or not they choose to import electricity, whether or not Canada is storing energy doesn't matter (unless the choice affects price/availability).

  205. I agree with almost everything you have said, E-Poet. If there was any real justice, Jacobson would be driving for Uber or waiting tables at a Chinese restaurant in Palo Alto. But I must defend Brandon one point:

    "You flatter yourself. I bet that several of us disputing your account have been looking at this data longer than you've been alive. I've been maintaining a blog about it for almost 14 years so far."

    Brandon has mentioned going to bars and he wouldn't do that if he was under age.

  206. Oh, you're using "production" for both long-term average production rate and the monthly summed instantaneous discharge rate? It would be easy for someone who hasn't been following along to get confused by that since Clack et al. falsely claimed Jacobson provided maximum instantaneous discharge rates when he actually published long-term average production rates. I think it might help if we use clearer terminology. Any thoughts on what terms would be clear and easy to use?

    From the looks of things, the highest hourly discharge rate is 1.35 TW, ~15x the long-term average. The largest monthly production is 140.55 TW, ~1.6x the long-term average.

  207. Quoting Brandon:

    > Clack et al. falsely claimed Jacobson provided maximum instantaneous discharge rates when he actually published long-term average production rates.

    No. Just no. In Jacobson's paper, the paper used the term "installed capacity", which is largely synonymous with "nameplate capacity" and "maximum possible instantaneous power output". This is what the terms mean. At least, any difference cannot explain the observed 16x discrepancy. Please see my post upthread of half a dozen citations. More will be incoming if you continue to misuse terms. Again, given that you haven't cited a portion of the paper to the contrary, I can only assume that the paper did not redefine terms so that "installed capacity" meant something other than normal. Therefore, you are wrong.

    Again, the simplest and most obvious interpretation of what happened is this: Jacobson used a severely deficient model of hydro which had a maximum capacity, but no maximum power output. This is a severe modeling error. After this error was pointed out by Clack et al, Jacobson invented an ad hoc excuse - and an incredibly pisspoor one at that - which involved increasing the water flow by 16x nameplate capacity for up to 13 hours at a time. This leaves us with the following options: 1- Jacobson doesn't realize how bad it would be to increase water flow by 16x for 13 hours for anything and everything downstream, and he incorrectly used the term "installed capacity" in the table, and he failed to note his massive increase in number of turbines, and he didn't model the extreme cost of doing so, or 2- Jacobson doesn't care and he's lying. Either option should be very bad for Jacobson, and both options are very good for Clack et al.

    The alternatives are even more absurd. I refuse to accept your silly interpretation of the paper where "installed capacity" means something other than normal, given the hydro capacity number in the table in Jacobson's paper so readily matches today's actual hydro capacity number, and given no indications in the paper that he meant something other than the typical meaning of "installed capacity".

  208. But Jacobson sent Clack an email informing him that he didn't know what he was talking about, so Clack should have been a gentleman and should have withdrawn his paper, based on a freaking BS email. And for this he gets sued for 10 Million$.

  209. Brandon has mentioned going to bars and he wouldn't do that if he was under age.

    I've been watching this stuff as an amateur since the early 1970's.

    Even then, I was writing letters to editors about articles screwing up kW vs. kWh.

  210. Don -

    It's more like it's haphazard, almost thoughtless.

    Of course there is an element of happenstance in her moderation - but that doesn't mean that obvious patterns don't come through nonetheless.

    Is it really possible that you exploited the biases in Judith's moderation for all that time without even knowing what you were doing? I suppose it might be - the world's a strange place. But Judith's moderation of your relentless streams of content free insults may well have been the prime example of that bias (irrespective of whether sometimes your insults were good ones, or on the relatively few occasions you stayed away from the insults you sometimes had some reasonable points)...that is until Steven started criticizing Judith. In the end, Steven going into moderation is probably the best example because you didn't go from darling little pet to bad boy like Steven did.

    It's so funny to me that Judith's "denizens" can convince themselves that she's the paragon of unbiased reasoning (and comment moderation). It means that they can actually convince themselves that their own similarity ideology and opinions on climate change is just coincidental to their conclusions. It's beautiful. Almost as amusing as Judith's ability to fully convince herself that her obvious partisanship on a whole range of issues is above partisanship. I don't think that Judith is one of those people who are highly partisan and just trying to hide it. I think that she really has convinced herself of her saintly status.

    Judith regularly applied double-standards to her moderation. Sometimes it was because deleting some comments met the desires of a larger % of the commentariat. Well, ok, that's justifiable - but it doesn't negate the reality of bias. And sometimes it was just because she doesn't like to have her reasoning criticized. That is also entirely justifiable. It's her blog, for god's sake, of course she has a right to, and is likely to have, a heavier delete button when she is reading comments that are critical of her thinking.

    As far as Judith being motivated by criticism, I guess you haven't noticed me being a little vicious with her when she does something really dumb. Like equating Mann and his suing with the Charley Hedbo terrorists.

    No, I noticed that. I commented on the interesting pattern at the time, and how it was funny to find myself on the same side of an issue and to see Judith's lame responses to your criticism of the same flavor as her lame responses to mine. But by that point you had built up a reservoir of good will by being a lapdog for so long previously. I guess she viewed it a bit like a good and well-trained dog taking a dump on the carpet once every three years or so.

  211. Brandon, it is not the long term average production rate, but the theoretical max/nameplate capacity when you ignore the instantaneous discharge changes.
    I gave the percentage of this long term average that is being produced under the Jacobson regime.

    I don't think it is reasonable to have 38, 68, 87, 78, 20, and 200 capacity factor for half the year, when overall is around 40, perhaps 50 with this regime, for six consecutive months and call it a series of stored discharges.
    And 2050 might be even higher capacities. What is the Jan 2050 hydro number?

  212. > the highest hourly discharge rate is 1.35 TW, ~15x the long-term average. The largest monthly production is 140.55 TW, ~1.6x the long-term average.

    If I wanted to be subtle, I would say it is not 'feasible' to have the highest monthly rate 100 times your highest hourly rate. I already showed 200% capacity factor above. This highest monthly production is ~220% of the 'long-term average'/'installed capacity'.

  213. MikeN:

    Brandon, it is not the long term average production rate, but the theoretical max/nameplate capacity when you ignore the instantaneous discharge changes.

    Yes, I have been leaving off the word "theoretical" and/or phrse "under ideal circumstances" when referring to the long-term average. I assumed everyone reading would understand what I meant as we've discussed it a number of times. If it'll help, I can add the qualifier in each time. I would like to find a less cumbersome way to refer to it though.

    I don't think it is reasonable to have 38, 68, 87, 78, 20, and 200 capacity factor for half the year, when overall is around 40, perhaps 50 with this regime, for six consecutive months and call it a series of stored discharges.

    If you have better/clearer terminology for anything we're discussing, I am happy to use it, but I don't see any benefit in using terminology which to a new reader would seem to say the same thing Clack et al. said.

    And 2050 might be even higher capacities. What is the Jan 2050 hydro number?

    I posted the 2050 values in a table above. Here's a list of capacity factors for the entire simulation, using 63.9 TWh instead of your 65 TWh to account for months with fewer than 31 days. Note, each month in this is not weighted by the number of days it has. They're each treated as having ~30.4 days:

    43.63%
    47.15%
    0.94%
    0.00%
    0.00%
    1.42%
    38.86%
    69.36%
    86.64%
    79.97%
    22.59%
    202.46%
    215.95%
    91.83%
    95.90%
    0.00%
    0.47%
    0.12%
    0.66%
    101.59%
    126.31%
    5.65%
    0.00%
    76.80%
    137.67%
    15.58%
    0.00%
    0.00%
    0.92%
    2.78%
    35.12%
    114.89%
    121.49%
    75.74%
    0.00%
    196.17%
    156.82%
    1.39%
    8.93%
    0.00%
    1.63%
    1.76%
    0.00%
    105.78%
    121.20%
    43.56%
    45.14%
    130.33%
    219.95%
    0.00%
    0.00%
    0.00%
    0.34%
    0.82%
    20.54%
    97.14%
    73.64%
    19.85%
    31.08%
    15.86%
    177.87%
    37.33%
    0.42%
    0.00%
    0.00%
    5.51%
    0.00%
    108.01%
    168.06%
    40.08%
    0.00%
    135.08%
  214. MikeN:

    If I wanted to be subtle, I would say it is not 'feasible' to have the highest monthly rate 100 times your highest hourly rate.

    This is too subtle to me. I would think it reasonable to have monthly rates be 100 times the highest hourly rate. There are 24 hours in a day, and even in the shortest month (February with 28 days) that's 672 hours. That wouldn't seem to make the monthly rate abnormally high.

    In the reverse, I can't see why this would suggest monthly rates are too low. I've seen production charts for things like wind turbines. The peak rate of a single hour compared to the peak rate of a month can easily get ratios like this.

    I already showed 200% capacity factor above. This highest monthly production is ~220% of the 'long-term average'/'installed capacity'.

    Yes, in this simulation, for one month facilities produce double the electricity listed in their nameplate capacity. I'm not sure what, if any, point you are trying to make by noting this.

  215. Quoting Brandon:

    > This is too subtle to me. I would think it reasonable to have monthly rates be 100 times the highest hourly rate. There are 24 hours in a day, and even in the shortest month (February with 28 days) that's 672 hours. That wouldn't seem to make the monthly rate abnormally high.

    Goddamnit. You're doing it again. You're confusing energy with power. Power is a rate. Energy is not.

    For example, consider your electricity pricing at your house. It's measured in US Dollars per unit of energy. It's a /rate/, aka one dimension over another dimension. If you have a rate of 1 US Dollar / unit of energy for the first hour, and the hour after that, and the hour after that, etc., then the rate for the whole month is still going to be priced at a rate equal to 1 US Dollar / unit of electricity. Sure, the total billing cost e.g. billing /total/ of the month will be higher than the billing cost of any one hour, but you're confusing billing cost e.g. billing /total/ with billing /rate/. The billing cost e.g. billing /total/ is a sum of the billing /rate/ over some period of time, e.g. (billing total) = (billing rate) (time).

    Going back from the analogy, if the power rate for the first hour is 1 watt, and it's also 1 watt for the second hour, and it's 1 watt for the third hour, etc., then the power rate for the whole month is also going to be 1 watt! Similarly, (energy total) = (power rate) (time).

    What you seem to be doing is considering the /energy/ of the first hour, and the /energy/ of the second hour, etc., and summing it up for the whole month. That will give you the /energy/ for the whole month, but that same sort of logic is just not applicable to the energy /rate/, e.g. the power, for the whole month.

    Have you seriously ever taken a single class of chemistry or physics in your life!?

    > Yes, in this simulation, for one month facilities produce double the electricity listed in their nameplate capacity. I'm not sure what, if any, point you are trying to make by noting this.

    It's like taking a 1 horsepower engine, and getting 2 horsepower out of it. Generally speaking, that's impossible. The reason that it's called a "1 horsepower engine" is that the maximum possible power output of the engine is "1 horsepower". Yes, there are often small discrepancies between "nameplate capacity" and "actual maximum possible power output", but in practice these are small, i.e. 10%. Generally speaking, you're not going to double it. You're definitely not going to 16 times it, like what happened in Jacobson's model for a period of 13 hours!

    Seemingly, you don't understand the complaint because seemingly you don't have a basic high school understanding of physics and chemistry, esp dimensional analysis, and the meaning of "joules", "watts", "seconds", "energy", and "power".

  216. EnlightenmentLiberal, I had been avoiding responding to you for the reasons expressed earlier in this thread, but your latest comment is too much to ignore. You say:

    Goddamnit. You're doing it again. You're confusing energy with power. Power is a rate. Energy is not.
    ...
    What you seem to be doing is considering the /energy/ of the first hour, and the /energy/ of the second hour, etc., and summing it up for the whole month. That will give you the /energy/ for the whole month, but that same sort of logic is just not applicable to the energy /rate/, e.g. the power, for the whole month.

    It's clear you haven't looked at the data in question, not even the excerpt I posted above. It's also clear you haven't read the discussion MikeN have been having about this data. If you had done either of those things, you'd know he and I are discussing a table showing the amount of electricity discharged in a given period of time (both a monthly series and an hourly series).

    That is, the data we have been discussing involves total amounts of energy. That's why the results are given in the form of TWh. It's also why the data file has a column for "Cumulative Hydro produced TWh" - because this data is intended to let one examine the total amounts of electricity being discharged.

    You've somehow managed to write a long-winded rant about how I don't know what I'm talking about because, without reading or examining anything, you decided I was talking about power, not energy. I think that shows I was right to stop responding to you before.

  217. Brandon, I thought it was obvious. If I said the maximum hourly speed of a space shuttle during its trip was 10000 MPH, and the maximum monthly speed was 20000 MPH, you don't see a
    contradiction?

    EL is right. You wrote TW instead of TWh. You can't just say it was a units mistake which I first assumed. This is because you compared it to 87 GW, and said it was 1.6 times as much. Not only is there a 1000x error that I missed, but it is two different things being compared by you energy produced vs power.

    > better/clearer terminology

    I think using nameplate capacity is better. It is not a long term average, which slipped me up.

    I misread the figure and wanted Jan 2055 rate which had the 1300 GW. Lower than I was expecting.

    Not only does Jan 2050 have 6 months running at 83% capacity, if you go forward, you have 9 consecutive months running at a little over 100% capacity. Assuming 0 for the other 3 months gets you to 75% capacity factor over a 12 month period, when the claim was that it never exceeds its annual limit. Instead it went to either 50% or 80%(depending on if it is 40% or 50% CF) more production than intended over a year that is not a calendar year. I wonder if there is a water supply reason that could make this possible, or if it is a modeling error.

  218. Wait, what? MikeN:

    Brandon, I thought it was obvious. If I said the maximum hourly speed of a space shuttle during its trip was 10000 MPH, and the maximum monthly speed was 20000 MPH, you don't see a contradiction?

    The values listed are electricity produced in that period of time. Since there are many hours in a month, it is not surprising more electricity would be produced in a month than in an hour. I thought this was clear as I said:

    Here is the data for the first 12 months in Jacobson's hydropower simulation (values in TWh, third column being cumulative):

    I could understand doubting my use of TWh meant this was energy since I am notoriously bad at units, but the third column I provided being cumulative should have made it indisputable. If you thought the values were given in TW instead of TWh, why didn't you complain that it is impossible to sum them like that column does? Why didn't you complain about the several remarks I made which wouldn't make sense if the data was what you apparently thought it was?

    To be clear, here is the cumulative monthly and hourly data plotted next to one another. The monthly data is simply the hourly data summed by month. There is no discrepancy. One may not believe the values are feasible, but there is no room to doubt they are in fact the same results, just given on different time scales.

  219. Brandon, from National Review.

    After talking to Clack, I e-mailed Jacobson asking if he is, in fact, planning litigation. He replied: “I have no comment except to say that any email you have obtained from a third party that has my words on it is copyrighted, and your printing any email of mine would be done without my permission and would be considered a copyright infringement.”

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449567/mark-jacobson-climate-change-energy-policy-jacobson-tells-his-critics-hes-hired

    Remember the University of Quensland? The exhibits you posted here contain these emails. Are you now in Jacobson's pocket?

  220. Quoting Brandon

    > If you had done either of those things, you'd know he and I are discussing a table showing the amount of electricity discharged in a given period of time (both a monthly series and an hourly series).

    I have been reading. I'll repeat what MikeN said: In the immediate context, you used "TW", a unit of power, not energy. Similarly, you used the word "rate", and "rate' can only refer to power, not energy. There is no context that can remove the error from this quote: "I would think it reasonable to have monthly rates be 100 times the highest hourly rate."

    Again, to use the analogy, that is like saying that billing rate, the price per joule of electricity, at your house is 1 USD / joule for any one hour, but billing rate is 100 USD / joule for the month. It's nonsensical on its face. If you do not understand how this is nonsensical on its face, you don't understand anything about this conversation.

    You're consistently making these mistakes, which has convinced me that you don't know what you're talking about and you're just BSing.

    From someone who has a basic high school education in chemistry, physics, and calculus (the math of change and rates), please, recognize your own lack of proper education, and just stop. If you want to take part in these discussions, please stop at a place like Khan Academy and take a refresher on basic physics and esp. dimensional analysis. A refresher on basic calculus and derivatives should be good too to clear up what seems to me to be fundamental mistakes regarding quantities and the rate of change of those quantities.

    PS: You can have a time series of power, and of energy.

    PPS: I actually have more than a mere high school background in these areas, but a mere high school background should be more than enough for this conversation.

  221. MikeN, you edited your comment after I first saw it so I missed this:

    I misread the figure and wanted Jan 2055 rate which had the 1300 GW. Lower than I was expecting.

    The Jan 2055 amount was 113.66 TWh.

    Not only does Jan 2050 have 6 months running at 83% capacity, if you go forward, you have 9 consecutive months running at about 100% capacity.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "Jan 2050 have 6 months running at 83% capacity," I assume there is some sort of typo as a month can't have 6 months. I also cannot find any sequence of "9 consecutive months running at about 100% capacity."

  222. Canman:

    Remember the University of Quensland? The exhibits you posted here contain these emails. Are you now in Jacobson's pocket?

    That's pretty funny. I assume Jacobson wrote that without having received advice from any lawyer. No competent lawyer would advise a response like that, and it sounds like the sort of kneejerk response a person might give when hearing about someone publishing their communication.

    But no, I am not in his pocket. Or anyone else's. People are surprisingly stingy.

  223. Have you seriously ever taken a single class of chemistry or physics in your life!?

    He has been repeatedly questioned on this, and failed to answer.  By now it is obvious that he has not.

    Basic statements like "the annual electric energy consumption of the USA is approximately 4000 TWh" are not comprehensible to him, because he can't do unit analysis.  I'm sure if we questioned him on moles vs. grams he'd be similarly uncomprehending.

    There's nothing shameful about starting in ignorance, Brandon.  We all do.  The shame is in staying that way.

  224. To Brandon

    Well, at least we agree that the copyright threat is probably bunk. However, I would be worried about wiretapping law; one might face wiretapping law violations if one publishes a private email communication. I'd have to do a quick google to have more confidence, but some US states have silly laws like this. Jacobson cannot even legally intimidate correctly. ~sigh~

  225. Brandon, I specifically quoted your error, and figured out where you had messed up. I didn't spell it out because I thought it was obvious. I wasn't disputing your table just:

    >> the highest hourly discharge rate is 1.35 TW, ~15x the long-term average. The largest monthly production is 140.55 TW, ~1.6x the long-term average.

    >If I wanted to be subtle, I would say it is not 'feasible' to have the highest monthly rate 100 times your highest hourly rate. I already showed 200% capacity factor above. This highest monthly production is ~220% of the 'long-term average'/'installed capacity'.

    Did you get 1.6x by ~dividing 140.55 by 87.5(I'm guessing 140 by 90)? You missed TW vs GW. Monthly production is as you say TWh not TW. 220% would come from dividing 1600 by 720 hours.

    So figure out power vs energy, and try to calculate without reading anything what the nameplate capacity(long term average) of production for a month is.

    Take the last 6 months of 2050 and the first 3 months of 2051. Dump the units and just add up the percentages.
    I think Jacobson has to come up with a reason why every running 12 months doesn't have to fit within his annual production limit, which is I think 52.5%, something at least as feasible as his upgrades to hydropower dams.

  226. EnlightenmentLiberal, please don't make things up. You say:

    I have been reading. I'll repeat what MikeN said: In the immediate context, you used "TW", a unit of power, not energy. Similarly, you used the word "rate", and "rate' can only refer to power, not energy. There is no context that can remove the error from this quote: "I would think it reasonable to have monthly rates be 100 times the highest hourly rate."

    The "immediate context" of the table was this introduction to it:

    Here is the data for the first 12 months in Jacobson's hydropower simulation (values in TWh, third column being cumulative):

    Which explicitly states the values are listed in TWh. In one later comment, I typo'd and wrote "TW" and "TW" instead of "TW" and "TWh," but that was only after I had clearly established what the values in the table were.

    Additionally, nowhere in that comment did I say anything about "rates" in relation to the table. (The word only shows up in a remark about Jacobson having falsely claimed certain values to be maximum discharge rates.) The next time I referred to rates was several comments later, when I referred to the possibility of "Canadian production rates" possibly having been included in the installed capacity value. I only referred to rates in regard to this table when I started saying things like:

    Oh, you're using "production" for both long-term average production rate and the monthly summed instantaneous discharge rate? It would be easy for someone who hasn't been following along to get confused by that since Clack et al. falsely claimed Jacobson provided maximum instantaneous discharge rates when he actually published long-term average production rates. I think it might help if we use clearer terminology. Any thoughts on what terms would be clear and easy to use?

    Which clearly refers to the monthly values as being sums of the instantaneous discharges and was followed with a request for suggestions for terminology which might be clearer. It was only after this, when MikeN wrote:

    If I wanted to be subtle, I would say it is not 'feasible' to have the highest monthly rate 100 times your highest hourly rate. I already showed 200% capacity factor above. This highest monthly production is ~220% of the 'long-term average'/'installed capacity'.

    That I decided to adopt his terminology, for my comment responding to him:

    This is too subtle to me. I would think it reasonable to have monthly rates be 100 times the highest hourly rate. There are 24 hours in a day, and even in the shortest month (February with 28 days) that's 672 hours. That wouldn't seem to make the monthly rate abnormally high.

    That is the only time I used "rate" like you claim. I used it only in response to MikeN using it the exact same way, and I did so only after asking him for suggestions on how to improve the terminology I was using to make things clearer. I don't see you lambasting him for using it. If you want to rant about the usage of the word "rate" here, you should be lambasting MikeN for responding to my description of things with accurate terminology by describing them with inaccurate terminology.

    My policy is if a user has preferred terminology, I will try to use that as I think that should help them understand what I mean better than if I try to force them to switch to using my terminology. Alternatively, I will try to ask if we can come up with some shared terminology so we can be on the same page. I don't think that's a bad thing, even if it does mean sometimes I'll use terminology I know isn't necessarily clear or correct.

  227. EL has it right, you have it wrong. The immediate context is what I quote above. The table has nothing to do with it.

    Do you see the error in the spaceship example or not?

  228. MikeN:

    Brandon, I specifically quoted your error, and figured out where you had messed up. I didn't spell it out because I thought it was obvious.

    I think it'd be best if people didn't avoid saying things they think just because they believe them to be "obvious." It's incredible how often something which is "obvious" to one person is not "obvious" to another.

    Did you get 1.6x by ~dividing 140.55 by 87.5(I'm guessing 140 by 90)? You missed TW vs GW. Monthly production is as you say TWh not TW. 220% would come from dividing 1600 by 720 hours.

    Yup, I copied the wrong value when doing the calculations to get the ratio. I didn't even notice I had typed 1.6x there. I had meant to copy 65,100 and divide that by 140.55, getting a ratio of .44x. Instead, I copied the wrong number. I didn't even notice that since I knew what I had meant to post.

    Take the last 6 months of 2050 and the first 3 months of 2051. Dump the units and just add up the percentages.
    I think Jacobson has to come up with a reason why every running 12 months doesn't have to fit within his annual production limit, which is I think 52.5%, something at least as feasible as his upgrades to hydropower dams.

    Using the values in the table I showed above, I get a capacity factor of 75% for the 12 month period you refer to. I don't see why you think this is a problem though. Jacobson did not list anything as an "annual production limit." He listed annual production rates which in turn let us come up with annual production amounts.

    The fact one year reservoir levels would be allowed to drop lower than normal doesn't seem something which needs much explanation. What do you think would happen if one year they only needed to use enough water to reach a 45% capacity factor? Do you think the excess water would not be used to increase the capacity factor for another year? Unless there are storage limits or hard limits on how much electricity the facilities can produce, I'd say no.

  229. MikeN:

    EL has it right, you have it wrong. The immediate context is what I quote above. The table has nothing to do with it.

    I agree he has it right. The problem was I assumed you two were referring to the actual data I was discussing rather than just making a "subtle" jab at me posting the wrong value. Since neither of you bothered to directly state what your point was, I failed to grasp it.

    I don't know what nobody bothered to quote the "1.6x" value in their comments. I'm sure some people will make a big fuss about how this one error in math proves I know nothing, but the reality is I slipped up in doing a calculation for the fifth time when I went to include its result in a comment. It happens. The best way to handle that is to say something like, "Are you sure the X value you list is correct?" If I had gotten that response, I'd have immediately realized my error and corrected it.

    I've typed up over 200 values in regard to calculations on this paper. This is the first time I made a numerical mistake. Surely it could have been dealt with with less fuss. All it would have taken is for people to directly point to what they thought needed to be fixed.

  230. >did not list anything as an "annual production limit." He listed annual production rates which in turn let us come up with annual production amounts.

    He said limited by its annual power supply. He is citing his LOADMATCH code and these tables as proof that he stuck to that. The 75% for a calendar year would be rejected by his model.

    >Do you think the excess water would not be used to increase the capacity factor for another year?

    Not according to Jacobson. 402TW is the limit. I have ignored the Canada issue in my calculations as well as the transmission as I don't understand them. I think my source for Canada came from the clarification Jacobson put on his website.

    >getting a ratio of .44x

    I hope that's another typo, but it looks like you don't get the units at all.

    Yea, I didn't get you were looking at the table. I don't think it was just a calculation error, but your confusion of power vs energy. It wasn't just that it was obvious, but the opportunity to let you learn the difference. I hope you at least caught that I was referring to a previous comment and saying it was impossible not just not feasible. I did refer to the 1.6 error at 4:01

  231. MikeN:

    He said limited by its annual power supply. He is citing his LOADMATCH code and these tables as proof that he stuck to that. The 75% for a calendar year would be rejected by his model.

    See, this is why I don't do a good job getting all the technical nuances right. I get so distracted, and sometimes annoyed, by dealing with things like this. Jacobson never cited his code as showing the facilities were ilmited to the nameplate capacity for a given year. Your claim that year's values would be "rejected by his model" is based on basically nothing, even if we accept your interpretation of, "Hydropower use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply."

    Heck, nameplate capacity isn't even a measure of annual power supply. If we decide to be literal and interpret that sentence as stating there is some hard cap on each year's production, then we have to be literal and put that cap at "annual power supply." That's not what you suggest though.

    But if we want to be completely literal, being "limited by" something isn't the same as being "limited to" it. My annual spending is limited by my annual income, but I can save money one year to spend it in another. Plus, you are insisting we combine data for separate years, meaning you're not even looking at calendar uears/ Hoorah for semantic parsings which, as far as anyone is saying, don't affect Jacobson's lawsuit in the slightest.

    >Do you think the excess water would not be used to increase the capacity factor for another year?

    Not according to Jacobson.

    I can't tell if this is meant as a double negative to say yes, it would be saved or an agreement the water would not be saved. If you mean the latter, you wrong. Jacobson never claimed energy would not be saved from one year to another.

    I hope that's another typo, but it looks like you don't get the units at all.

    It probably was (I think I gave the ratio of the ratio of the average to the amount instead of the amount to the average), but you know what? I just don't care. I'm all for discussions where people are exchanging ideas and information, but when people's remarks consist of little more than, "That's wrong!" or, "That's wrong you stupidhead!" I don't see what the point of the exchange is. I would do a better job of any analysis if I just ignored what people are saying as I'd be less distracted/annoyed.

    We've reached the point I don't even know what point people are trying to make other than saying, "Jacobson's work sucks!" Nothing anyone is saying seems to have any bearing on Jacobson's lawsuit. Nobody is attempting to prove Jacobson listed the values in the table shown in this post are maximum discharge rates. Nobody is attempting to prove Clack et al. did not falsely claim they were. Even if these results were complete bunk, that doesn't change that Clack et al. lied about them.

    I don't even know what the points of dispute are at this point. I'm going to try requesting people answer three questions to see if we can have a more productive discussion: 1) Who here disputes Clack et al. claimed the values in the table shown in this post were maximum discharge rates? My impression is nobody. 2) Who here disputes the values Jacobson listed were actually theoretical annual average production rates (i.e. under ideal circumstances)? My impression is EnlightendLibeeral does but nobody else does. 3) In regard to those two questions, what bearing do you think the points you're discussing have?

  232. Brandon Brandon
    You have been at this for a week and you have gotten exactly nowhere. This is a failed post. You should move on.

  233. EnlightenmentLiberal:

    Jacobson cannot even legally intimidate correctly. ~sigh~

    Jacobson has a lawyer-like mentality. There's probably no legal disadvantage to his implied copyright threat. He sent notices. He's prepared! He dots all his i's the crosses all his t's. Clack and PNAS don't appear to have taken them seriously. They look very unprepared. Jacobson is in his element!

  234. >Heck, nameplate capacity isn't even a measure of annual power supply. If we decide to be literal and interpret that sentence as stating there is some hard cap on each year's production, then we have to be literal and put that cap at "annual power supply."

    Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. It's why I think there's a problem if Jacobson is at 75% of nameplate capacity for a year. I think the annual hard cap is 52.5% of nameplate capacity.

    >Plus, you are insisting we combine data for separate years, meaning you're not even looking at calendar uears

    That's my point-that Jacobson had a limit for calendar years but not running years.

    >have a more productive discussion: 1)

    I'm still open to disputing 1 and 2. As to 3, what bearing does it have. Jacobson's lawsuit is not just that they lied about him, but that this lie causes him damage by making it look like he is bad at modeling. Well, if his model has a hard limit for calendar years but not consecutive 12 month periods, then I think this is a modeling error that makes him look bad.

    I'm not sure what point you think you are establishing by showing these data. Clack showed numbers that exceeded the nameplate capacity and said, 'this guy's wrong.' Jacobson cites his numbers and model as saying this shows I meant what I said.
    However, this assumes you believe him to begin with. Consider if Jacobson intended 87 GW as the instant max, messed up, made a modeling error and published the 1300 GW without noticing the error. Pointing to the code and output to say, see it is an instantaneous rate not an average rate, is not proof. It could just be a modeling error that Clack said you made.

    Now, I see a 12 month period that appears to violate the rules that Jacobson created, or at least a rule he should have created to be consistent with his hydropower regime. Again, perhaps there is something about hydro that would make this feasible, at least within the Jacobson universe. If not, then it lends weight to the possibility that he made up the story.

    To explain what I mean about the data not proving anything. Let's consider(I'll probably mess this up but hopefully it's close enough):

    Mann is accused of doing PCA wrong.
    I'm thinking Mann never intended to use a decentered mean.
    In response, if Mann had said, my method is right because I intended to subtract the mean of the target period, see my code shows it, that would not have proven anything more than the two sides are in agreement over what the code does. It would not have proven what his intent was.

    EDIT:I'm not sure this analogy illuminates.

    >Jacobson never claimed energy would not be saved from one year to another.

    It is saved, as water, but I think 'limited by its annual power supply' is a hard cap, and that this is what Jacobson is claiming. I will see if I can find the quotes. 402 TWh is a key number here.

    Before it was 12 hours at a time, for several days, meaning the weekly number was very high. Now Jacobson has produced twice as much as nameplate capacity for two months at a time. At some point this is not temporary peaking but an increase in capacity.

  235. So I decided to try to clear my head and start fresh free of annoyance. When I did, I realized the recent dispute is stranger than I had thought. Here is what I said which started it all:

    From the looks of things, the highest hourly discharge rate is 1.35 TW, ~15x the long-term average. The largest monthly production is 140.55 TW, ~1.6x the long-term average.

    The second TW should have been TWh instead of TW, but the first TW is correct as it involves hourly rates. The numbers are reasonably close as well. If the annual ideal production rate is 87.48 GW, then the 1.35 TW is ~15x it (1,350 / 87.48). The ideal annual proudction amount would be:

    87.48 GW * 24 hours * 365 days = 766,324.8 GWh or ~766 GWh a year. If we treat each month as having the same number of days and ignore leap years, this means the ideal average amount of electricity produced each month is ~64 TWh (766/12). The largest monthly discharge is listed as being 140.5 TWh, which is ~2.2x (140.5 / 64) the ideal monthly production value. That's not the 1.6x I listed, but while I made a small mathematical error somewhere, the difference shouldn't change anything.

    MikeN responded:

    If I wanted to be subtle, I would say it is not 'feasible' to have the highest monthly rate 100 times your highest hourly rate. I already showed 200% capacity factor above. This highest monthly production is ~220% of the 'long-term average'/'installed capacity'.

    Here, he got the correct ratio, but since he failed to highlight the discrepancy between his 220% and my 1.6x ratio, I failed to notice3 it. Additionally, MikeN introduced the idea of these values being "rate[s]." I didn't think anything of that. I assumed he was using "rates" to refer to the same things I was referring to. Since he chose to use the word "rate," I rolled with it and wrote:

    This is too subtle to me. I would think it reasonable to have monthly rates be 100 times the highest hourly rate. There are 24 hours in a day, and even in the shortest month (February with 28 days) that's 672 hours. That wouldn't seem to make the monthly rate abnormally high.

    But I also made sure to clarify:

    Yes, in this simulation, for one month facilities produce double the electricity listed in their nameplate capacity. I'm not sure what, if any, point you are trying to make by noting this.

    To make sure it was clear we were discussing total amounts of electricity produced, not the power output. EnlightenedLiberal then went on his rant, beginning:

    Goddamnit. You're doing it again. You're confusing energy with power. Power is a rate. Energy is not.

    I disputed that claim as I had been discussing energy, not power. MikeN then chimed in to say EnlightenedLiberal was correct, I was wrong and:

    Brandon, I thought it was obvious. If I said the maximum hourly speed of a space shuttle during its trip was 10000 MPH, and the maximum monthly speed was 20000 MPH, you don't see a
    contradiction?

    I didn't understand this as we had been discussing energy, not power. As such, I responded:

    The values listed are electricity produced in that period of time. Since there are many hours in a month, it is not surprising more electricity would be produced in a month than in an hour. I thought this was clear...
    I could understand doubting my use of TWh meant this was energy since I am notoriously bad at units, but the third column I provided being cumulative should have made it indisputable. If you thought the values were given in TW instead of TWh, why didn't you complain that it is impossible to sum them like that column does?

    Originally, I ignored the spaceship example because it was about things I hadn't discussed. MikeN has since followed it up with:

    EL has it right, you have it wrong. The immediate context is what I quote above. The table has nothing to do with it.

    Do you see the error in the spaceship example or not?

    But the simple reality is the only reason there is any error in his spaceship example is he created an analogy where "the maximum hourly speed of a space shuttle during its trip was 10000 MPH, and the maximum monthly speed was 20000 MPH." Obviously, the maximum monthly speed of a vessel cannot exceed its maximum hourly speed (though with velocities, it could due to negatives).

    However, that has no bearing on anything I wrote. I said the highest monthly production value was "~1.6x the long-term average." The correct value was 2.2x, not 1.6x, but "2.2x the long-term average" (referring to ideal circumstances) is not 2.2x the highest hourly rate. While I have no problem seeing the "error" in MikeN's spaceship example, I am completely lost as to what that's supposed to have to do with anything I've written.

    The last couple comments I wrote before this one were a low point as I was frustrated, and as a result, they were of low-quality. I managed to let myself get convinced I screwed up things terribly. In reality, my two errors were typing "TW" instead of "TWh" in one spot and saying 1.6x instead of 2.2x in another spot. Those seem minor compared to offering examples like the spaceship one which tell us nothing about anything I wrote.

  236. But if we want to be completely literal, being "limited by" something isn't the same as being "limited to" it. My annual spending is limited by my annual income, but I can save money one year to spend it in another.

    What, are you crazy?  Some things are difficult or impossible to store, and storing more than a few hours of electricity rapidly becomes prohibitive.  Hydro dams are limited by their reservoirs (total capacity) as well as their turbines (maximum output) and both minimum and maximum levels of river flow.  Hydro is limited by rainfall to only about 6% of US electric generation, so Jacobson's insistence that output can be scaled up radically is not believeable.  Your confusion of hydro with pumped hydro storage (two technologies which are not combined) doesn't help.  The nameplate capacity of all PHS units in the USA is 13,612 MW, and the typical reservoir capacity for these units allows this output to be maintained for perhaps 8-20 hours.  This is about 0.3% of average grid load and can be maintained for less than a day.

    You seem to have the idea that sun and wind can be "banked" for later use.  The former is called "firewood" and is about 0.5% efficient, and the latter is currently impossible.  There's a reason people started using coal, and then oil and natural gas; they were already "banked" and could be tapped at need, not just when nature decided to provide them.

    We've reached the point I don't even know what point people are trying to make other than saying, "Jacobson's work sucks!"

    Some of us have been saying that it's obviously wrong (i.e. sucks) since we heard of it.  Obviously wrong, not to be taken seriously.

    Nothing anyone is saying seems to have any bearing on Jacobson's lawsuit.

    It is without merit and Jacobson's counsel should be sanctioned for filing it.

    Nobody is attempting to prove Clack et al. did not falsely claim they were. Even if these results were complete bunk, that doesn't change that Clack et al. lied about them.

    Your inability to understand doesn't make Clack a liar, it makes you an ignoramus.  We've been trying to explain to you those things you don't understand, but your ignorance and apparent worship of Jacobson and his Green fantasy prevent you from making the effort.

    Are you a Green, Brandon?  Member of Greenpeace, FoE or the like?

  237. MikeN:

    That's my point-that Jacobson had a limit for calendar years but not running years.

    You have no basis for making this claim except for how you read the paper. I am sure the code for the model would show your claim false. Part of why I am sure of this is the table of capacity factors I provided above shows three years where 52.5% was exceeded.

    I'm still open to disputing 1 and 2.

    You're still open to disputing the claim Clack et al. said Jacobson provided those values as the maximum output from hydroelectric facilities? Huh.

    I'm not sure what point you think you are establishing by showing these data. Clack showed numbers that exceeded the nameplate capacity and said, 'this guy's wrong.'

    Actually, what Clack et al. did was show numbers and say Jacobson's numbers showed they were the "maximum output from hydroelectric facilities."

    Now, I see a 12 month period that appears to violate the rules that Jacobson created, or at least a rule he should have created to be consistent with his hydropower regime. Again, perhaps there is something about hydro that would make this feasible, at least within the Jacobson universe. If not, then it lends weight to the possibility that he made up the story.

    You seem to be forgetting I already provided the reason you say may exist.

    Mann is accused of doing PCA wrong.
    I'm thinking Mann never intended to use a decentered mean.
    In response, if Mann had said, my method is right because I intended to subtract the mean of the target period, see my code shows it, that would not have proven anything more than the two sides are in agreement over what the code does. It would not have proven what his intent was.

    In our current example, the dispute is over what Jacobson said and what his model actually did. It is not about his intent. If Jacobson described his model correctly and what he said matched his data and results, then it simply doesn't matter if he intended to do something else. Heck, even in Mann's case, whether or not he intended to use non-standard PCA was never really an issue. His critics understood it was probably a mistake, but the issue was always about the fact it was non-standard PCA (and that it being non-standard had not been disclosed), not that Mann accidentally did something other than what he intended.

    It would not be energy that is saved, but water. Of course it is saved, but I think 'limited by its annual power supply' is a hard cap, and that this is what Jacobson is claiming. I will see if I can find the quotes. 402 TWh is a key number here.

    I have no idea why you interpret that phrase the way you did. I wouldn't have ever read that sentence that way. Then again, I also wouldn't dispute that energy is being saved when a dam holds back water. Water held in a reservoir before the dam contains potential energy due to its elevation and gravitational forces. By holding onto the water, the dam holds onto energy in the water.

    (Some kinetic energy is lost as the water hits the dam walls from the disruption of the flow of the water, but that is tiny in comparison to the energy stockpiled.)

  238. >While I have no problem seeing the "error" in MikeN's spaceship example, I am completely lost as to what that's supposed to have to do with anything I've written.

    Because you missed everything I wrote alongside it.

    I didn't know you had messed up the 1.6x, caught because I had already calculated 200%. So I figured you messed up power vs energy. The spaceship example was so you could see that it was a rate you were looking at. The intent was to show you listed the maximum monthly rate as higher(100X) the maximum hourly rate.

    Now consider if you had done the units correctly and calculated 1600x, you would have fixed it.

  239. To Brandon

    Again, it's really simple. Jacobson had a table with a column labeled "installed capacity", and a row "hydro: 87 GW". He had a model and sim where hydro produced 1300 GW for a 13 hour period - the same hydro that has an "installed capacity" of merely 87 GW. Given the first data point, the second data point is impossible.

    "Installed capacity" is a term of art that is a approximate measure of the maximum power output of the device. For solar, it is a rough measure of the maximum power output when under typical equatorial desert midday no-cloud sunlight. For wind, this is a rough measure of the maximum power output under ideal wind conditions. For hydro, this is rough measure of the maximum power under ideal conditions. For hydro, maximum power is determined by the model of turbines, the capacity of the turbines, the water height, and the shape and size of the water tunnels. You cannot save up water in order to get a higher rate later, because the equipment is hard-limited to a certain maximum rate. You cannot make the water go any faster, nor make the turbines spin any faster or harder.

    Your analogy to spending is irrelevant. You can spend at much money as you have. There is no physical limit on how fast you can spend money. However, for hydro, there is a hard and fast limit on how fast it can go. There is a hard and fast limit on the /rate/. This hard and fast limit is determined by the number and kind of turbines, and the reservoir water height (specifically the "head": the vertical distance from the top of the water in the reservoir to the turbines) which itself is limited by simply the height of the walls of the reservoir and the location of the turbines, plus a few other factors.

    Furthermore, if you spend money at 15 times your normal rate, you don't destroy every city downstream. Whereas, if you increase the rate of hydro to 15x current nameplate standards for half a day, you are going to flood and destroy everything downstream.

  240. MikeN:

    I didn't know you had messed up the 1.6x, caught because I had already calculated 200%. So I figured you messed up power vs energy. The spaceship example was so you could see that it was a rate you were looking at. The intent was to show you listed the maximum monthly rate as higher(100X) the maximum hourly rate.

    If your use of the words "rate" here is meant to indicate you're referring to power, you are simply wrong. The values I discussed were amounts of energy produced.

    In this simulation, the most energy produced in a single month was ~100x more than the most energy produced in a single hour. That's not remarkable. The shortest month has 672 hours in it. That faciliites might produce 100x as much electricity in 672 hours as they did in 1 hour is... well, to be expected.

  241. > 'this guy's wrong.'
    >
    >Actually, what Clack et al. did was show numbers and say Jacobson's numbers showed they were the "maximum output from hydroelectric facilities."

    That by itself would have no defamation case.

    >forgetting I already provided the reason you say may exist.

    I'm not sure where he started his simulation, but if it started at Jan 1 with a level of 0 with 52.5% water supply per month, then the reservoir is dry in Jan 2051. There had to be over 1-2 months supply stored to begin with.

    > If Jacobson described his model correctly and what he said matched his data and results, then it simply doesn't matter if he intended to do something else.

    Except he did not describe his model correctly. If he had clearly written about the hydropower changes, then it would be clear he intended 87 GW as -something that is not the instant max rate. He has a story consistent with his data and results. That doesn't mean his story is true.
    Clack called it a modeling error. The data and results are consistent with this modeling error. The Jacobson paper is also possibly consistent with this modeling error, or at least not inconsistent.

  242. EnlightenmentLiberal, thank you for making your position clear. according to you, facilities cannot have an instantaneous discharge rates far exceeding their "installed capacity," as a matter of definition.* Furthermore, based on your previous comments I believe it is fair to say you think it was appropriate for Clack et al. to say those "Installed capacity" values were maximum discharge rates even after Jacobson said otherwise.

    That makes it easy to show where we disagree. Namely, I disagree on both accounts. I do not agree nameplate capacity for hydropower facilities is, as you have claimed, defined over periods of time as short as 13 hours. I hold the listed nameplate capacity for such facilities is typically determined over a much longer period of time, typically one year. I also disagree with the idea that if Jacobson gave an erroneous description, Clack et al. would be free to ignore any direct communication they had informing them of the actual, intended meaning.

    I don't really care to have a discussion with you on this matter, but at least we understand what one another believe.

  243. > fact it was non-standard PCA (and that it being non-standard had not been disclosed), not that Mann accidentally did something other than what he intended.

    Yea, that's why I thought the example didn't work. Has Mann ever conceded this was an error?

  244. Let me see if I am following you, EL. You got a 600 hp whatever and it get's 1 mile to the gallon. You can hitch a 9000 gallon gas tank to it and it will still only get 1 mile to the gallon, if the auxiliary tank is weightless and creates zero drag. You should have explained this to Brandon a week ago.

  245. > I hold the listed nameplate capacity for such facilities is typically determined over a much longer period of time, typically one year.

    Based on what - wishful thinking? I showed you the calculations for calculating the maximum power output of Hoover dam. I showed how they broadly matched the nameplate capacity aka installed capacity numbers in the government spreadsheet. I showed that the total of those numbers for hydro in the government spreedsheat equals 78 GW.

    I cited several sources that say that Hoover dam's capacity factor is about IIRC 23%. I also cited several sources that the US hydro fleet typically has a capacity factor of 40% vs the 78 GW nameplate capacity, which flatly contradicts your position. A capacity factor of 40% for hydro means that nameplate capacity aka installed capacity cannot be measured by taking actual yearly energy output and dividing by 1 year. If you were right, then the capacity factor should be about 100%, and not 40%. Remember:

    (capacity factor) = (actual energy produced by the system over some period of time) / ((nameplate capacity) * (the period of time))

    where the period of time is typically a long period of time, and often 1 year.

    I also cited half a dozen sources talking about the general definitions of nameplate capacity, installed capacity, etc., and all of them uniformly deal with the maximum power output that can be achieved by the system over a /short/ period of time, usually hours, and at most a day. This is definitively true for solar and wind nameplate capacities. Why you think hydro is different is beyond me.

    This is just willful delusion at this point. Flagrant dishonesty - either to me, or to yourself. I again point you towards the name of this blog post: "lying is not okay".

    You are a liar. I don't know how much longer I will continue, given the relative lack of purpose for conversing with a liar.

  246. MikeN:

    I'm not sure where he started his simulation, but if it started at Jan 1 with a level of 0 with 52.5% water supply per month, then the reservoir is dry in Jan 2051. There had to be over 1-2 months supply stored to begin with.

    Why do you think a reservoir would have to be dry at the start of a simulation. Reservoirs aren't typically kept dry, so this would require assuming the model begins with less water at the vacilities than typically is present.

    Except he did not describe his model correctly. If he had clearly written about the hydropower changes, then it would be clear he intended 87 GW as -something that is not the instant max rate. He has a story consistent with his data and results. That doesn't mean his story is true.
    Clack called it a modeling error. The data and results are consistent with this modeling error. The Jacobson paper is also possibly consistent with this modeling error, or at least not inconsistent.

    Failing to note every detail in a clear manner does not mean you have failed to describe your work correctly. So far, nobody has shown any spot where Jacobson listed those values as maximum in a clear manner. The most anyone has said is they are "installed capacity" values and such values must be maximum values, though as seen with EnlightenmentLiberal, "installed capacity" is not actually a hard limit.

    Short of insisting "installed capacity" must necessarily be a hard limit, I don't see how anyone can claim Clack et al. were right in saying Jacobson provided values as a maximum discharge rate. That might be getting ahead of ourselves though as you say you are open to disputing the idea Clack et al. ever said that.

    Anyway, as I said before, I'm not really interested in discussing the scenario you suggest unless/until someone writes up a fuller argument for it. I will say one thing though, just because it amuses me. In Jacobson's simulation, hydropower produces only 2.6% of all electricity.

  247. > Anyway, as I said before, I'm not really interested in discussing the scenario you suggest unless/until someone writes up a fuller argument for it.

    I've already written it: Here is the full argument, again: Jacobson;s paper lists the installed capacity of hydro in his model as 87 GW. Jacobson's paper says that at one point during his sim, hydro produces 1300 GW for 13 hours. 1300 GW is substantially larger than 87 GW. Therefore, the model / sim has a severe error (permitting hydro to run well beyond the max power rating), or the description of the systems of the sim has a severe error (the table entry that describes hydro as having a max power rating of 87 GW).

  248. MikeN:

    Yea, that's why I thought the example didn't work. Has Mann ever conceded this was an error?

    Nope. According to him, it was intentional.

    EnlightenmentLiberal:

    You are a liar. I don't know how much longer I will continue, given the relative lack of purpose for conversing with a liar.

    At the point you start calling someone a liar, you should probably just stop talking to them. There's nothing to be gained from pursuing a discussion at that point. From the moment you call someone a liar, the credibility of everything you say hinges on people believing you about them being a liar. The accusation discredits everything you say in the eyes of anyone who doesn't believe the accused is in fact lying.

    If you want to keep posting, I suggest not responding to me and instead talking to other people to try to convince them you are right.

  249. >Failing to note every detail in a clear manner does not mean you have failed to describe your work correctly. So far, nobody has shown any spot where Jacobson listed those values as maximum in a clear manner. The most anyone has said is they are "installed capacity" values and such values must be maximum values, though as seen with EnlightenmentLiberal, "installed capacity" is not actually a hard limit.

    Not a hard limit, but also not meant to be exceeded by a factor of 10. I think even 200GW would be considered inconsistent.
    Installed capacity was the same as nameplate capacity. The plain reading of the paper is that Jacobson has described 87GW as close to the max value. There are some footnotes that suggest other things, but not clearly so. Really, Jacobson has failed to describe his work correctly if the only mention of an increase in production at hydropower facilities is that it varies.

    Some questions for you Brandon:
    1) What is the meaning of "Hydro power use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply."? What is the limit?
    2) Do you dispute that the meaning of Clack's tweet is that he believes Jacobson made a mistake? I can't come up with a meaning other than he doesn't believe Jacobson's story.
    3) If the amount of rainfall in the US increased by a factor of 10, would the nameplate capacity of any hydroelectric facilities change(no upgrades in response to the rainfall)?

  250. EL, have you looked at the similar dispute that Jacobson says Clack lied about the loads and treated average numbers as maximum values?

  251. Brandon, Exhibit 4, Jacobson writes to Clack:
    50 state plans is ~46.67 GW(multiply by 8760 to obtain annually averaged energy we used as a constraint)

    says 53.3% instead of 52.5%. I did miss that the annual numbers do exceed this though.
    It is also False Claim #16 in Exhibit 8.

  252. Josh and Don, The whining about Judith's moderation is a waste of space and time. Many other blogs you like a lot are worse. Your issue Josh is lengthy dissertations virtually free of real or interesting content. Searching for minor and strained inconsistencies in others is not interesting.

    The Mosher issue is one where Judith is probably justified in moderating him. He produced a string of hostile comments trying to tell Judith what truth and justice demanded she do. Arrogant and uncalled for.

  253. Namely, I disagree on both accounts. I do not agree nameplate capacity for hydropower facilities is, as you have claimed, defined over periods of time as short as 13 hours. I hold the listed nameplate capacity for such facilities is typically determined over a much longer period of time, typically one year.

    Thus identifying you as an idiot.

    The nameplate capacity is the rated maximum INSTANTANEOUS power.  Some units have a distinction between continuous and surge capacity; the latter seldom exceeds the former by more than 25%.  There are different mechanical and thermal limits; you can often exceed continuous thermal limits by a designated margin for a set period of time, but after that you must back off to the continuous limit to allow the machine to cool.  TANSTAAFL.

    If you have no grasp of this, you have no business opining about it.  Your opinion is worthless.

    Why do you think a reservoir would have to be dry at the start of a simulation. Reservoirs aren't typically kept dry

    Are you brainless?  If the reservoir does not start and end at the same state of fill, stored energy has been gained or lost.  If it is emptier at the end, you cannot re-play the simulation from the end-state of the last run and have the same "successful" results.  If you go from 52.5% to 0, you are in rolling-blackout mode for the next year of the model iteration.

    It's as grossly dishonest as you are.

    You are one of the liars.

  254. MikeN:

    Not a hard limit, but also not meant to be exceeded by a factor of 10. I think even 200GW would be considered inconsistent.
    Installed capacity was the same as nameplate capacity. The plain reading of the paper is that Jacobson has described 87GW as close to the max value.

    I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing about the phrase "installed capacity" in plain English which supports your conclusion. A person who hears the phrase isn't going to go, "Oh, so it's a value that's not quite the maximum the facility can produce instantaneously, but something close to it."

    1) What is the meaning of "Hydro power use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply."? What is the limit?

    The amount of electricity produced at any particular point in time by hydropower facilities varies, but it is ultimately limited by the amount of water flow available. An unstated aspect of this is hydropower facilities that use storage may store water for long enough periods of time that some water from one year may be used to make electricity in another the same awy a manufacturing plant may use unfinished product from the previous year rather than throwing it all out December 31st to start from scratch on January 1st. This was left unstated because it should be obvious to the reader facilities which use storage may use storage during the end/beginning of a year

    2) Do you dispute that the meaning of Clack's tweet is that he believes Jacobson made a mistake? I can't come up with a meaning other than he doesn't believe Jacobson's story.

    Assuming I have the right tweet in mind, I'm not sure why you think the tweet would indicate Jacobson doesn't believe the story. Calling an assumption a mistake doesn't indicate you doubt the assumption was made. It can just mean you think the assumption they made was a bad one. I'm not sure if this tweet helps clarify his position.

    Incidentally, I see around the same time as that tweet, Clack tweeted, "Installed capacity 1,300 GW when clearly stated is a maximum of 145 GW. That mistake leads to horrendous problems in the dispatch." I think Clack needs to revisit what it means for something to be "clearly stated." Then again, he also likes to use the fact there were 21 authors as an argument the paper is more credible, despite the fact 18 of them didn't contribute in any meaningful way (as determined by journals), a fact the journal ignored.

    3) If the amount of rainfall in the US increased by a factor of 10, would the nameplate capacity of any hydroelectric facilities change(no upgrades in response to the rainfall)?

    Disregarding the practical implications of that happening (e.g. it'd destroy a great deal of infrastructure) to focus on the point you're making, the answer isn't clear. Nameplate capacities are values that get estimated and written down. They typically don't get re-estimated based on changes like you describe.

    Now, if for some reason the estimates for the capacities were all reran, there might be some increases. Nameplate capacity is estimated by considering a variety of factors, one of which deals with the output of a stream flow analysis. If you increase that output, the nameplate capacity could increase. However, it would only do so if the facility had enough infrastructure to handle the additional flow.

    Put simply, it depends on your bottleneck. If a facility doesn't have the hardware to handle the amount of water it currently gets, then its hardware is the bottleneck and increasing flow won't help (or increase nameplate capacity). On the other hand, if a facility has more hardware than it needs to handle the current flow, increasing the flow will help (and increase nameplate capacity). I suspect more facilities fall in the former category than the latter, but I don't have any knowledge on that.

  255. MikeN:

    Brandon, Exhibit 4, Jacobson writes to Clack:
    50 state plans is ~46.67 GW(multiply by 8760 to obtain annually averaged energy we used as a constraint)

    says 53.3% instead of 52.5%. I did miss that the annual numbers do exceed this though.
    It is also False Claim #16 in Exhibit 8.

    Assuming that's correct and I understand it correctly, then they used ~409 TWh as the only constraint on the year itself, plus another constraint (as mentioned in the paper) on how much energy hydropower facilities could store. The 53.3% capacity factor is what you get if the constraint is met every year while the 52.5% is the capacity factor as actually got used.

    Back on the nameplate capacity issue, it might help if I provide a definition of the term as I understand it. This is a paraphrase of what I remember from past experiences, so try not to be too harsh on it, but the definition I'd give is:

    The capacity of a Facility continuously operated at maximum capacity without causing damage.

    With hydroelectric dams, if you run them continuously at maximum output, you're not going to be able to store up water. Because nameplate capacity does not account for intermittent power, it cannot set a cap on power when a facility uses storage like in hydroelectric dams. The result is there is no inherent restriction on facilities requiring them produce only at their nameplate capacity. In theory, a facility could operate as far above its nameplate capacity as it could store up energy. In practice, facilities aren't usually designed to allow large spikes in output.

  256. Well:

    Brandon:"At the point you start calling someone a liar, you should probably just stop talking to them. There's nothing to be gained from pursuing a discussion at that point. From the moment you call someone a liar, the credibility of everything you say hinges on people believing you about them being a liar. The accusation discredits everything you say in the eyes of anyone who doesn't believe the accused is in fact lying."

    Joshie would call that ironic. He calls everything ironic. It is actually hypocrisy. The purpose of this post is to champion a clown who is suing a group of respected scientists and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences for allegedly lying about his dumb paper. And Brandon chimes in and accuses them of lying. It's right at the top. He said he can't see any other conclusion. Maybe now he will claim his accusation of lying was a typo, or he was in a hurry and didn't think it through. Oops! "The accusation discredits everything you say in the eyes of anyone who doesn't believe the accused is in fact lying." You should apologize for this foolishness and move on, Brandon.

  257. To Brandon

    I'll be posting here, correcting your nonsense and calling you out on your shenanigans, until such time that you stop saying nonsense, or until such time that you ban me. I will consider it a win if and when you ban me for correcting your nonsense and calling you out on your shenanigans. I have a terminal case of duty calls.

    https://xkcd.com/386/

    I will call a liar "a liar" as long as I damn well please.

    > There's nothing to be gained from pursuing a discussion at that point.

    What is to be gained? The audience who reads this blog. It's to show the audience that you're full of it, so at least hopefully someone else can be educated and properly informed. It's to minimize the damage that you are doing.

    > There is nothing about the phrase "installed capacity" in plain English which supports your conclusion.

    This is not a matter of plain English. This is a matter about technical English. This is a paper that was published to a technical journal. The phrase "installed capacity" is a term of art, just like "joule", "watt", "power", etc.

    > The amount of electricity produced at any particular point in time by hydropower facilities varies, but it is ultimately limited by the amount of water flow available.

    Ambiguously correct.

    The amount of energy that can be produced at any one time, over a short period of time (i.e. a day), is practically limited by amount of water in the reservoir, and the facility's nameplate capacity.

    The amount of power that can be produced at any one time is limited by the nameplate capacity of the facility, which itself is determined by the head (water height) and turbine capacity (e.g. nameplate capacity of the turbines) and several other factors.

    > I think Clack needs to revisit what it means for something to be "clearly stated."

    It is clearly stated. The technical meaning of "installed capacity" is well understood by everyone here except you.

    > [...]

    And again you wrongly describe the concept "nameplate capacity", despite the plethora of citations that I've already provided. Would it help if I provided another dozen links and quotes from the top hits on google? Would some other kind of source be more compelling? How about if I look up the data for another dam or two, and show that the max power output of the facility is roughly equal to the nameplate capacity, like I did for Hoover dam?

  258. >1) What is the meaning of "Hydro power use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply."? What is the limit?
    >
    >The amount of electricity produced at any particular point in time by hydropower facilities varies, but it is ultimately limited by the amount of water flow available.

    You and EL agree on this. Should Jacobson also have written that solar power varies and is limited by the amount of sun that is shining? The only explanation that makes sense is he intended an annual limit in hydropower.

    Here is Clack's reply to Jacobson's rebuttal.
    http://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ReplyResponse.pdf

  259. EL what is your answer to:

    3) If the amount of rainfall in the US increased by a factor of 10, would the nameplate capacity of any hydroelectric facilities change(no upgrades in response to the rainfall)?

    I intended it as a trap for Brandon, which you can probably see, but his response was in error.

  260. I'm sorry Brandon but you are so wrong. EL and others have tried to explain why and you continue to argue.
    I will give it a try and if this doesn't work I'll have no reason to take anything you write seriously.
    Like the lake behind a dam, the gas tank on a Honda Civic is a reservoir. The Civic's engine is capable of producing (say) 100 nameplate horsepower when there is one gallon remaining in the tank.
    You shut the car off at the service station, and add nine gallons.
    You are in effect insisting that when you pull back onto the road your Civic will be able to go from 0 to 60 mph in about three seconds because now the engine should be able to generate 1000 hp. As if the only constraint on how much power a Civic engine can produce is determined by the size of its fuel tank. Would you really want to bet you're right?
    Now if you have a fleet of a thousand Honda Civics with 100 hp engines, there is a ceiling on the maximum horsepower those engines can generate at any given moment. It has nothing to do with the size of their fuel tanks or how rapidly their tanks can be refilled. And the maximum is 100,000 hp, readily calculated by summing the nameplate values. Just like summing the nameplate values of the turbine-generator units at the Hoover Dam will yield approximately 2080 MW.
    And if some PhD develops a model that -- for some six minute interval or one-hour interval or even for just one second -- assumes that the fleet of a thousand 100-hp Civics will generate a million horsepower, or even 150,000 hp... well... I best not express any opinion because apparently there are lawyers out there that are willing to take his side and his money.

  261. Nick, you have not understood the issue. It is not that the gas tank is a limitation. Suppose someone had made modifications to the engine so that they increase the engine's performance, burning more fuel and capable of producing a turbo boost to 1000 hp.
    However, the engine is still rated 100 hp. EL is saying no go, this is not the definition of nameplate.

  262. > In theory, a facility could operate as far above its nameplate capacity as it could store up energy.

    Then why does Jacobson need more turbines?

  263. To Nick

    It's worse than that. Brandon now accepts these factual claims. We're now in an argument over definition, which is even worse. Brandon simply claims that the phrase "installed capacity" doesn't mean what it means. Arguments over definition are really the worst kind of argument. I say this as the president of my high school policy debate team. (Such arguments are known as "topicality" arguments in formal policy debate.)

    Concerning arguments over definition, the only recourse that one has is appeals to popularity, whether it's the popularity of the general population, or popularity in some community of experts. I have done a basic amount of providing citations regarding the usage in technical communities, but he still rejects the consensus meaning. At that point, Brandon is just being unreasonable, and there's nothing more to say in the argument. (I continue to post here for the benefit of other readers.)

  264. MikeN:

    Nick, you have not understood the issue. I

    Yeah. I find it strange to be told someone won't take anything I write seriously based upon something I've never said. It makes me doubt they were ever going to take anything I said seriously in the first place.

    > In theory, a facility could operate as far above its nameplate capacity as it could store up energy.

    Then why does Jacobson need more turbines?

    Is this for real? The very next line was:

    In practice, facilities aren't usually designed to allow large spikes in output.

    Facilities are not typically designed to do what Jacobson's model intends to do so they would need more turbines and such in order to be able to do it. Your question is nonsensical. The fact facilities with a given nameplate capacity can theoretically be designed to do something doesn't mean all facilities are magically capable of doing it just because.

    Since you are asking me some direct questions, let me try asking you one: In regard to your remarks like:

    I didn't know you had messed up the 1.6x, caught because I had already calculated 200%. So I figured you messed up power vs energy. The spaceship example was so you could see that it was a rate you were looking at. The intent was to show you listed the maximum monthly rate as higher(100X) the maximum hourly rate.

    Do you agree what I referred to was actually energy, not power, like has been claimed? I noted the maximum eneergy produced in a month is ~100x the maximum energy produced in an hour. Thus far, nobody seems to have acknowledged that is what I did. It'd be nice if people saying I'm wrong would accurately represent what I say that is supposedly wrong. So far, I'd say 80% of my supposed "errors" are things I didn't say.

  265. OUCH:

    MZJ 100% MOO study: If cows were spherical, we could easily shoot them from standard cannons.

    From the podcast, I concede Clack represented the installed capacities as max instant values. He is saying they published what they did to force Jacobson to publish his details about the hydropower that he left out of his paper.

    Brandon, how do you know that 1350 GW is the highest hourly rate? Clack is suggesting higher numbers are likely because the wind was operating at a high level in the chart.

    Do you concede that Jacobson is claiming max annual amount for hydropower in his model?
    If the answer is yes, then how to explain that 3 of the years are higher?

  266. EnlightenmentLiberal deleted a comment after I started a comment mentioning it it. Too bad. I think it was funny. It concluded:

    Why just say that magic ponies will run in treadmills. That's the level of quality of Jacobson's paper.

    And contained some exclamations like, "Jesus Christ" and, "Have they never heard of thermodynamics?!!" Apparently what Jacobson said "is outrageous beyond the Pale" and, "No one with any modicum of engineering should ever say anything so foolish."

    It makes one wonder, why didn't Clack et al. point out how horribly, stupidly, ignorant Jacobson's claim was? I mean, all they said was, the cited source " refers to the energetic efficiency, and assumes that all usable heat can be exploited." That's a far cry from the the rhetoric in the (sadly) now deleted comment.

    The reason I wanted to point that out is, issues of correctness aside, I think it's interesting to see people defending Clack et al. do so by making arguments Clack et al. wouldn't make.

  267. "If the capacity at all major hydropower facilities are assumed to expand by the same relative amount,
    the Grand Coulee Dam would have a new peak power rating of 101 GW – more than all hydropower
    in the US combined today, and 4.5 times larger than the largest power plant of any kind ever
    constructed (the Three Gorges Dam). The required flow rate through the upgraded Grand Coulee
    Dam at full power would regularly need to be 5.5 times higher than the largest flow rate of its part of
    the river ever recorded in history, which occurred on June 12, 1948, during an historic Columbia
    River flood period (US Bureau of Reclamations 2017). This flow rate corresponds to 13 times the
    average discharge rate of the entire Columbia river system, 9 times higher than the peak discharge
    rate ever in January (when the Jacobson et. al. system assumes 1300 GW of total output), and 3.5
    times the maximum spillway capacity of the Grand Coulee dam. One can only imagine the
    environmental impacts of the massive flooding of lands, towns and cities downstream of such
    reservoirs once water is released so rapidly."

    Jacobson is an idiot. He will drown half the folks in the country. And what about the snail darters?

  268. MikeN:

    From the podcast, I concede Clack represented the installed capacities as max instant values. He is saying they published what they did to force Jacobson to publish his details about the hydropower that he left out of his paper.

    I haven't listened to that yet, but it's good to hear we've reached an agreement on what Clack et al. said. If he really did give the reason you say for what he wrote, then he has basically admitted he lied. That'd create an interesting situation for Jacobson's lawsuit.

    Brandon, how do you know that 1350 GW is the highest hourly rate? Clack is suggesting higher numbers are likely because the wind was operating at a high level in the chart.

    The data Jacobson sent me shows the hourly data for the entire simulated period (six years). There's no other data where it could be higher. A run of the model over a different period of time might produce a different value, but as far as the values Jacobson actually got, 1.35 TW is without question the highest amount of energy produced in an hour.

    Do you concede that Jacobson is claiming max annual amount for hydropower in his model?
    If the answer is yes, then how to explain that 3 of the years are higher?

    I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by "is claiming max annual amount for hydropower in his model" so I can't answer.

  269. >Do you agree what I referred to was actually energy, not power, like has been claimed?
    I knew you were referring to energy from the beginning. I just didn't know you knew it, because your units were for power and you compared to a power number, 87 GW.

    >ed? I noted the maximum eneergy produced in a month is ~100x the maximum energy produced in an hour.

    Not exactly. You did not note 100x, I did. It could merely be figured out from what you wrote. What you reported for an hour was not energy, it was power. For one hour the numbers would be the same.

  270. The same as before, where I said he was limiting to 52.5% capacity factor in a year. Is he claiming a hard limit, based on your reading of the exhibits?

    Do you have the solar and wind power series as well?
    Clack thought 1350 would be exceeded because wind is running at 24% at the same time, and there will be lower numbers for solar+wind many times.

  271. >Calling an assumption a mistake doesn't indicate you doubt the assumption was made. It can just mean you think the assumption they made was a bad one.

    Clack's tweet is "It is a mistake. If was an assumption for review, would have been rejected straightaway. Also, all the evidence in the paper suggest mistake" I take this to mean it is a mistake and not an assumption. In other words, he doesn't believe Jacobson.

    >The plain reading of the paper is that Jacobson has described 87GW as close to the max value.
    >
    >I don't agree with this at all. There is nothing about the phrase "installed capacity" in plain English which supports your conclusion. A person who hears the phrase isn't going to go, "Oh, so it's a value that's not quite the maximum the facility can produce instantaneously, but something close to it."

    In an engineering paper, this is the meaning readers should take. Installed capacity is nameplate capacity= a value that's not quite the maximum the facility can produce instantaneously, but something close to it.

  272. To Brandon
    I retracted and requested-deletion for that post immediately, as soon as I realized my mistake. My apologies.

    I wish you would respond to the strongest arguments of your opponent, instead of cherry picking the weakest (and retracted) arguments.

    PS:
    Dredging it up from revision history, when I deleted it within minutes of posting it, and insinuating that I still hold to that argument, is quite disingenuous. That's quite poor-form.

  273. To Brandon
    Also, thank you for inadvertently satisfying my curiosity: It seems that you are in cahoots with Jacobson. That explains a great deal.

  274. Jacobson is an idiot.

    A very well-compensated idiot, whose propaganda is parroted as dogma while we strain to get patsies like Brandon to listen.  It looks like Precourt money speaks louder than honesty.

    Maybe going the academic route, challenging Jacobson as a fraud and asking his alma mater to revoke his degrees, might have some success.  I'm not in academia so this route is not open to me, but if there's sufficient outrage over Jacobson's suit perhaps some people in the relevant institutions can open such proceedings.

  275. Brandon: "I find it strange to be told someone won't take anything I write seriously based upon something I've never said."

    I have made a sincere effort to arrive at my conclusion based on everything you've said.

    Brandon: "It makes me doubt they were ever going to take anything I said seriously in the first place."

    Fair enough, that's your prerogative. I hope you understand that your conjectures about my state of mind is of no relevance to whether your analysis is coherent.

  276. EL: "To Brandon
    Also, thank you for inadvertently satisfying my curiosity: It seems that you are in cahoots with Jacobson. That explains a great deal."

    That may be a little harsh, EL. Surely Brandon has also been in cahoots with Clack to get his side of the story.

    EL:"I wish you would respond to the strongest arguments of your opponent, instead of cherry picking the weakest (and retracted) arguments.

    PS:
    Dredging it up from revision history, when I deleted it within minutes of posting it, and insinuating that I still hold to that argument, is quite disingenuous. That's quite poor-form."

    Not harsh enough, EL. Most folks would call it quite dishonest and rude and underhanded etc. etc. I hate to think how
    Brandon would go off, if someone did that to him. We would all need to scurry for the bomb shelters. Let's see if he has the good sense to apologize.

  277. A jury will understand this stuff:

    #5 Jacobson et. al claim
    "1,300 GW is correct, because turbines were assumed added to existing reservoirs to increase their
    peak instantaneous discharge rate without increasing their annual energy consumption, a solution not
    previously considered. Increasing peak instantaneous discharge rate was not a “modeling mistake”
    but an assumption consistent with [2]’s Table S.2, Footnote 4 and LOADMATCH, and written to
    Clack Feb. 29, 2016."

    #5 Response Clack
    "Nowhere in the 28 pages of main and supplemental material of the Jacobson et al. paper is there any
    mention or analysis of an expansion of hydropower. As confirmed above, the installed capacity of
    the hydroelectric system is stated as 87.48 GW."

    #6 Clack (partial)
    "The Robert Moses dam at the Niagara river (the 4th largest US hydro plant), once it is “upgraded”,
    would then be relied upon to occasionally deliver up to 36.43 GW (by then also far larger than the
    world’s largest-capacity power plant today). This would require a flow 6.3 times higher than the
    highest ever recorded flow rate of the entire Niagara river (recorded in May 1929), and about 18 times
    higher than its average total flow rate. To put it mildly, this project is hardly likely to be popular
    either with tourists, downstream and upstream residents or with the Canadians power plant operators
    drawing water from the same river.
    The same type of examples as those above can be made for essentially all other major hydropower
    facilities in the US. As has been shown, the hydropower capacity error is one of many in the Jacobson
    et al. study, but it is so large (and so obvious) that it by itself invalidates the entire effort."

    Jacobson paper forgot to mention that half the country would need to be flooded and existing dams would have to be magically fitted with a gazillion additional turbines and all the infrastructure needed to operate them and they forgot to mention the cost. Of course Jacobson could solve his problem by assuming something like the sun shining for 22 hours a day and/or that there is a constant 20 mile an hour wind blowing across the country. I guess he could get someone to help him with the math.

  278. MikeN:

    Not exactly. You did not note 100x, I did. It could merely be figured out from what you wrote. What you reported for an hour was not energy, it was power. For one hour the numbers would be the same.

    In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other.

    The same as before, where I said he was limiting to 52.5% capacity factor in a year. Is he claiming a hard limit, based on your reading of the exhibits?

    His response to Clack makes it sound like his model may have a hard limit on total energy produced by hydropower equal to a 53.3% capacity factor. I am not sure that is the correct interpretation of what he said though.

    Do you have the solar and wind power series as well?
    Clack thought 1350 would be exceeded because wind is running at 24% at the same time, and there will be lower numbers for solar+wind many times.

    I don't have the other data at the moment. Jacobson sent me the hydropower data unsolicited, which is why I have it. I plan on asking him for a copy of the other series as well as his model once I've finished familiarizing myself with what the papers amd responses say.

    As for that value, I can't speak to what might happen if the simulation were run under different circumstances, but the data (which Clack et al. didn't bother to attempt to obtain) clearly shows that value is the highest discharge rate.

    Clack's tweet is "It is a mistake. If was an assumption for review, would have been rejected straightaway. Also, all the evidence in the paper suggest mistake" I take this to mean it is a mistake and not an assumption. In other words, he doesn't believe Jacobson.

    Perhaps, the part, "If was an assumption for review" refers to the review process, which could mean he is just referring to the fact Jacobson did not clearly state the "assumption" in his paper. Listening to the podcast though, Clack seems to say he thinks Jacobson's story is false but isn't sure.

    In an engineering paper, this is the meaning readers should take. Installed capacity is nameplate capacity= a value that's not quite the maximum the facility can produce instantaneously, but something close to it.

    I don't think engineers will instinctively go with a wishy-washy definition as you suggest. I can't imagine any engineer would take the "plain reading" of something as being imprecise and impossible to calculate. I mean, nobody suggesting the definition you claim is correct has provided any indication as to how it would be calculated.

  279. Nick Werner:

    I have made a sincere effort to arrive at my conclusion based on everything you've said.

    While I accept it may have been a sincere effort, the effort failed. For whatever reason, your description of what I've said is nothing like anything I have actually said. MikeN's explanation of your misunderstanding is correct.

    Fair enough, that's your prerogative. I hope you understand that your conjectures about my state of mind is of no relevance to whether your analysis is coherent.

    Of course not. Unlike several others who are posting here, I try not to fill my comments with personal remarks. You told me you may not take anything I write seriously. While I find that unfortunate, I thought I should indicate to you why I wasn't going to be bothered by it. I don't think my lack of worry has any bearing on any disagreements. It's purely a social matter for understanding where each other is coming from.

  280. I think it's interesting EnlightenmentLiberal says:

    Dredging it up from revision history, when I deleted it within minutes of posting it, and insinuating that I still hold to that argument, is quite disingenuous. That's quite poor-form.

    I think this is funny. While being able to edit and/or delete your comments here is convenient, it does create some issues where people may see the unfinished version of your comment. I don't think commenting on something you saw before it got changed should be described as, "Dredging it up from revision history."

    But what's more interesting is how this guy completely missed the point. The point I was making was not that he "still hold[s] to that argument." In fact, I thought the opposite. I took it as a given him deleting his comment meant he didn't believe what he said on the issue he discussed was correct.

    But look at the rhetoric I quoted from his comment. It's as harsh as anything else he's written on this page. In fact, his rhetoric in that comment was harsher than most of the resto f his rhetoric on this page. I think it is relevant to note when a person who routinely uses harsh rhetoric chooses to use rather harsh rhetoric to insult people while being wrong.

    I think it remains relevant even if they realize their mistake then delete what they wrote after you've already read it. I don't think the fact someone deletes what they've written after you've seen it obliges you to not note relevant aspects of what they had written. I certainly don't think commenting on what you've seen but has since been deleted justifies remarks like:

    To Brandon
    Also, thank you for inadvertently satisfying my curiosity: It seems that you are in cahoots with Jacobson. That explains a great deal.

    I know Don Monfort has made a point of the lack of progress on this thread despite the number of comment/time spent, but look at the behavior of the people who are posting. Other than MikeN, I'm not sure anyone has been participating in a way that could ever result in progress.

    (On the technical matters. There have been several commenters who didn't focus on the Jacobson/Clack dispute who I'm not counting in this.)

  281. Maybe now he will claim his accusation of lying was a typo, or he was in a hurry and didn't think it through.

    Now, now, Don. Play nice. I'm sure that there have been some occasions when Brandon didn't justify errors in that manner.

  282. David -

    The Mosher issue is one where Judith is probably justified in moderating him. He produced a string of hostile comments trying to tell Judith what truth and justice demanded she do. Arrogant and uncalled for.

    It seems that you may have missed my point. Of course Judith is "justified" in moderating anyone she wants to, for any reason - including Steven for the reasons you mention. The interesting question, IMO, and the one I was speaking to was whether she applies standards evenly when she moderates commenters. Steven telling people what truth and justice demand is completely in line with his online persona since, well, forever as far as I can tell. His arrogance and egotism and claim to the one true version of reality didn't just appear as soon as he started disagreeing with Judith about climate science. But her moderation of him for having that kind of attitude did start happening (or at least escalated exponentially) when he started to express disagreement with her (i.e., his obnoxiousness was directed towards her and those who agree with her about climate change and disagree with him).

  283. Brandon -

    Other than MikeN, I'm not sure anyone has been participating in a way that could ever result in progress.

    Would that include you, or is it only others who are responsible for the lack of progress?

  284. >Dredging it up from revision history, when I deleted it within minutes of posting it, and insinuating that I still hold to that argument, is quite disingenuous. That's quite poor-form."
    >Not harsh enough, EL. Most folks would call it quite dishonest and rude and underhanded etc. etc.

    Normally I would agree but did I miss something? I don't see any arguments in what Brandon posted. Are you saying you no longer hold to the idea that Jacobson's work=
    "No one with any modicum of engineering should ever say anything so foolish."

    > For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other.

    NO

    I hadn't bothered to follow the discussion of nameplate with EL. Your comments are filled with such errors. Either learn it, or stop arguing about energy vs power.

    > Installed capacity is nameplate capacity= a value that's not quite the maximum the facility can produce instantaneously, but something close to it.
    >
    >I don't think engineers will instinctively go with a wishy-washy definition as you suggest.

    True. They will go with installed capacity is nameplate capacity = the theoretical max. The rest is just because it is possible to exceed nameplate so I wanted to be precise.

    >His response to Clack makes it sound like his model may have a hard limit on total energy produced by hydropower equal to a 53.3% capacity factor. I am not sure that is the correct interpretation of what he said though.

    You pointed out that this hard limit is ridiculous because 3 of the years exceed 52.5%. They also exceed 53.3%. So either there is a modeling error, or there is another interpretation.

    >Perhaps, the part, "If was an assumption for review" refers to the review process, which could mean he is just referring to the fact Jacobson did not clearly state the "assumption" in his paper.

    This is why I hate arguing from Twitter. But I would write that as 'if assumption was reviewed'.

  285. Clack is informed of hydropower increases in February 2016. Not just the major changes to hydropower installation, but the confusion over installed capacity, should have produced immediate clarification instead of just relying on the footnote. Jacobson doesn't issue his clarification until Nov 2017, 6 months after Clack's rebuttal paper, and 20+ months after being made aware of it. Clack doesn't bother
    responding to the e-mail issue except in vague terms because Jacobson was ducking a formal presentation. 'I hope there is another explanation' was a challenge- please put it in your response paper side by side with ours.

    >Clack seems to say he thinks Jacobson's story is false

    If he thinks it's false, is it a lie(vs wrong) to declare the numbers as instant max values?

  286. EL I hadn't thought about the issue of nameplate capacity that you were saying. I was thinking those numbers were actual production values, so 87 GW on average that peaks to 1300 GW. Having them listed as installed capacity makes a big difference.

  287. Joshua, I would hope you would be able to see how dumb Don Monfort's remark there is. I never said accusing a person of lying is wrong. I have accused people of lying before. When I do so, I try to first explore all the other plausible options (of course, trying doesn't necessarily mean I succeed).

    In this post, I suggested Clack et al. lied because I see no other explanation. I didn't state it as a fact, merely the conclusion I reach based upon the evidence I've seen. That's not too important though. I would understand if Clack took this post as a direct accusation of lying. He'd be wrong, but I wouldn't fault him for it.

    But again, I don't think accusing a person of lying is wrong. What I said is once you accuse a person of lying, there's little reason to keep talking to them. Also, you should expect onlookers to focus on your accusation of lying more than anything else. I'm perfectly fine with that applying here. I don't expect I'll ever talk to Clack, and quite frankly, I wish people would focus more on the accusation Clack lied than the mundane, technical details which have flooded this thread.

    I know I cannot prevent trolls from saying stupid things. My hope is onlookers won't be fooled by trolls. For instance, when Don Monfort says:

    Potential for getting 12 GW of power out of the 80,000 dams in the U.S. that do not have hydroelectric installations:

    https://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/npd_report.pdf

    We are edging closer to 1300 GW.

    My hope is onlookers will remember a central aspect of this discussion is that Jacobson claimed their 87.48 GW was a (theoretical) annual average while the 1,300 GW was an instantaneous discharge rate. If they do so, they may realize Monfort is referring to adding 12 GW to that annual average, not an instantaneous discharge rate. If they do, they'll realize his comment is either completely uninformed or completely disingenuous.

    Maybe they won't. Maybe onlookers will be fooled by stuff like that. I can't help that. The simple reality is if I took the time to respond to every nonsensical and misleading thing people say, I'd have no time to do anything else. There are dozens of remarks just as misleading as what Don Monfort wrote in these two examples. What good could come from responding to them? It's not like pointing one out would prevent the person from making more in the future.

  288. Joshua:

    Would that include you, or is it only others who are responsible for the lack of progress?

    I had intended that remark to refer to commenters other than myself, but I will admit my approach to disagreements with people like Don Monfort and EnlightenmentLiberal may well impede progress. Heck, maybe even my choice of moderation styles contributes to a lack of progress. I don't know. What I do know is if MikeN hadn't been commenting on this thread, I would have stopped commenting long ago. Whatever disagreements he and I may have on this topic, I don't feel like we waste our time talking to one another. I hope he doesn't either,

  289. MikeN:

    NO

    I hadn't bothered to follow the discussion of nameplate with EL. Your comments are filled with such errors. Either learn it, or stop arguing about energy vs power.

    I hope you'll understand why empty comments like this don't convince me of anything. If you had participated in this thread as someone with demonstrably more knowledge than me, I might be inclined to trust you and spend time based on that trust, but you've made plenty of errors yourself. I don't place you on any sort of pedestal deserving special treatment.

    True. They will go with installed capacity is nameplate capacity = the theoretical max. The rest is just because it is possible to exceed nameplate so I wanted to be precise.

    You're claiming engineers will take nameplate/installed capacity as indicating a theoretical maximum even as you acknowledge it is not a theoretical maximum. I am skeptical. I don't think engineers will be ignorant of the fact nameplate capacity can be exceeded. Perhaps it would help if you provided a definition for the term as you understand it? I've provided mine.

    You pointed out that this hard limit is ridiculous because 3 of the years exceed 52.5%. They also exceed 53.3%. So either there is a modeling error, or there is another interpretation.

    No, I didn't point out it is ridiculous. I pointed out it was exceeded to some extent in my (somewhat imprecise) calculations. I also said I believe Jacobson intended people to understand energy might be saved from one year to another. That's not saying the claim is ridiculous, as you attribute to me.

    This is why I hate arguing from Twitter. But I would write that as 'if assumption was reviewed'.

    Aye. I think your interpretation makes sense, but trying to judge a person's thoughts based on fewer than 140 characters seems risky. I try not to draw too many conclusions without fuller discussion. (Which is also why during Twitter disagreements I have often asked people to take the discussion off Twitter so we could express ourselves more fully.)

    Clack is informed of hydropower increases in February 2016. Not just the major changes to hydropower installation, but the confusion over installed capacity, should have produced immediate clarification instead of just relying on the footnote. Jacobson doesn't issue his clarification until Nov 2017, 6 months after Clack's rebuttal paper, and 20+ months after being made aware of it. Clack doesn't bother
    responding to the e-mail issue except in vague terms because Jacobson was ducking a formal presentation. 'I hope there is another explanation' was a challenge- please put it in your response paper side by side with ours.

    Under this scenario, Clack et al. knew they were misleading people, but they did so in order to force Jacobson to publicly reveal information. That helps Jacobson's argument. Jacobson accuses Clack et al. of lying. If their best defense is, "Yeah, we misled people, but that's okay because we were trying to X," all Jacobson's lawyer has to say is, "We say they lied. They admit they misled people. Whether or not one believes their reasons were justified, they lied."

    If he thinks it's false, is it a lie(vs wrong) to declare the numbers as instant max values?

    Yes. Clack's remarks during that podcast seem to indicate he suspects Jacobson made a mistake in his model which led to this happening rather than doing it intentionally due to a modeling assumption. That he suspects such does not mean he is allowed to simply ignore what Jacobson told him. Even if his suspicion is true, he doesn't know it to be true. Stating something as fact while knowing it is not a fact, but merely a suspicion, is lying.

    I suspect my neighbor committed murder. I tell a reporter I know for a fact my neighbor committed murder. That's a lie. The key is I said something was a fact when I don't actually believe it was a fact. That I believe it doesn't change the fact I intentionally overstated my case, which is lying. I understand this is a nuanced argument people might normally disregard, but when Clack et al's best defense amounts to, "We didn't lie, we merely misled readers by intentionally hiding the fact we had an alternative explanation," I think it's one people will happily embrace.

  290. Is Jacobson's complaint asking the courts to determine what is correct science?

    Well, looking through his complaint and putting aside the issue of whether Clack et al. maliciously lied about knowing about the hydro turbine buildout, I'd have to say the answer is ...

    Yes!

    He wants thirty some statements to be removed or corrected. He says they're false or misleading. He provides his "evidence" that they are false or misleading. They may indeed be factually false or misleading. I suspect they are just open to interpretation or that Clack et al. were just sloppy on details. But the court will have to determine if they are false and misleading. This is the courts determining whether claims in a scientific paper are true!

    I suspect this part of Jacobson's complaint will be thrown out -- and it should be!

  291. Canman:

    Is Jacobson's complaint asking the courts to determine what is correct science?

    Well, looking through his complaint and putting aside the issue of whether Clack et al. maliciously lied about knowing about the hydro turbine buildout, I'd have to say the answer is ...

    Yes!

    I disagree. I don't think Jacobson is asking the courts to judge the scientific disputes as a whole. I think he's asking the courts to judge whether or not Clack et al. lied on a few specific issues (remember, this post only covers one of several). The knock-on effect is if the court determines Clack et al. lied on those issues, the other claims Jacobson claim to be false will have to be retracted as well.

    Remember, jacobson's lawsuit doesn't ask for 30 statements to be removed. He cited 30 things when talking to the journal, but when he went to court, he only cited three. It's not an uncommon legal tactic. Instead of arguing every point, you pick a small number of points and argue those. If you win on them, the effect is you win on every point you might have wish to raise, including points you could never have won in a courtroom.

    That's what I find so baffling about Clack et al's behavior. Clack et al. could have avoided all this simply by choosing to be forthright. They could have easily said, "In person communication, Jacobson et al. say this apparent discrepancy is caused by X. X is implausible because..." They didn't. They intentionally pretended to be unaware of things and now act as though it is unreasonable for anyone to be unhappy with their dishonesty.

    Even the best defense of Clack et al. seems to rely upon acknowledging they intentionally misled readers. That seems crazy to me. How do people expect that defense to fly?

  292. Canman, I think Jacobson would have been better off with a smaller list of complaints. I don't know if it's part of his court case, but one of his list of false claims ha a rebuttal that says this is true.

    Brandon, instead of theoretical annual average you could just write nameplate capacity. That is what Jacobson was reporting with 'installed capacity'.
    According to Wikipedia:
    Nameplate capacity, also known as the rated capacity, nominal capacity, installed capacity, or maximum effect,...

    > allowed to simply ignore what Jacobson told him.

    He didn't ignore it. There is a response to it, that is unsourced because Jacobson never put it in a paper.

    >I suspect my neighbor committed murder. I tell a reporter I know for a fact my neighbor committed murder. That's a lie. The key is I said something was a fact when I don't actually believe it was a fact.

    He never said he knows Jacobson is lying, or that he suspects it. He said that Jacobson has a certain max value for hydropower in his paper. This is a fact despite Jacobson's statements to the contrary, because that is what 'installed capacity' means. Jacobson has, without conceding it is an error, given an explanation for this error to Clack, without correcting/clarifying the error in print. I think the analogy is he told the reporter his neighbor committed murder because he saw him coming home with blood on his shirt, a machete, and what looked like a severed head under his arm. His neighbor had explained all of this to him, but he doesn't believe the explanation.

  293. Brandon -

    Joshua, I would hope you would be able to see how dumb Don Monfort's remark there is.

    Trust me, I would never underestimate Don's ability to write dumb comments. He seems to specialize in that brand, actually, which is a shame because he can also write smart comments when he chooses to.

    I never said accusing a person of lying is wrong. I have accused people of lying before. When I do so, I try to first explore all the other plausible options (of course, trying doesn't necessarily mean I succeed).

    That said, I do think that you have an interesting approach to labeling lying. I have seen you call out people for conflating lying with disagreeing in a way that I think is often overlooked in the climate wars, but I think that (what I consider to be positive approach) stands in contrast to your willingness to call other people liars. I get that you're a smart guy, and therefore have reason to think that you can smart your way through finding the dividing line between subjectivity and objectivity (a line that is key to determining when someone is lying), but I think that the bar for determining when someone is lying is very high, and you need to have the kind of evidence that is very difficult to obtain indirectly, as (generally) through on-line channels when you lack direct person-to-person contact.

    In this post, I suggested Clack et al. lied because I see no other explanation. I didn't state it as a fact, merely the conclusion I reach based upon the evidence I've seen. That's not too important though. I would understand if Clack took this post as a direct accusation of lying. He'd be wrong, but I wouldn't fault him for it.

    Anyway, as I read what you wrote, I noticed that you were putting in the appropriate caveats.

    What I said is once you accuse a person of lying, there's little reason to keep talking to them.

    I agree completely. It's interesting to me how often people continue in these online exchanges after having established that there is nothing to really be gained out of the exchange. What explains that behavior? I think usually it's a kind of addiction, or dopamine rush, combined with other aspects that are rather similar to other situations where people willfully engage in fruitless behaviors.

    Also, you should expect onlookers to focus on your accusation of lying more than anything else. I'm perfectly fine with that applying here. I don't expect I'll ever talk to Clack, and quite frankly, I wish people would focus more on the accusation Clack lied than the mundane, technical details which have flooded this thread.

    I followed some of the more technical discussion towards the beginning of this thread, and kept finding that it seemed to be more or less consistently, completely irrelevant to the main point of your post. I said as much upstairs to David Young, with noting that MikeN's comments seemed to be the only exception. I don't usually associate your blog discourse style with patience, but I actually thought you were being pretty patient with people who were making some really inane comments - and I wasn't sure why you were doing so...especially since it seemed somewhat unusual to me.

    I know I cannot prevent trolls from saying stupid things. My hope is onlookers won't be fooled by trolls. For instance, when Don Monfort says:

    My sense from these kinds of threads is that onlookers will find exactly what they came looking for. People who had "motivation" to reject the main point of your post would find reasons to think that the stupid things being said weren't stupid.

    The simple reality is if I took the time to respond to every nonsensical and misleading thing people say, I'd have no time to do anything else.

    It's like a cat chasing it's tail, Brandon. There is no way that you can reach a reasonable exchange regarding difference in opinions with people who aren't engaging in good faith, or who are blind to their propensity to confirm biases. The hard you push, the harder they will push back. It just turns into a waste of time - with respect to reasoned exchange; it is possible, however, that you might develop the depth of yoru own understanding in the process, however. One thing that I learned as a teacher was that in exploring the ways that my students misunderstood things that seemed quite simple to me, I came to see important elements that I just took for granted. There was benefit to that. I don't mean to be condescending here, in that regard, as I can't really speak to simple concepts that folks in this thread missed. I don't have the technical understanding to do that. But I could see how they were mostly avoiding the point of your post, which was rather constrained.

    There are dozens of remarks just as misleading as what Don Monfort wrote in these two examples. What good could come from responding to them?

    Other than the dynamic I mention above? None, IMO.

    It's not like pointing one out would prevent the person from making more in the future.

    In this context (as opposed to a situation where people are engaging in good faith), I agree.

    I had intended that remark to refer to commenters other than myself,

    Right. I suspected as much, and was tweaking you accordingly.

    but I will admit my approach to disagreements with people like Don Monfort and EnlightenmentLiberal may well impede progress.

    Well, that was my point. You and I have discussed this basic issue before, IIRC. I mean I am quite sympathetic to the situation of this thread, to the extent that I can parse the technical convo - but I do think that you do things that exacerbate the problem. I am not suggesting that there is anything unique or unusual about that - but I am tweaking you about what I have found to be a resistance to examining your own participation for attributes that contribute to the problem. That's where that whole line of criticism of "that doesn't make sense" came from. Just take it for what it's worth. If you don't see any validity in my criticism, that's fine. But just keep it in the back of your mind, sometime, when you find yourself engaged in a fruitless exchange, and run it through the situation you have at hand to see if maybe you might find it applicable.

    Heck, maybe even my choice of moderation styles contributes to a lack of progress. I don't know.

    I don't see how that would be the case.

    What I do know is if MikeN hadn't been commenting on this thread, I would have stopped commenting long ago.

    Again, I bring up the interesting question of why people continue in these exchanges when on the surface, the seem fruitless. My assumption is that people get something out of it - but that could be similar as to how addicts get something out of continuing in addictive (and in that case, significantly self-destructive behaviors). I would posit the argument that if you do continue, then at some level you're getting something out of it. Then you might ask yourself what that might be.

    Whatever disagreements he and I may have on this topic, I don't feel like we waste our time talking to one another. I hope he doesn't either,

    That was my sense - which I expressed in the comments above. It was something that was pretty clear to me, even though I couldn't understand the technical arguments being made.

  294. > In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way.

    No.

    I'm still unsure of whether you're lying to me, or just deluding yourself. This might be the worst case of Dunning–Kruger that I've seen in a long time.

    Whatever you think you know, you don't. Forget everything that you think you know about this discussion, and go back to university right now, or go to Khan Academy right now, and (re)take courses on dimensional analysis, and also (re)take Calculus 1 and 2 (limits, derivatives, and integrals). You are completely unqualified to take part in this discussion.

    Do the following equations concerning free fall mean anything to you?

    y = ∫ v dt
    v = dy / dt = ∫ a dt
    a = dv / dt

    a = - g
    v = ∫ a dt = ∫ - g dt = - g t
    y = ∫ v dt = ∫ - g t dt = - (1/2) g t^2

    (Skipping integration constants)

    The position above the ground is "y". It's a function of time, "t".
    The (vertical) velocity is "v". It's also a function of time, "t".
    The (vertical) acceleration is "a". In this simple Newtonian model, it's constant.

    Velocity is the derivative of height (y).
    Acceleration is the derivative of velocity, and acceleration is the second derivative of height.

    Height is measured in units like meters.
    Velocity is measured in units like meters / seconds.
    Acceleration is measured in units like meters / (seconds seconds).

    Calculus allows you to determine the slope of a curved line at any point. There is no need to refer to "the slope of the line with a certain width w, i.e. within a window of 1 hour". That's not how calculus works.

    For example, for the curved line:
    y = - (1/2) g t^2
    We can calculate the /exact/ slope of this line at t = 1 second.
    The slope of this line at t = 1 is simply y'(1).
    y' = dy / dt = - g t = v
    y'(1) = (-g) (1 second) = -9.8 meters / seconds

    Again, I don't need to say "this is the slope of the line within a particular 1-hour window", or anything like that. The instantaneous slope of the curved line is well-defined and can easily be calculuated exactly. We can do this same sort of exercise for a curved line that is only 1 second wide, i.e. the function's domain is over the range [1 second, 2 second]. I can make it as small as you want it to be (as long as it has non-zero width), and I can still find the instantaneous slope of the curved line.

    Similarly, power is defined as the time-derivative of the change in energy.
    Power = d(Energy) / dt

    Power is never represented in the same way as energy. Power is always measured in some units that are equivalent to "joules / seconds", and energy is always measured in some units that are equivalent to "joules", Just like height is always measured in some units that are equivalent to "meters", and velocity is always measured in some units that are equal to "meters / seconds". Again, power is the time-derivative of energy, just like velocity is the time derivative of position (i.e. height).

    I want to emphasize: Like velocity, I do not need to refer to a time window in order to define power. I don't need to say "the power within this 1 hour range is X". Rather, I can simply say "the power at time T is X". This is the ability of calculus. It allows us to properly define the instantaneous slope of a curved line. Power is the slope of the curved line of energy change over time.

    Again, for emphasis, there is never a spot in the analysis where height and velocity have the same units, and for exactly the same reason, there is never a spot in the analysis where power and energy have the same units. They are measuring fundamentally different things. Again, height and energy are the curved lines, and velocity and power are the /slopes/ of those curves lines, technically known as the /derivative/.

  295. >Clack et al. could have avoided all this simply by choosing to be forthright. They could have easily said, "In person communication, Jacobson et al. say this apparent discrepancy is caused by X. X is implausible because..." They didn't. They intentionally pretended to be unaware of things and now act as though it is unreasonable for anyone to be unhappy with their dishonesty.

    Yet somehow the PNAS editors, and perhaps even the peer-reviewers had no problem with this dishonesty, despite holding up the paper for four months specifically to address these issues. Why would they be so willing to publish lies, knowing that they are facing a lawsuit, and knowing there is another 'true' explanation? How could they settle for a vague sentence far away from the section that talks about the issue?

    Perhaps they just accepted whatever Clack said, perhaps they are biased against Jacobson or against his paper or in favor of nuclear power, or perhaps they understand the meaning of 'installed capacity' and were satisfied that Clack addressed the issue sufficiently.

  296. My hope is onlookers will remember a central aspect of this discussion is that Jacobson claimed their 87.48 GW was a (theoretical) annual average

    It couldn't have been that; it had to be nameplate.  Total US hydro generation for 2016 was 265,829 GWh.  Dividing by 8784 hours in that leap year, it comes to 30.26 GW average.  87.48 GW is nearly 3x as much.  Hydro dams running as base load during the spring melt and as mid-load or peaking the rest of the year fit a ~30% capacity factor.

    while the 1,300 GW was an instantaneous discharge rate.

    You STILL think you can get 1300 GW peak out of ~30 GW average?  A capacity factor of less than 2.5%?  All so that you can stick to your narrative that Clack is wrong about Jacobson?

    The number of irrefutable things you are forced to ignore to stick to this narrative beggars the imagination.  Facts like the ridiculous flow rates required for Jacobson's scheme to work go right past you without acknowledgement.

    If facts mattered, you would have switched sides when these things were brought to your attention.  Instead, you have doubled down on teh stoopid.

    I don't think engineers will be ignorant of the fact nameplate capacity can be exceeded.

    Engineers are plenty cognizant of the fact that it's generally a bad idea to do so, and doing it by a large amount or long duration tends to break things.

    More to the point, among the people you're claiming this to are engineers who are denying it from positions of experience, some of it decades-long.  And you cannot see the utter ridiculousness of your position.

    Nope, you're definitely not swayed by facts.  What ties you to Jacobson is something else.  Green romanticist?  Paid shill?  You won't mention anything about your scientific or poltiical background, and your silence on the issue shows that it's something you know will discredit you severely or completely.

    EL:  ∫ d(Cabin) / Cabin = log (Cabin) + C = Houseboat.

  297. Maybe you're confused by the term "watt-hour". What is a watt-hour, aka Wh? A watt-hour is the amount of energy that is transferred at the rate of 1 watt for 1 hour. This is also the same thing as the amount of energy that is transferred at the rate of (1/2) watt for 2 hours. Or 2 watts for (1/2) hour. Or 3600 watts for 1 second. Etc.

    What is a watt? A watt is simply a particular rate of change of energy. It defined as the rate of change equal to 1 joule per 1 second, aka 1 joule / 1 second.

    So, what is a watt-hour?
    (watt)(hour)
    = (1 joule / 1 second) (1 hour)
    = (1 joule / 1 second) (1 hour) (1)
    = (1 joule / 1 second) (1 hour) (3600 seconds / 1 hour)
    = (1 joule) (1 hour / 1 hour) (3600 seconds / 1 second)
    = (1 joule) (1) (3600)
    = 3600 joules

    (By the way, the above is a basic example of dimensional analysis at work.)

    When technical people say "watt-hour", they don't literally mean "X watts over 1 hour". They don't even need a time window at all!

    For example, I can talk about the energy content of a AA battery. A charges AA battery has about 13,000 joules of useful electrochemical energy. I can make this statement without referring to any sort of time window where I extract that energy. It is simply a measure of the stored energy of the device. (I am ignoring real-world concerns like voltage, and nameplate power capacity, for the purpose of this example. I'm using a simplified model.) If I were to somehow extract energy at a rate of 1 watt, and it should produce electricity for about 13000 seconds. If I were to somehow extract energy at a rate of 13000 watts, it should produce electricity for about 1 second. If I were to somehow extract energy at a rate of 1 GW, it should produce electricity for about (13 KJ / 1 GW) = 13 microseconds.

    I can just as easily talk about the energy content of the battery in watt-hours. 13000 joules is about 3.6 watt-hours. I don't need to refer to an actual scenario where the battery is charging or discharging in order to make this statement. "3.6 watt-hours" is simply a measure of the contained energy. It doesn't refer to a rate. It doesn't refer to an hour. It's simply an alternative way to describe "joule", like "British foot" is an alternative way to describe "meter".

  298. MikeN -


    Perhaps they just accepted whatever Clack said, perhaps they are biased against Jacobson or against his paper or in favor of nuclear power, or perhaps they understand the meaning of 'installed capacity' and were satisfied that Clack addressed the issue sufficiently.

    My guess is that it isn't coincidental that even w/o the ability to understand the technical framework of your comment, it seemed quite obvious that you laid out that list of possibilities in a way such that the last one is the only one that's really plausible.

    But I have to imagine that there are other possibilities, and your list of possibilities was more a rhetorical device. Do you really think no other explanations were possible?

  299. Poet -

    Nope, you're definitely not swayed by facts. What ties you to Jacobson is something else. Green romanticist? Paid shill?

    I've been observing Brandon for a while now. I can tell you that absolutely nothing that he's written has given me the impression that either of those would be likely explanations. I would also suggest that a lack of technical understanding is not likely an explanation either. I would suggest some possible alternatives - but perhaps the most obvious problem here is that your perception of "ties" to Jacobson is in error? Maybe as a mental exercise, try thinking it through without that basic assumption on your part, and you might come up with a better explanation.

  300. > My hope is onlookers will remember a central aspect of this discussion is that Jacobson claimed their 87.48 GW was a (theoretical) annual average
    >
    >It couldn't have been that; it had to be nameplate.

    Brandon is using (theoretical) annual average with the same intention as nameplate, not as the actual annual average.

    >You STILL think you can get 1300 GW peak out of ~30 GW average? A capacity factor of less than 2.5%? All so that you can stick to your narrative that Clack is wrong about Jacobson?
    >
    >The number of irrefutable things you are forced to ignore to stick to this narrative beggars the imagination. Facts like the ridiculous flow rates required for Jacobson's scheme to work go right past you without acknowledgement.

    He has acknowledged them. It is largely irrelevant if they work or not. The point is that Clack in his paper makes no mention of Jacobson's scheme of which he was well aware. He also adds,'I hope there is an explanation'. That the scheme is absurd doesn't change the fact that Clack made no direct mention of it. The lawsuit is not over whether the scheme would work, but that Clack ignored the e-mails he received and claimed Jacobson made a modeling error, thus defaming Jacobson whose expertise is in computer modeling.
    It is not about whether Clack is wrong about 100% renewable energy, but whether he lied in the paper by not ignoring Jacobson's e-mail explanation for why his table has an installed capacity for hydro of 87 GW and yet produces power at 1300 GW for hours at a time.

  301. Brandon and MikeN: It's from a table in Brandon's OP where I read that CONUS Hydropower installed capacity was 87.42 GW in 2013 and is expected to be 87.48 by 2050. In black and white and unambiguous. Above that Brandon wrote: "...consider this table from the Supporting Information for Jacobson's paper". That's what I did.

    MikeN if you think I misunderstood with my analogy involving Honda Civics, my bad. On closer reading the tabular information from the SI implies that the hypothetical 100 hp Honda Civic engine is to be augmented by 100 * (87.48 / 87.42) - 100 hp (~0.07 hp) somewhere between 2013 and 2050. Not exactly setting the stage for one of those amazing "Hold my beer and WATCH THIS!!!" YouTube videos.

  302. Joshua, I wasn't attempting any rhetorical tricks. Yes, I'm leaning towards the last one and am being sarcastic, but I consider all of those to be plausible. I think a competent editor could get to the same conclusion as Clack, and believe Jacobson is making up stories. The large list of complaints makes them more likely to ignore him, because some of those are absurd.
    They could have just trusted Clack, like how Penn State trusted Mann in their inquiry.

  303. MikeN -

    Thanks (well, except for the gratuitous Mann reference). I think more likely is that there are other explanations. None of those you offered seem particularly plausible to me.

    Edit - on second reading: The large list of complaints makes them more likely to ignore him, because some of those are absurd.

    That seems to me to be approaching a more plausible explanation...whereby while I think that "ignoring" him to be unlikely, what they considered to be absurdities may have had an influence. I suppose that could be considered as "biased against him or his paper" but I think there are important distinctions. It strikes me as less of an argument from absurdity.

  304. Nick, you have correctly read the tables. Now look at that footnote 4.
    This is Jacobson's explanation of his assumption that hydropower will be increased to a high amount on occasion, vastly exceeding nameplate capacity, due to addition of turbines.
    This is the turboboost I speak of, only Jacobson has not changed the engine's rating. And like with Jacobson's hydro, I don't think it is feasible to change an engine to operate at 16x capacity for long periods with special fuel injectors.

  305. Joshua, I have no real idea how these papers and editors do their work. I know they held up the paper after Jacobson's objection in late February, which threatened a lawsuit. They also never sent his list of complaints to the authors despite his request, until they sent him a version in May and he complained again, and the paper was then approved within four days of Jacobson's list of complaints getting sent to the authors.

    I don't think it's unreasonable that some papers that have political impact might have the editors putting their thumb on the scale.

  306. > This is Jacobson's explanation of his assumption that hydropower will be increased to a high amount on occasion, vastly exceeding nameplate capacity, due to addition of turbines.

    So Jacobson claims after the fact. 1- I don't believe him. I believe that this was not his intention when writing and publishing it. 2- That's not what the footnote says. The footnote says nothing of the sort. The footnote is merely rehashing that hydro annual output is generally limited by annual water supply, and the capacity factor is substantially less than the nameplate capacity (i.e. 40% capacity factor) primarily because of this reason.

  307. EL, I don't understand why Jacobson would need to have that footnote if it's to be interpreted in that way. He didn't say solar was limited by the sun. Were they modeling water flows?

    3) If the amount of rainfall in the US increased by a factor of 10, would the nameplate capacity of any hydroelectric facilities change(no upgrades in response to the rainfall)?

  308. There have been quite a few comments since my last one so I can't promise to have read everything (chopping wood in the modern day, who'd have thunk?). If you said something you'd like me to address, please repeat it (or direct me to the comment it is in with a link).

    MikeN:

    Brandon, instead of theoretical annual average you could just write nameplate capacity. That is what Jacobson was reporting with 'installed capacity'.

    I would do so, but there has been disagreement over what Jacobson meant. I agree "nameplate capacity" and "installed capacity" are the same thing, but I do not agree with what people have said those terms mean. Given we don't agree on what those terms mean, I feel it is best to be specific about what I am referring to.

    He didn't ignore it. There is a response to it, that is unsourced because Jacobson never put it in a paper.

    Assuming you're referring to what I think you're referring to, the "response" fails to note what Jacobson said. I think it is reasonable to describe t hat as ignoring what he said. Addressing what someone says in an indirect manner, while satubg you hope there is some other explanation when they've provided one seems to be ignoring what they've said. Certainly, nobody reading Clack et al's response would have any idea what Jacobson had said to Clack.

    He never said he knows Jacobson is lying, or that he suspects it. He said that Jacobson has a certain max value for hydropower in his paper. This is a fact despite Jacobson's statements to the contrary, because that is what 'installed capacity' means. J

    Something you have said more than once, without actually demonstrating it to be true. In fact, the definition you have claimed for "nameplate capacity" contradicts this claim as you have said nameplate capacity is not actually the maximum output, but a value close to it. It seems strange to me to claim something is "fact" when you've directly contradicted it.

    Yet somehow the PNAS editors, and perhaps even the peer-reviewers had no problem with this dishonesty, despite holding up the paper for four months specifically to address these issues. Why would they be so willing to publish lies, knowing that they are facing a lawsuit, and knowing there is another 'true' explanation? How could they settle for a vague sentence far away from the section that talks about the issue?

    There could be any number of reasons involving bias and/or incompetency. Given the sort of dreck which has passed peer review in the hockey stick debate, I hope you don't expect me or any of my readers to think this argument is convincing. Journals routinely allow all sorts of bad behavior from authors.

  309. Joshua:

    I've been observing Brandon for a while now. I can tell you that absolutely nothing that he's written has given me the impression that either of those would be likely explanations. I would also suggest that a lack of technical understanding is not likely an explanation either. I would suggest some possible alternatives - but perhaps the most obvious problem here is that your perception of "ties" to Jacobson is in error? Maybe as a mental exercise, try thinking it through without that basic assumption on your part, and you might come up with a better explanation.

    While I, like anyone else, may have my biases, I think it's funny people accuse me of being a "shill" for anything. The truth is, if I was offered a chance to be a paid shill for a position, I'd probably take it. I'd happily be paid to do research and writing intended to advance a particular viewpoint, the same as I would if I were a lawyer. I would never lie or anything like that, but I would happily be one-sided in my writing if someone were to say, pay me $50,000 a year to do it. Nobody is going to do that though.

    The main reason I want to talk about this is an interesting quirk of the situation. One of the handful of people cited in opposition to this lawsuit is Michael Tobis, who is said to have written a powerful/good response. I thought this interesting as Tobis was the first person to ever accuse me of being a shill in the climate debate (or any other, for that matter). He said he thought it likely I was a shill for the oil companies.

    It turns out he and I are on opposite sides of a disagreement again. I don't think he's going to say I am a shill for renewables this time around. I don't think that means much of anything, but I thought it was amusing.

  310. your perception of "ties" to Jacobson is in error?

    He's admitted to correspondence which doesn't count for much, but there's definitely something beyond logic that makes Schollenberger stand so firmly behind the nonsense of Jacobson.

    Maybe he's just a troll.  Some people enjoy trolling.

    And I tell an absolutely foul calculus pun and nobody groans.

  311. > EL, I don't understand why Jacobson would need to have that footnote if it's to be interpreted in that way. He didn't say solar was limited by the sun.

    I don't know. I don't know why he included a footnote that explains the basics of hydro but not for wind nor solar. This is a slight point in your favor, but I still think I stand by my interpretation as being far the most reasonable in the context of the original paper.

    > Were they modeling water flows?

    Partially. Jacobson might have "modeled" yearly water supply by simply imposing a yearly cap on the hydro energy output.

  312. > And I tell an absolutely foul calculus pun and nobody groans.

    I did, but I didn't feel the need to comment.
    🙂

  313. Brandon -

    For all the times that I've seen confident assertions in online blog comment that someone is a "shill," I'm not sure I've ever seen an accurate assertion of such. The fact that people so easily reach such an extreme conclusion, without real world evidence in support (i.e., something more than just conjecture based on someone's blog comments), and is willing to openly write it in a blog comment, without any apparent realization of how facile their reasoning is, is something that shocked me when I first started reading blogs - although now I see how commonplace it is. The fact that someone like Tobis - who I largely agree with on quite a few issues, and who is smart and knowledgeable - would reach such an obviously ludicrous conclusion is just a piece of the evidence I've seen to lead me to conclude it's dangerous to think that the phenomenon is an outgrowth of ignorance, stupidity, or distributed disproportionately to groups of which I'm not a member.

    I have been told many times that I am a paid employee of the "team," as (the thinking went) there couldn't be any other explanation for my views and behaviors (argument from credulity is one of the most common forms of thinking underlying "shill" accusations). When I started seeing such ridiculous logic so proudly displayed, I started to get interested in just how easy it is for people to confidently reach completely spurious conclusions. The phenomenon is absolutely ubiquitous. I think that fortunately it is a behavior that is probably much higher in prevalence in blog comments than in the real world, and blog comments are written by a tiny subset of the American public. I'm reasonably certain that isn't a representative sample - and I certainly hope it isn't.

    It turns out he and I are on opposite sides of a disagreement again. I don't think he's going to say I am a shill for renewables this time around. I don't think that means much of anything, but I thought it was amusing.

    Sure. There are many interesting examples of that sort that expose the vapidness of the "shill" accusations. We see it on this very thread; your interlocutor could have easily avoided making an obvious mistake in labeling you if s/he had simply done a modicum or research.

  314. To Brandon:

    > There have been quite a few comments since my last one so I can't promise to have read everything (chopping wood in the modern day, who'd have thunk?). If you said something you'd like me to address, please repeat it (or direct me to the comment it is in with a link).

    Earlier, you said this:

    > In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way.

    No. This is absolutely, fundamentally, and completely wrong.

    See my lengthy replies here:

    http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/11/lying-is-not-okay/#comment-15565
    http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/11/lying-is-not-okay/#comment-15568

    tl;dr
    You've been making these sorts of mistakes repeatedly. It is extremely evident that you do not have sufficient knowledge to have an informed opinion on the topic of this blog post. You have been repeatedly making a certain class of mistakes (confusing energy and power) which are verifiable nonsense at first glance. The typical first-year university physics or math undergrad could tell at first glance that you don't know what you're talking about. You need to take a course in dimensional analysis, and Calc 1 and 2 (limits, derivatives and integrals).

  315. And BTW - I always consider the propensity for such thinking to be a potential "tell" for a willingness to let biases influence reasoning.

    Consider the situation in this thread. I can't understand the technical issues being debated - but when I see someone make certain and laughably and obviously wrong conclusions (e.g., to conclude that"ties" to Jacobson are the only possible explanation for your views), when the error could easily have been avoided with just a modicum of research and/or a modicum of deeper analysis, it is "information" I can use to help evaluate the probabilities about the more technical arguments that person makes.

  316. The typical first-year university physics or math undergrad could tell at first glance that you don't know what you're talking about.

    Also a classic form of argumentation that is a prominent feature of the "you're a shill" animal. I absolutely hate it when people on my "side" make that argument - although I've seen it on my "side" frequently, I must admit.

  317. To Joshua:
    > to conclude that"ties" to Jacobson are the only possible explanation for your views
    I didn't say "only possible explanation". I did imply "a likely and plausible explanation". Please represent my positions honestly and accurately.

  318. To Joshua
    It's true. If you don't see it, then you're also completely unqualified to be taking part in this discussion. The facts about the basic definitions of "power" and "energy" are not up for debate. There are right and wrong answers. Brandon has no idea what he's talking about. He's fumbling in the dark. This is manifestly true to anyone with an advanced high school or basic first-year university education in math and physics, e.g. dimensional analysis and Calc 1 and 2 (limits, derivatives, and integrals).

    It's not always wrong to accuse the other side of gross incompetence, as I am doing. Sometimes, the other side is actually grossly incompetent. Enough of this nonsense that "the truth must lie in the middle" or "what both people are saying must have merit". Sometimes one side is just wrong.

  319. Continuing:
    Anyone who honestly believes this:

    > In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way.

    is basically guaranteed to fail a first-year university physics class. The error is so egregious, so fundamental, so core, to everything that is going on. Basic conceptual building blocks of understanding are just completely lacking. Worse, in their place Brandon has constructed entire metaphorical buildings on an entirely fictitious foundation.

  320. I can see that I am causing Brandon significant emotional distress so I'll make this my last comment. You are still not getting anywhere, Brandon. Why don't you contact your friend Jacobson and ask him why he failed to discuss his 1300 GW assumption in his BS paper? They are going to ask him that in court. That's if it doesn't get justifiably slapped down, before going to trial in about 12 years if ever, like the Mann case. My guess is they didn't discuss it in the paper, because it doesn't pass the smell test. They decided it was better to just sneak it through pal review. That paper should not be left standing in the literature. That is why Clack challenged it. It is a piece of political garbage meant to justify green dreams of 100% renewables. It's a lie. Policies based on that lie will be disastrous. Case closed.

    You are really not doing well here, Brandon. This looks like minor league shark jumping incident. It's a good thing you don't have very far to fall. And there are only about a dozen folks observing this nonsense.

  321. EL -

    It's true. If you don't see it, then you're also completely unqualified to be taking part in this discussion. The facts about the basic definitions of "power" and "energy" are not up for debate. There are right and wrong answers. Brandon has no idea what he's talking about. He's fumbling in the dark. This is manifestly true to anyone with an advanced high school or basic first-year university education in math and physics, e.g. dimensional analysis and Calc 1 and 2 (limits, derivatives, and integrals).

    I've seen plenty of evidence that Brandon has an understanding superior in these technical areas than what one would expect to see from a first year university student. Many, many times. How would I know that; after all, I can't make that evaluation myself, right? I know it to be true because I've seen him engage in debates in these areas with people who have high levels of expertise, and who acknowledge Brandon's technical skills and knowledge. Even if they haven't agreed with him, and felt that he made mistakes in his thinking, mistakes that he wouldn't acknowledge or didn't have sufficient expertise to understand, they rarely argued that his mistakes were made at such a basic level was such as you have suggested. When they did argue such, their thinking seemed as specious as yours does now. Perhaps you should think through to see how you and Brandon could reach differing conclusions even if he didn't lack such basic knowledge and skills. It might help to make the discussion more productive.

    So that is just one example of you reaching a certain example which is obviously wrong. The fact that you double down on such accusations just makes it that much worse.

    It's not always wrong to accuse the other side of gross incompetence, as I am doing.

    Of course not. But when you do, you should make sure that you've thought things through a bit better.

    Sometimes, the other side is actually grossly incompetent. Enough of this nonsense that "the truth must lie in the middle" or "what both people are saying must have merit".

    That isn't what I was saying at all. Yet more evidence that you haven't thought it through very clearly. The problem is that when it happens repeatedly, it begins to appear to be something that could be characteristic.

  322. So I've now had four responses claiming I am absolutely wrong and stupid for daying the amount of energy produced in a single hour would be represented with the same numbers and terms as the power of whatever is producing for that hour:

    No.

    I'm still unsure of whether you're lying to me, or just deluding yourself. This might be the worst case of Dunning–Kruger that I've seen in a long time.

    No.

    I'm still unsure of whether you're lying to me, or just deluding yourself. This might be the worst case of Dunning–Kruger that I've seen in a long time.

    Whatever you think you know, you don't. Forget everything that you think you know about this discussion, and go back to university right now, or go to Khan Academy right now, and (re)take courses on dimensional analysis, and also (re)take Calculus 1 and 2 (limits, derivatives, and integrals). You are completely unqualified to take part in this discussion.

    Maybe you're confused by the term "watt-hour". What is a watt-hour, aka Wh? A watt-hour is the amount of energy that is transferred at the rate of 1 watt for 1 hour. This is also the same thing as the amount of energy that is transferred at the rate of (1/2) watt for 2 hours. Or 2 watts for (1/2) hour. Or 3600 watts for 1 second. Etc.

    No. This is absolutely, fundamentally, and completely wrong.

    Of note, not a single one of these responses showed what the actual numbers and units would be if I were wrong. For all their rhetoric and condemnation, they don't offer any substance.

    It's not like this issue is difficult. If facilities produce 87.48 GW for an hour, then in one hour, the produce 97.48 GWh. In two hours, they produce (87.48*2) 174.96 GWh. The amount of energy produces is the power (in this case 87.48 GW) multiplied by the amount of time that power is applied for. That time is given in terms of hours.

    If I produce 87.48 GW for an hour, I produce 87.48 GWh. If I then look at the amount of energy produced each hour, I divide 87.48 GWh by 1h and get... 87 GW. Power and energy wind up being the same thing when examined an hour intervals due to units canceling out. At any other interval, they are different. As much as people might criticize me for saying so, not a single person has shown what the numbers would be if they truly are different than what I say.

    If you define power as energy per hour, then energy in a single hour is equal to power. That's just how the units cancel out.

  323. Huh. Because quote blocks don't have a background color different from the regular text areas, you can't see a break between separate quote blocks. Do you guys think that is something I should change? I could give quote blocks a light grey background to clearly mark them as quote blocks. I'm not sure if that'd look better or not.

  324. EL -

    Anyway, I'm not going to waste more of my time on this. My guess is that if you look at what I said again, you'll see I'm right. Maybe not. It is what it is, eh?

  325. To Brandon:
    Also:
    >If you define power as energy per hour, then energy in a single hour is equal to power. That's just how the units cancel out.

    No one defines power that way! What you say here is true at face value, but because you treat this as some sort of profound truth, it means you don't understand at all.

    The term "watt-hour" is not special. I could just as easily use the term "watt-day", or "watt-year", or "watt-second". (By the way, "watt-second" is equal to "joule".) Then, the total energy of 100 watt output over 1 day is 100 watt-days, and the total energy of 100 watt output over 1 hour is about 4.2 watt-days. "One hour" is not special in the definition of energy nor power! You have a fatal misunderstanding of the mathematics of change, e.g. Calc 1 (limits and derivatives). Calc 2 (integrals) would also be very useful if you want to understand basic physics issues.

    Power is the time-derivative of energy. The definition of "power" does not depend on a time window at all. It is not "1 hour". It is not "1 year". It is not "1 second". It doesn't vary based on context. Power is the rate-of-change of energy at an instant in time. Not a window of time, or a period of time, or a slice of time. Power is the rate of change of energy over an infinitesimal width of time.

    Do you even understand the concept of the instantaneous slope at a specific point on a curved line, e.g. a derivative?!

  326. To Brandon
    Also:

    >If you define power as energy per hour, then energy in a single hour is equal to power. That's just how the units cancel out.

    If you wrote this on an exam, and I was grading it as a T.A., I'm going to take points off. Even if you had the larger context, points are coming off for this line alone.

    It is true that the numbers minus their dimensions happen to be equal, but that's just a quirk, an easily manipulated quirk. I can take any two physical quantities and choose units so that the dimensionless numbers happen to be equal (as I hope I demonstrated with the discussion of watt-seconds, watt-days, watt-years, etc.).

    No matter how you manipulate the units, 100 W is still not equal to 100 Wh, nor 100 watt-seconds, nor 100 watt-days, nor 100 watt-years, etc. Saying that they're equal is as nonsensical as saying that 1 meter is equal to 1 second, or 1 coulomb of electric charge is equal to 1 volt. They're measuring categorically different kinds of things, and they are never equal.

  327. > The typical first-year university physics or math undergrad could tell at first glance that you don't know what you're talking about.
    >
    >Also a classic form of argumentation that is a prominent feature of the "you're a shill" animal.

    Joshua, I have sen this any times, and ordinarily I'd agree. I posted before a correction that Brandon understand the difference based on the technical knowledge he has shown before. However, he really is out of his depth on this basic thing, and does need to learn it.

    What I posted was:
    > What you reported for an hour was not energy, it was power. For one hour the numbers would be the same.

    The purpose of that last line was just to highlight that it wasn't an egregious error, 1.35TW power for an hour is 1.35TWh energy, so saying he posted the hourly energy value wasn't too far off.
    However, Brandon then follows with:

    >In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other.

    I was wondering what EL would say. He was much more patient than I was expecting. If it had been a subject Brandon understood, I imagine his response would have been quite different for such an egregious error. He said he had to drink vodka when I got slipped up by nameplate capacity vs actual production(Brandon, while there is disagreement over the dispatching, if you use nameplate capacity they are understanding the power values to have the same meaning as you, while theoretical annual average is not clear).

    This is wrong, and indeed Brandon later responds with
    >If I produce 87.48 GW for an hour, I produce 87.48 GWh. If I then look at the amount of energy produced each hour, I divide 87.48 GWh by 1h and get... 87 GW.

    Note Brandon said
    >it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units.
    87.48 GWh v 87 GW, not the same units.

    Brandon, try replacing power with speed and energy with distance, MPH or mps vs miles or meters. Only now a mile is an MPH-hour.

  328. >Power is the rate of change of energy over an infinitesimal width of time.

    I've always had confusion grasping the concept. This helps.

    >Do you even understand the concept of the instantaneous slope at a specific point on a curved line, e.g. a derivative?!
    I'm pretty sure he does.

  329. MikeN:

    I was wondering what EL would say. He was much more patient than I was expecting. If it had been a subject Brandon understood, I imagine his response would have been quite different for such an egregious error. He said he had to drink vodka when I got slipped up by nameplate capacity vs actual production

    This is not a remotely reasonable description of what you did. What you did was take two columns, both of which said they listed "installed capacity," and said one listed maximum instantaneous discharge rate while the other listed annual production values - a claim which managed to say both Jacobson and Clack et al. were wrong on this issue, You do yourself a disservice by misrepresenting what your error was.

    87.48 GWh v 87 GW, not the same units.

    You've quoted what I said as though it proves you right, but the reality is what I did does nothing to support what you say. The simple reality is when you have 87.48 GW produced for one hour, you get 87.48 GWh in one hour. If you then look at how much energy was produced in one hour, you get 87.48 GWh/h, which cancels out to 87.48 GW.

    I'll note once again, while claiming I am wrong, you have failed to provide an alternative depiction of what the results would be to show what is "right." I know it's easy to say, "Nuh-uh!" over and over, but that won't advance the conversation.

    Brandon, try replacing power with speed and energy with distance, MPH or mps vs miles or meters. Only now a mile is an MPH-hour.

    If I travel at 50 miles per hour for one hour, the hour units cancel out and I get 50 miles. .The difference in this case is a watt is 1 joule per second, meaning it already has the time unit built-in. If you changed the terminologyunits in the speed/distance analogy to match the terminology/units found in power/energy, the results would be the same thing.

  330. MikeN, I think you and I are on the same page here and there's no misunderstanding. I gather the Footnote 4 you mention is the one I saw quoted upthread: Footnote 4 "Hydro power use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply. When hydropower storage increases beyond a limit due to non-use, hydropower is then used for peaking before other storage is used."

    Now although I'm an electrical engineer by training, I think that footnote is aptly characterized by the 'Magic Happens Here' box in a process flowchart. To those unfamiliar with the 'Magic Happens Here' box, it signifies the subset of steps needed to fulfill a requirement that a client's 'subject matter expert' insists is mandatory but has no clue how to achieve. If an example will help, think of "Ship live giraffe in flat-rate USPS carton." Somewhere between the step "Arrange for trailer to transport giraffe to Post Office" and the step "Recipient signs for delivered giraffe at destination" is a step that renders the whole exercise one of little more than wishful thinking.

    MikeN, you mentioned a 16x performance enhancement for the 100 hp Honda Civic analogy. I had used 10x and I hope we can agree that the more conservative enhancement is sufficient for the sake of discussion. A 1000 hp Honda Civic engine will probably destroy something in the drive train at about 300 hp in short order. So that needs to be built stronger. And then you might get to 500 hp to find that the fuel line, pump, and filter are all too small. And then you find that the exhaust system has bottlenecks. And when you get those things ironed out, you find that the brakes overheat making the car unsafe. Because the suspension can't corner any faster and curves in the roads are designed for 70 mph you can't use the extra horsepower most of the time.

    Similar thing for the hydro system. It seems awfully glib of anyone to suggest all that's needed is to add more turbines. And generate what, 16x as much power as today's installed capacity? The penstocks weren't sized for that. The power houses weren't sized for that. The transformers etc. in adjacent substations weren't designed for that. The transmission lines weren't designed to carry that much power. The corridors they're in weren't sized for that. The substations at the load ends weren't sized for that. If AC/DC converters are used to convert to DC and then back to AC for longhaul transmission, they weren't sized for that.

    And there are impacts on the environment that others have already alluded to. Runoff is seasonal, and natural annual cycles occur downstream of dams in harmony with some semblance of natural peaks and valleys in flow rates. Fish reproduce, birds nest and raise their young, homes are built. Shifting peak river flows from around the freshet into low-flow season because that's when the wind isn't blowing -- basically shifting discharge patterns to those more characteristic of a toilet than a river -- could have awful downstream consequences.

  331. No, match MPH with GW, and miles(MPH-hour) with GWh. What you say about time units is wrong.

    > If you then look at how much energy was produced in one hour, you get 87.48 GWh/h
    NO.
    Energy produced in one hour is 87.48 GWh. Energy produced in one hour is not 87.48 GW. That is power.
    You wouldn't say you covered a distance of 35 MPH in one hour.

    . He said he had to drink vodka when I got slipped up by nameplate capacity vs actual production

    >This is not a remotely reasonable description of what you did. What you did was take two columns, both of which said they listed "installed capacity," and said one listed maximum instantaneous discharge rate while the other listed annual production values

    That is your interpretation, partly because I kind of confirmed it. I wasn't reading the paper when I wrote it. It was in context of all these comments. It's why I highlight to use nameplate capacity. I think Nick also got confused by the same usage. While I understood it the first time you wrote about theoretical, I ended up later thinking it was an annual actual average. After reading EL's post I thought I spotted an inconsistency.

    EDIT: It is reasonable to treat the two columns differently. Jacobson has one of them filled with turbines and operating completely differently. We perhaps disagree, but I don't think footnote 4 applies to the 2013 values, hydropower varies but is limited by its annual power supply.

  332. MikeN, if I create a column listing energy produced for each hour of a day, it is in the form of power divided by hour. If power is given for timescales of an hour, it is energy per hour divided by hour, which comes out the same as just energy.

    This is a simple artifact of power being joules per second. An analogy with MpH or the like won't show the same behavior because MpH shows the time component. W does not. Both W and MpH have a time component, but only the latter shows it in its variable name. That's why when you multiply X MpH by 1 hour you get X M whereas if you multiply X W by 1 hour you get X Wh. X Wh doesn't actually have a time element to it, but "h" shows up as an artifact of how the term W is defined.

  333. >nameplate capacity is not actually the maximum output, but a value close to it. It seems strange to me to claim something is "fact" when you've directly contradicted it.

    There is a difference between nameplate capacity can be exceeded by small amounts because it is inexact, and nameplate capacity can be exceeded by a factor of 16 for 12 hours, or a factor of 2 for two months.

  334. >Both W and MpH have a time component, but only the latter shows it in its variable name. That's why when you multiply X MpH by 1 hour you get X M whereas if you multiply X W by 1 hour you get X Wh. X Wh doesn't actually have a time element to it, but "h" shows up as an artifact of how the term W is defined.

    Yes, all true. If you find the analogy too difficult, think of miles as mph-hours, just like energy is in gigawatt-hours.

  335. To Brandon

    > MikeN, if I create a column listing energy produced for each hour of a day, it is in the form of power divided by hour.

    No! No one here is dividing power by time. Did you mean "listing the average power for each consecutive 1 hour periods"? That's different.

    > If power is given for timescales of an hour, it is energy per hour divided by hour, [...]

    Pedantically, this is not correct. "Energy per hour divided by hour" is "energy / time^2", and that is not power. Power is "energy / time".

    Again, did you mean to use the word "divide" to mean "list the average for each consecutive 1 hour period" ?

    > [...] which comes out the same as just energy.

    Assuming you meant "energy / time" above instead of "energy / time^2", you're still wrong here. "Energy / time" is power, and "energy / time" is not energy! 1 watt-hour is not equal to 1 watt.

    You're continuing to make several conceptual errors. To be constructive, here are the errors and how to remedy them.

    1- One meter is not the same thing as one second. Similarly 1 watt-hour is not the same thing as 1 watt. They're just incommensurate kinds of measurements. Stop saying that they're equal.

    2- Stop thinking about energy in terms of watt-hours. You have your conceptual underpinnings backward. You have "power" at the primary unit, and "energy" as the secondary unit. That's backwards. You think about "energy" as a derived unit of power. This is why you keep bringing up "1 hour" because you only understand energy in terms of "watt-hours".

    Energy is the primary unit here. Energy is a raw measure of the "stuff" there. Power is a derived unit, a secondary unit. Power is defined in terms of energy. Energy is not defined in terms of power.

    Similarly, think about distance and speeds. Distance is the primary unit. 1 meter is the primary unit. "1 meter per second", and "mph (miles per hour", are derived units. The measurement of speed is defined in terms of distance, and not the other way around.

    You need to think about energy as an absolute measure of "stuff". Energy is measured in its own unit, joules. (For the advanced student, you can think about joules as a composite of several other, more fundamental, units, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. Even still, power is a derived unit of energy, and not the other way around.)

    3- You need to understand calculus.

    Speed describes the rate of change of location. Power describes the rate of change of energy. When driving your car, you can look at your speedometer, and the current display is your current speed. It is your speed at that exact moment in time. Your current speed at that exact moment in time doesn't take into account your speed 1 second ago, or 1 nanosecond ago. Think about it. That display in your dashboard does not run a running sum and division. It doesn't total the distance over the last hour, then divide by 1 hour. Instead, it's your speed at that exact moment in time, and again it is entirely independent of what you were doing 1 nanosecond ago.

    Conceptually, let me describe what calculus does in an informal sense, which also approximates what happens in your speedometer in your car dashboard. Instead of taking a running sum over the last hour, or last second, the speedometer takes a running sum of the distance traveled over 1 nanosecond, and then divides by 1 nanosecond, and displays the result. No - it uses a femptosecond. No - measures the distance traveled over an infinitely small period of time in the past, which is going to be an infinitely small distance, and then it divides that infinitely small distance by the same infinitely small period of time, in order to calculate your exact speed at that exact moment.

    Calculus is about taking one infinitely small value, dividing it by another infinitely small value, and coming to a normal value (i.e. 14). (Derivatives)

    PS:
    Calculus is also about taking an infinitely large number of infinitely small things, and adding them together, to get a normal value (i.e. 14). (Integrals)

  336. Nick, I agree about all the problems with the hydro. My first reaction the the UPS box is 1) Open the box 2)Put the Giraffe inside 3) Close the box
    Next question, how do you ship an elephant in a UPS flat rate box?

    However, my point was that the dispute is not over whether it's feasible. It is that Jacobson has claimed this non-feasible solution, but still reports the same nameplate capacity. So he is expecting the dams to jump up in output, but produce at the same overall level as before. This is why he can operate at double nameplate for two months, because he is staying idle for four months.
    Just as I don't understand car engines, I also don't understand how these turbines operate even theoretically.

  337. MikeN:

    There is a difference between nameplate capacity can be exceeded by small amounts because it is inexact, and nameplate capacity can be exceeded by a factor of 16 for 12 hours, or a factor of 2 for two months.

    I agree. However, this does not make the definition you say is correct, correct. In theory, Jacobson could have used an incorrect definition while you also use an incorrect definition.

    My point has simply been if you wish to say Jacobson used an incorrect definition of a term, you should provide a clear definition for the term you claim is correct. You've said the "plain reading" of the phrase is one thing, yet you've chosen not to provide a clear definition of what it is. That seems strange to me. If everybody agrees the term means one thing, why can't you provide a precise definition of what it means?

    Brandon, are you using some strange English with different uses of per and divide?

    No. I am merely recognizing it is reasonable to represent the unit GWh/h as GW. That is, if you multiply something by hours then divide it by hours, you can cancel out the "h" term.

    Yes, all true. If you find the analogy too difficult, think of miles as mph-hours, just like energy is in gigawatt-hours.

    I don't find the analogy difficult at all. I find the analogy inappropriate for the reasons I've stated. Specifically, the time component of energy (speed) is not expressed in the variable as energy is expressed as W (whereas speed is expressed as Mph). As a result, when you multiply energy and speed by time components, the expression will not be the same.

    If you want to create an appropriate analogy, try finding a unit given as a rate in which the time component is not expressed in the variable names. Nothing comes to mind. W and Wh really are that much of an outlier.

  338. To Brandon:

    > You've said the "plain reading" of the phrase is one thing, yet you've chosen not to provide a clear definition of what it is. That seems strange to me. If everybody agrees the term means one thing, why can't you provide a precise definition of what it means?

    I did this already.

    See me here: Let me emphasize the phrase "according to standardized metrics".

    > Nameplate capacity refers to a standardized measure of the maximum theoretical output of some system, according to standardized metrics or reasonable metrics for the maximum sustainable power production for some reasonable period of time. For solar, this means about an hour at noon, with no clouds, under an idealized "1000 W / square meter" of solar radiation. For wind, this means some short period of time during a sustained wind of a certain strength. For hydro, this means a short period of time while the reservoir is full and all of the turbines are running are full strength.

    http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/11/lying-is-not-okay/#comment-15313

    Also see the various citations here:

    http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/11/lying-is-not-okay/#comment-15379

  339. Out of curiosity, for the people who are saying I'm so wrong (and/or stupid), can you find publications which use GWh/h as a unit? I've never seen it done before. I accept it might be something people do though, hence why I said one has the option to "write[] the strange GWh/h." I said that was the alternative to canceling the "h" terms out.

    To be clear, all I've said is one can reasonably cancel GWh/h into GW. Maybe that's wrong, but I haven't seen anything which shows scientists as a whole would say it is.

  340. MikeN -

    Thanks for your 9:20. Based on other things that EL? and EP? have said, I have reasons to find neither particularly reliable (I can't exactly remember which one said which, it's possible that the sketchy comments were limited to only the one and not the other)...but parsing the comments as best I can I'm not inclined to do so with your comments. Which presents an interesting dilemma. Not sure I have any idea how to resolve it.

  341. To Brandon:

    > To be clear, all I've said is one can reasonably cancel GWh/h into GW. Maybe that's wrong, but I haven't seen anything which shows scientists as a whole would say it is.

    No, you've said a lot more than that. Here are just some examples.

    > I'm pretty sure you have this backwards. Power is the rate energy is transferred, meaning it is measured in amounts of energy (GW) over a period of time (h).

    In the above quote, the obvious error is using "GW" as a measure of energy.

    There's another, subtler error: you give an incorrect definition of power that incorrectly depends on a definite, finite period of time. You need to learn calculus, which allows you to define the instantaneous rate of change by dividing one infinitely small number by another infinitely small number.

    Also, your peculiar fascination with "1 hour" as a standard unit of time for the purposes of energy and power indicates a fundamental misunderstanding and misconception.

    > This is too subtle to me. I would think it reasonable to have monthly rates be 100 times the highest hourly rate. There are 24 hours in a day, and even in the shortest month (February with 28 days) that's 672 hours. That wouldn't seem to make the monthly rate abnormally high.

    It is impossible to have a monthly-average rate that is higher than the highest hourly-average rate in the month. Again, for example, if a car is travelling for a month, and its highest average-speed over any one hour is 10 mph, then it's impossible for its average speed over the entire month to be greater than 10 mph. I could give a formal proof, but that seems excessive.

    This quote also particularly demonstrates that you have extreme fundamental misconceptions regarding the mathematical meanings of the word "rate", whether it relates to energy or not. Rates don't add like that. No one who has a exam-passing level of understanding would ever write something so wrong. This is not a mere typo. This is a fundamental lack of understanding, especially considering the other body of evidence that is this blog post and thread.

    > [...] energy is expressed as W [...]

    Again.

    > In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way.

    Again, if this was a physics exam of any kind, I would take points off for writing that. Power and energy are /never/ represented in the same way. This quote states expressly, in no uncertain terms, that power and energy can be represented by the exact same units. This is asinine. Energy always uses units of energy (i.e. joules), and power always uses units of power (i.e. joules/second).

    That it comes so late in the discussion, after so many corrections and explanations were offered - it's unforgivable. No one with a modicum of honesty, integrity, and capability would ever do that.

    And yet even now in your most recent post, you deny that you ever made a mistake. Your head is so far up your own ass - it's unbelievable. Seek psychiatric help. You need it.

  342. It is a piece of political garbage meant to justify green dreams of 100% renewables. It's a lie. Policies based on that lie will be disastrous. Case closed.

    I have been saying this about RPSs and Green policy proposals for years.  All Jacobson has done is take it to the extreme in something crafted to appeal to the ignorant (like poor Brandon here).

    I know it to be true because I've seen him engage in debates in these areas with people who have high levels of expertise, and who acknowledge Brandon's technical skills and knowledge.

    This may well be true, but his refusal to even admit that he has or has not taken a standard intro physics course suggests that he's an autodidact in these areas.  It is obvious that he has a K-T crater-sized hole in his knowledge in this one area, however much he knows about others.

    There's a reason the standard courses cover a whole lot of different areas:  "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."  This is never more true than when the ignorant are writing national policy.

    I've now had four responses claiming I am absolutely wrong and stupid for daying the amount of energy produced in a single hour would be represented with the same numbers and terms as the power of whatever is producing for that hour

    Wrong, and ignorant.  It's the same number.  It's not the same units, unless you want to talk about TWh per hour.  Hours over hours is unity, so that reduces to just TW (average of course).

    And if that wasn't totally clear to you, that is one of the areas of ignorance you need to work on.

    Power and energy wind up being the same thing when examined an hour intervals due to units canceling out.

    Now count energy in foot-pounds and time in fortnights.

    I could give quote blocks a light grey background

    Change your stylesheet to allow blockquotes to be italicized.  I'm bolding them instead.  If I try to use either <em> or <i> my other tags are cancelled.

    for the people who are saying I'm so wrong (and/or stupid), can you find publications which use GWh/h as a unit?

    You won't find (a professional) one.  But if you follow my EIA link above, you'll find units of million kWh used throughout, e.g. GWh.

    You will find powerplant ratings in MW, not MWh/h.  Seriously, go to the EIA monthly electric stats, poke around in the data about plants themselves.

  343. Jacobson uses TWh/h.

    EDIT:
    EP writes: You won't find (a professional) one.
    OUCH!

    > try finding a unit given as a rate in which the time component is not expressed in the variable names. Nothing comes to mind. W and Wh really are that much of an outlier.

    Then there would be nothing helpful in using it. I'm saying you'll make less errors if you check every time that speed and distance and MPH and miles(MPH-hours if you need to) are used in place of power, energy, watts, and watt-hours, and it should still make sense. Indeed you messed it up again when you wrote
    "as energy is expressed as W ".

    If you know the terms well, you can use knots and knot-hours/nautical miles.

    >Brandon, are you using some strange English with different uses of per and divide?
    >
    >No. I am merely recognizing it is reasonable to represent the unit GWh/h as GW.

    Even with your lack of understanding on this, I'm finding it hard to believe you meant to write:

    > if I create a column listing energy produced for each hour of a day, it is in the form of power divided by hour. If power is given for timescales of an hour, it is energy per hour divided by hour, which comes out the same as just energy.

  344. Joshua, I'm very shocked myself. I was very confident when I told EL that Brandon understands the difference based on what he's posted in the past. I don't think he's had anything where we disagreed on a math or technical matter that wasn't just a misunderstanding like you suggested. I generally just assume he has it right and try to figure out what I did wrong.

    However, I have been confused by the concept in the past, so maybe he is just having a conceptual problem.

  345. >It is impossible to have a monthly-average rate that is higher than the highest hourly-average rate in the month.

    The error was caused by his lack of understanding in part, but give him a pass on that. He was thinking something else so we were talking past each other.

  346. To MikeN
    It's not just any one thing. Any one thing I can excuse as a mistake of some kind. It's the pattern of behavior, the series of mistakes, that clearly indicate a deep fundamental misconception.

  347. Brandon is not capable of admitting he is wrong. Oh, he made a typo, he was thinking the correct thing but got distracted and said something else, he didn't have his coffee, he had too much coffee, the dog licked his face, somebody must have used the Jedi mind trick on him etc. etc. yatta yatta yatta. Dude is wound up too tight. I been trying to help him lighten up. Somebody said he should seek psychiatric care (I won't say who) but that wouldn't help. Right off the bat there would be a big argument over the doc charging by the hour when you only get to stay there for 50 minutes. I think some serious drinking would be good for Brandon.

  348. Brandon seems to have taken a break. I hope he is drinking. I didn't bother to reply to this foolishness, but since he is gone I won't upset him by pointing out his mistake:

    Brandon:"I know I cannot prevent trolls from saying stupid things. My hope is onlookers won't be fooled by trolls. For instance, when Don Monfort says:

    Potential for getting 12 GW of power out of the 80,000 dams in the U.S. that do not have hydroelectric installations:

    https://www1.eere.energy.gov/water/pdfs/npd_report.pdf

    We are edging closer to 1300 GW.

    My hope is onlookers will remember a central aspect of this discussion is that Jacobson claimed their 87.48 GW was a (theoretical) annual average while the 1,300 GW was an instantaneous discharge rate. If they do so, they may realize Monfort is referring to adding 12 GW to that annual average, not an instantaneous discharge rate. If they do, they'll realize his comment is either completely uninformed or completely disingenuous."

    "#5 Jacobson et. al claim
    1,300 GW is correct, because turbines were assumed added to existing reservoirs to increase their
    peak instantaneous discharge rate without increasing their annual energy consumption, a solution not
    previously considered. Increasing peak instantaneous discharge rate was not a “modeling mistake”
    but an assumption consistent with [2]’s Table S.2, Footnote 4 and LOADMATCH, and written to
    Clack Feb. 29, 2016."

    Jacobson says to increase their peak instantaneous discharge rate to 1300 GW turbines were assumed added to existing reservoirs. I merely pointed out that there are 80,000 existing reservoirs where no hydroelectric facilities are now located. The study I linked to says that those sites could be exploited by actually adding turbines and a potential 12 GW could be added to hydro capacity. Of course, maybe Brandon means that actually adding turbines doesn't count, because his friend Jacobson prefers to just assume they were added. That's a much easier and cheaper solution. Makes you wonder why nobody thought of adding turbines by assumption, before Brandon's friend Jacobson.

    I don't expect that Brandon will apologize for his error as I am sure he has a good excuse.

    I will make it simpler for you, Brandon:

    "If they do so, they may realize Monfort is referring to adding 12 GW to that annual average, not an instantaneous discharge rate. If they do, they’ll realize his comment is either completely uninformed or completely disingenuous.”

    Actually adding turbines to add 12 GW to the annual average rate will also add the capability to increase the instantaneous discharge rate. I think that makes more sense than just pretending to add turbines.

  349. MikeN:

    I'm saying you'll make less errors if you check every time that speed and distance and MPH and miles(MPH-hours if you need to) are used in place of power, energy, watts, and watt-hours, and it should still make sense. Indeed you messed it up again when you wrote
    "as energy is expressed as W ".

    Actually, I just wrote "energy" instead of "power." The analogy of the sentence made it clear I was referring to power, not energy, and the units I gave were correct.

    Even with your lack of understanding on this, I'm finding it hard to believe you meant to write:

    That's nice, but if you're not going to provide any substance in your comments, I'm not sure what you expect to come from the discussion.

    The error was caused by his lack of understanding in part, but give him a pass on that. He was thinking something else so we were talking past each other.

    I'm not sure why anyone would continue to bring this point up when what you claim was an error due to my lack of understanding was not even an error. What I said was correct, save that I typo'd and wrote "TW" twice instead of "TW" and "TWh." There were then a dozen plus comments where despite me repeatedly indicating the amount was energy, you and others kept insisting I had some lack of understanding based upon me supposedly saying the amount was power.

    That you and others created that much drama over what was just a typo when a single sentence would have been enough to resolve the issue shows why I don't take your repeated claims of me being wrong that seriously. "You typed TW instead of TWh but otherwise got everything in your comment right. Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about!"

    Compared to the inaccuracies and misrepresentations seen from other people on this page, I'd say I'm doing a fine job. In fact, relative to a couple commenters, I'm doing an incredible job. I don't think EL has written a single response to me that didn't involve blatantly misrepresenting one thing or another.

  350. >Actually, I just wrote "energy" instead of "power." The analogy of the sentence made it clear I was referring to power, not energy, and the units I gave were correct.

    It was clear to me, but because of your confusion, you got it wrong(twice).

    > What I said was correct, save that I typo'd and wrote "TW" twice instead of "TW" and "TWh."

    If that was the only error I'd have let it slide. You also put it was 1.6x, when it should have been 2.2x, and you also had a units or arithmetic error to get the 1.6x which should have been 1600x.
    Your confusion contributed allowing you to compare 140TWh to 87 GW instead of the correct number, which I think at that point had to be calculated and you didn't do it because you were confused between power and energy.

    >what was just a typo when a single sentence would have been enough to resolve the issue shows

    I agree lots of effort would have been saved if I had responded differently, because we would not have been aware just how much you don't understand the difference between power and energy. Based on your responses to date, you probably would have continued to argue about things if I had made a single sentence response. I didn't because it was an opportunity for you to learn the difference. You should still try and do so. You already expressed above that you get the two confused because of the units. So try and learn the difference. You say EL misrepresents things, but he has been patient trying to teach you. Even after all this you switch the two and say it's just a typo. If someone else were repeatedly making the errors you are making on a subject you understood, your reaction would be pretty hostile.

    >That's nice, but if you're not going to provide any substance in your comments, I'm not sure what you expect to come from the discussion.

    Now you are just pulling quotes out of context, or missed my question.

    >Brandon, are you using some strange English with different uses of per and divide?
    >
    >No. I am merely recognizing it is reasonable to represent the unit GWh/h as GW.

    Even with your lack of understanding on this, I'm finding it hard to believe you meant to write:

    > if I create a column listing energy produced for each hour of a day, it is in the form of power divided by hour. If power is given for timescales of an hour, it is energy per hour divided by hour, which comes out the same as just energy.

    So are you OK with what you wrote there in the last two sentences? I was highlighted per and divide as issues.

  351. Actually adding turbines to add 12 GW to the annual average rate will also add the capability to increase the instantaneous discharge rate.

    Won't work on those 80,000 dams.  Most of them are for things like maintaining water levels for navigation (still reading this bit by bit) or flood control.  The former MUST operate run-of-the-river and using the latter in surge mode would CREATE floods.

    Of course, if you just pretend to add turbines you're fine.

    I don't know if heavy drinking would fix Brandon's problem but it's always worked for me.

  352. Brandon started out with a fundamental misconception of the issue:

    "It may be that Clack et al. did not take those ideas seriously, but that in no way contradicts the idea they intentionally lied. That the reason they lied about the paper might be they genuinely think the paper is bad doesn't change that they lied about the paper.

    Again, I'll repeat, Clack talked to Jacobson about this very assumption in an e-mail exchange. During that exchange, Clack discussed his views on how plausible the assumption of increasing discharge rates as described was and what costs might be involved. Had he made the same points in his paper, Jacobson would not have sued.

    The reason Jacobson sued is Clack talked to him about what went into Jacobson's results, showing he was fully aware of the issue, then turned around and published ap aper where he lied by intentionally disregarding the assumption and pretending it didn't exist to create a false conflation he knew would deceive readers."

    The assumption did not exist in the Jacobson paper. It could have been discussed in the paper, or even mentioned in a footnote. Nothing. The assumption does not exist in the Jacobson paper. Very likely because they didn't want to have to discuss it. It's goofy. Dumb. Brandon is relying on some interpretations of events and alleged communications he got from Jacobson. Relevant Jacobson objections to Clack et al. and Clack's response are below:

    "#5 Jacobson et. al claim
    1,300 GW is correct, because turbines were assumed added to existing reservoirs to increase their
    peak instantaneous discharge rate without increasing their annual energy consumption, a solution not
    previously considered. Increasing peak instantaneous discharge rate was not a “modeling mistake”
    but an assumption consistent with [2]’s Table S.2, Footnote 4 and LOADMATCH, and written to
    Clack Feb. 29, 2016."

    "#5 Response Clack
    Nowhere in the 28 pages of main and supplemental material of the Jacobson et al. paper is there any
    mention or analysis of an expansion of hydropower. As confirmed above, the installed capacity of
    the hydroelectric system is stated as 87.48 GW.

    The scale of this error is staggering. The maximum instantaneous electricity generation capacity of
    all electricity sources in the United States today is 1170 GW (U.S. Energy Information
    Administration 2017). Jacobson et al. neglects to mention an assumed 1500% expansion in
    generation capacity of hydropower, leading to this system being capable of producing more power
    than all sources combined in the US today.

    One should note that the 1300 GW number is only what we have been able to infer from Figure 4 in
    the Jacobson et. al paper – it does not appear that any upper limit has been imposed at all on this value
    in the model. The capacity factor of wind power during the night of simulation day 1475 (in which
    1300+ GW of hydropower is shown to be used) is around 24%. Since this is far above the likely
    minimum combined capacity factor of wind power seen during a night in a 5-year period3
    , the actual installed hydroelectric capacity used in the model is actually far higher than 1300 GW. Perhaps even
    more alarmingly, had Jacobson et al. selected a time period for Figure 4 that did not happen to include
    high hydropower output, this error may never have come to light.

    For the benefit of the reader, the footnote on the fourteenth page of the supporting information of the
    Jacobson et al. paper (Table S.2. Footnote 4) does nothing to change this error. It states, in full:
    “Hydropower use varies during the year but is limited by its annual power supply. When hydropower
    storage increases beyond a limit due to non-use, hydropower is then used for peaking before other
    storage is used.”

    The Clack paper is a response to the Jacobson paper. Period. Not a response to whatever excuses that Jacobson made to Clack, after the Clack paper had already been written. Jacobson claims his paper is perfect, as is. OK, be a freaking man and deal with the criticism of the paper. The scale of the error is staggering! Yuuuuge! You can't get there from here. Case closed.

    Jacobson has made a big fool of himself and so has Brandon. Brandon is fortunate that only a few people have observed how poorly he has presented himself on this issue. Two weeks in and he still stubbornly refuses to listen to people who know the difference between power and energy.

  353. > You pointed out that this hard limit is ridiculous because 3 of the years exceed 52.5%. They also exceed 53.3%. So either there is a modeling error, or there is another interpretation.
    >
    >No, I didn't point out it is ridiculous. I pointed out it was exceeded to some extent in my (somewhat imprecise) calculations. I also said I believe Jacobson intended people to understand energy might be saved from one year to another. That's not saying the claim is ridiculous, as you attribute to me.

    Whether the source is stored water or new water, the production is at a certain hard limit is invalidated if you have exceeded it. Checking again, what you said was mild, but I interpreted it that way, and it is a reasonable statement.:

    >You have no basis for making this claim except for how you read the paper. I am sure the code for the model would show your claim false. Part of why I am sure of this is the table of capacity factors I provided above shows three years where 52.5% was exceeded.

    A solid conclusion. That is why I am wondering how 53.3% can be exceeded. I get that you can store water for year to year and produce over capacity, but that is not the same as saying limited by annual supply.

    > It would not be energy that is saved, but water. Of course it is saved, but I think 'limited by its annual power supply' is a hard cap, and that this is what Jacobson is claiming. I will see if I can
    >find the quotes. 402 TWh is a key number here.
    >
    > have no idea why you interpret that phrase the way you did. I wouldn't have ever read that sentence that way.

    I wouldn't have either. After reading Jacobson's complaint that is how I read it. Without it, I think I would read it as this is the instant max, though I can't be sure since the first I saw it, I already knew the dispute. I don't think I ever would have read it as limited by water that comes in, unless I knew he was modeling precipitation.he energy stockpiled.)

    >With hydroelectric dams, if you run them continuously at maximum output, you're not going to be able to store up water.

    Why is this the case? Are you saying that at maximum output all water will pass thru, or that the water on the input side is less than the max the dam can process?

  354. Clack also discussed this by phone with Jacobson. The lack of a correction over a year and a half is surprising. There's probably more e-mails that are not in the complaint.

  355. Don M, would it trouble you to put your quotes inside <blockquote>...</blockquote> tags?  Clarity would be improved muchly.  Doubly so if you bold the quoted text.

  356. >why I don't take your repeated claims of me being wrong that seriously.

    The problem is that what's repeated are not the claims, but you being wrong.

  357. That would require me learning how to do those things, E-P. I put quotations inside quotation marks, just like I learned in school. I'll think about it, but this mess seems to be about over anyway. Brandon still can't get past power vs. energy. His dog keeps barking. Very distracting. If MikeN had a dog barking all the time, he wouldn't be so smart either.

    Those quotes come from this, which I assumed everybody had read:

    http://www.vibrantcleanenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/ReplyResponse.pdf

    It seems to me the big lie in this controversy is a lie by omission. The failure of Jacobson to reveal and explain his "assumption" in his stupid freaking paper. It's like the guy who comes in at 9:30, when his wife was expecting him home from work at 6. She asks him where you coming from at this hour, boy. He says he came from the bowling establishment. Which was literally true, because he stopped there to put some powder on his hands, on the way home from the nearby pay-by-the-hour motel.

    E-P:"Won't work on those 80,000 dams. Most of them are for things like maintaining water levels for navigation (still reading this bit by bit) or flood control. The former MUST operate run-of-the-river and using the latter in surge mode would CREATE floods."

    They said it won't work on most of them. They had a lot of dam geniuses study it and they found 100 dams that potentially could produce 8 GW. I will probably believe that's plausible, until you assure me it ain't likely, after you have read the paper.

    We agree 100% on the booze. Wed. is KY bourbon night for me.

  358. >Dredging it up from revision history, when I deleted it within minutes of posting it, and insinuating that I still hold to that argument, is quite disingenuous. That's quite poor-form.

    What is your opinion of Clack referring to a draft version of Jacobson's paper in his rebuttal?
    Jacobson was arguing about discount rate and gave a reference. Clack responded that this was a paper written by Jacobson and noted that in the draft he used a citation that actually agreed with Clack.

  359. Did Clack insinuate that Jacobson still held to the previous argument, Mike? Wasn't it the opposite?

    "#10 Jacobson et. al claim
    [1] criticizes [2]’s use of a 1.5%-4.5% discount rate even though that figure is a well- referenced
    social discount rate for a social cost analysis of an intergenerational project [21, Supp. Info. P. 44]."

    "#10 Response Clack's
    Ref [21] is a self-reference to another Jacobson et al. publication, adding nothing to defend these
    numbers. An earlier version of the Jacobson et al. response included the statement “The only relevant
    studies are those that are recent and among those, Lazard (10.0) is the most detailed and relied upon
    by the energy industry, and capital costs are consistent with that study and other contemporary
    studies”. The 3.0% (span of 1.5-4%) discount rate used by Jacobson et al. is less than half of the 8.0%
    used by the source that Jacobson et al. previously cited as support for their value (Lazard 2016),
    which may explain why it is no longer referred to and has been replaced by a self-reference.
    Using realistic discount rates instead of those used by Jacobson et al. would alone double the
    estimated levelized cost of electricity"

    Seems fair that Clack pointed out that Jacobson had previously cited Lazard 2016. Do you see a problem?

  360. The #6 response from Don Montfort's link looks devastating to Jacobson's chances of winning with bits like this:

    If the capacity at all major hydropower facilities are assumed to expand by the same relative amount,
    the Grand Coulee Dam would have a new peak power rating of 101 GW – more than all hydropower
    in the US combined today, and 4.5 times larger than the largest power plant of any kind ever
    constructed (the Three Gorges Dam). The required flow rate through the upgraded Grand Coulee
    Dam at full power would regularly need to be 5.5 times higher than the largest flow rate of its part of
    the river ever recorded in history, which occurred on June 12, 1948, during an historic Columbia
    River flood period (US Bureau of Reclamations 2017). This flow rate corresponds to 13 times the
    average discharge rate of the entire Columbia river system, 9 times higher than the peak discharge
    rate ever in January (when the Jacobson et. al. system assumes 1300 GW of total output), and 3.5
    times the maximum spillway capacity of the Grand Coulee dam. One can only imagine the
    environmental impacts of the massive flooding of lands, towns and cities downstream of such
    reservoirs once water is released so rapidly

    ...

    The same type of examples as those above can be made for essentially all other major hydropower
    facilities in the US. As has been shown, the hydropower capacity error is one of many in the Jacobson
    et al. study, but it is so large (and so obvious) that it by itself invalidates the entire effort.

    I don't think any jury that reads and understands #6, or even an arbitrating judge, is going to take Jacobson seriously. I'm starting to revert back to my first comment here:

    But did Clack et. al. maliciously lie? I suspect they just dismissed Jacobson's claims. Just because Jacobson tells them something, are they obligated to believe it? Did they fully understand it?

    It looks pretty clear that Clack et. al. understood it. Rather than the omission being a lie, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just trying to save Jacobson some embarrassment. To me, this would qualify as a reasonable doubt. I'm starting to agree with Don that Jacobson is going to get his clock cleaned.

  361. I reread this post until boredom set in and it just strikes me as a trivial matter. Whether its a "modeling error" or a "modeling assumption" that hydro instantaneous power generation can be increased a factor of 10 or more is irrelevant. It's totally impractical. Clack just ignored Jacobson's obvious rationalizations used to cover a silly and flawed paper. This is nothing more than a scientific dispute in which Clack is obviously right and Jacobson is wrong. It's a sad commentary that so many keystrokes have been wasted on such a trivial matter.

  362. What David Young said. This 2 weeks of BS is just Brandon being stubbornly silly and self-important.

    Canman: I don't know if you understood me correctly. Clack was not trying to save Jacobson embarrassment. It looks like the opposite. Clack's criticism of Jacobson's paper is actually pretty brutal. I am pretty sure Clack's attitude was that the Jacobson paper was a piece of political junk science that should not be allowed to influence energy policy any longer. And again, the real lie in this story is the lie by omission committed by Jacobson. Failing to reveal and explain his "assumption" in his paper was the lie by omission.

  363. PS: Jacobson et al. knew their assumption was just something they cooked up to make their scenario seem plausible and they knew that it was absurd, so they conveniently failed to reveal or explain it in their paper. Rather than correcting the allegedly perfect paper by explaining the assumption, which would reveal it to be an obvious POS, Jacobson thinks that his emails to Clack and a bogus libel suit are going to bail him out. Not bloody likely.
    Case closed, again.

    PS, again:

    This is Clack's coup de gras:

    "The scale of this error is staggering. The maximum instantaneous electricity generation capacity of all electricity sources in the United States today is 1170 GW (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017). Jacobson et al. neglects to mention an assumed 1500% expansion in generation capacity of hydropower, leading to this system being capable of producing more power than all sources combined in the US today."

  364. Don, the court still has to somehow address Jacobson's claim that Clack et. al. maliciously lied. I'm just offering a rational for reasonable doubt. I'm assuming that's the standard, or maybe that's just for rapists and murderers.

  365. Canman: Defamation is a civil law case. The standard of proof in a case of libel against a private person is preponderance of the evidence. There are complicating details for different types of defamation:

    https://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/the-basics-of-defamation-libel-and-slander

    As far as I can tell, Brandon claims this is the explanation of Clack's big libelous lie, from the top post that started this foolishness:

    "...Jacobson et al. include several modeling mistakes. For example, the numbers given in the Supporting Information of ref. 11 impluy that maximum output from hydroelectric facilities cannot exceed 145.26 GW (see our Section S1.1), about 50% more than exists in the U.S. today, yet in Jacobson et al. Figure 4(b) shows hydroelectric output exceeding 1,300 GW.

    False. Increasing the discharge rate was not a mistake but a model assumption, and Dr. Clack is well aware that it was not a mistake yet falsely and intentionally calls it a mistake here. On Monday, February 29,2016, I informed Dr. Clack by email that we assumed an increase in discharge rate while keeping annual energy output constant..."

    The first statement is from Clack et al. The second is Jacobson's reply. The email discussion is irrelevant. That was not in the Jacobson paper and the paper has not been corrected to include the BS assumption. So, the issue seems to be is Clack deliberately lying in his paper when he says there are modeling mistakes in Jacobson's paper. My take is if you made an absurd assumption that you are ashamed to reveal in your paper and used it in your model, then you made a bad assumption and a big modeling mistake. Or, you did it deliberately to get the desired outcome. Case closed, again.

    Jacobson should have just kept his mouth shut. The rabid greens will continue to use his paper to support their foolish policy demands, perhaps until it is thoroughly and publicly discredited.

  366. Clack's attitude was that the Jacobson paper was a piece of political junk science that should not be allowed to influence energy policy any longer.

    That is precisely what Clack said.  He found people taking Jacobson's laughably-bogus paper seriously as a basis for policy, and realized that it had to be deconstructed instead of ignored.  So he did it.

    Jacobson thinks that his emails to Clack and a bogus libel suit are going to bail him out. Not bloody likely.

    Jacobson doesn't have any choice in the matter.  His usefulness to his patrons as an excuse to kill the nuclear industry in the USA and hand everything to the natural gas (oil) companies is gone the moment he caves.  He HAS to double down.  Maybe his operators have plans for making a propaganda martyr of him after he loses, but he may just get cut loose after the investigation for academic misconduct uncovers the truth.  UCLA will have to investigate after donors start making nasty phone calls.  Jacobson's done, he just doesn't know it yet.

  367. Mike: Maybe I am missing something, but I don't see a date for the Errata and no indication that it is formally attached to the original paper. Anyway, as you say, it's still wrong. It doesn't do anything to address the practicality of adding all those turbines and where all the water is going to come from and the consequences of massively increasing the discharge rate. I really don't get the point. Is he saying that the assumption is that all these turbines are going to be somehow retrofitted to big freaking concrete dams, but not necessarily put to use? Maybe Brandon can answer that question when he gets done studying up on energy vs. power. He should be back any minute now.

    "He says that the maximum discharge rate will be increased to 1370 GW, without increasing the maximum annual potential beyond 87.48 GW."

    This is what Brandon called me stupid for observing. I would like to see someone explain how you can add all those turbines and massively increase the maximum discharge rate without increasing the maximum annual potential, unless the added turbines are just installed for giggles, not for actual use.

    PS: I read the errata again and I think I get Jacobson's point, but it is still ridiculous. I am done trying to make sense of this foolishness.

    E-P: I don't think Jacobson is in any danger. He won't cave. If the suit survives he will drag it out for twenty years, using the Mann strategy. The green crowd and left loon academia aren't going to punish that clown. But I hope you are right.

  368. I wonder if Jacobson is going to sue these guys:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/E3988.full

    E-P:How many UCLA donors do you figure have ever heard of Jacobson and his foolishness? And out of that number, how many give a dam about this story? I think Professor Jacobson is probably safe in his ivory tower. We can only hope that some other form of misfortune befalls that smarmy clown.

  369. MikeN, I suppose I at least owe you an explanation as tot why I've stopped responded. To put it simply, you cannot read my mind yet claim to know things which you could only know via telepathy. You've claimed, any number of times now, I don't know basic things like the difference between power and energy, but you've never shown a single conceptual error on my part. All you have done is focus on terminology and units.

    The simple reailty is a person can understand something perfectly well without being able to articulate it well. It's been a long time since I had to work with electrical calculations, and yeah, I was bad about getting my terms and units right. You, on the other hand, did things like think pumped hydropower storage was a form of undgerground thermal energy storage as well as many other errors. And when it came down to specific conceptual issues, you balked, refusing to do something even as simple as provide a clear definition of "nameplate capacity" (the closest definition you provided was so wishy-washy as to be practically useless). At the same time, you've misinterpreted what I or other people have written numerous times, often in ways which showed a bias toward thinking things agree with you.

    As for your claim I would do anything similar to others, that is simply false. In fact, history shows as long as a person is willing to work with me, I am very patient and tolerant of errors. I don't insult people in every comment like has been common here. I don't make sly remarks to vagule allude to things then let 1,000 words pass before actually saying what I meant. I don't decide a person has no idea what they're talking about when every conceptual point they've made has been correct and my only complaints are about what terms mean and/or what units get used.

    But none of that would bother me much except you've consistently chosen not to apply anything remebling the same standards to anyone else on this page. If you had spent even a fraction of the time you've spent criticizing me commenting on other misrepresentations on this thread, I might think this was just a matter of ideals/standard. You don't though. From your demonstrated behavior, it would appear you don't care what sort of nonsense other people throw out, perhaps because they're on the same "side" as you.

    So yeah, I need to proofread my comments before posting them to make sure my units and terminology is correct. If you want to over-interpret that like you have, I can't help it. All I can say is you're wrong, and I've explained it to you several times. At this point, either I'm lying or you're wrong about me.

    Given the absurd amount of abuse seen in this thread, I think most onlookers would have a bit of sympathy for me in not doing my best work here. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe people would say the behavior of everyone here is reasonable and my behavior has been terrible. I'll take that risk.

  370. As an aside, directed at no one (and unlikely unheeded by anyone still following along), I think it's rather telling the most serious error in this post was my confusion about PHS, something I caught and corrected of my own accord.

    For all the verbiage and rhetroic about how I don't know what I'm talking about, somehow, not a single critic of mine managed to point out my biggest screw up. That seems strange to me. If people here really do know so much more than me like they portray, why did none of them catch what should have been incredibly obvious to anyone familiar with this field?

  371. >If people here really do know so much more than me like they portray, why did none of them catch what should have been incredibly obvious to anyone familiar with this field?
    Because they couldn't spot all your errors, that makes it wrong to point out some of your errors?
    I thought I had corrected you on PHS, a correction that you then corrected regarding UTES vs nonUTES.

    > refusing to do something even as simple as provide a clear definition of "nameplate capacity" (the closest definition you provided was so wishy-washy as to be practically useless).

    Unlike you, I don't claim expertise on every subject. I'm satisfied with EL's discussion on the subject. Your own definition feels like a stretch to try and fend off attacks on Jacobson's use of it.
    I'm not even sure you have a proper conceptual understanding of the issue.
    For example, when you write:
    "the table I show in this post lists hydropower at 87.42 for current values and 87.48 for 2050 values. Jacobson has repeatedly said the values given in that table were long-term average production rates. Clack et al. say the values were maximum instantaneous discharge rates. "
    Now the immediate context was one where I was wrong about the meaning of the 87.48GW. However, are you saying there is a difference between max instant discharge and long-term average production rate for the current values(87.42GW)?

    While you hate that I engage in telepathy, I will do so some more. What is the meaning of 87.48GW in your mind? I think we are in agreement on this meaning, it will be the definition of nameplate capacity, though you dispute the part about max discharge which we will leave out for a moment. Let's simplify it down to 1 plant, let's say 2 GW of this 87 GW. I think we are in agreement that the 87 GW is a sum of individual plant numbers, and not the collective simultaneous max. Under Jacobson's regime it can produce at a rate of ~30GW through some changes to the facility. Perhaps I should say "can", but let's ignore that. Now this plant does not actually produce 2GW over the year, it will produce ~1GW.
    So why is it listed as 2 GW and not 1GW? (I think I know your answer and we are in agreement).
    Now, let's look at Jacobson's changes and think about this instant max. The instant max is ~30GW in this simulation(I think 31.32 GW). How is this achieved?
    I was thinking something different, but it appears to be through adding turbines, something that is part of a standard design of a hydroelectric plant.
    If this plant had been designed this way from the beginning, I submit to you the plant would be listed with a nameplate capacity of 30GW.
    Like I said from the beginning, I do not have a good understanding of how hydro works. My impression is there is a hole in the dam through which water flow is controlled, and this will produce electricity in proportion to the water flow. Now suppose that hole were made 10% larger(in cross-section?). This would increase the nameplate capacity to 2.2GW, right, even if the annual energy production was the same. If the turbines being added was something similar to making a hole larger or adding an extra hole, then it doesn't matter if you have added 14 new holes, it is increasing the nameplate capacity and lowering the capacity factor.

    Energy vs Power, you will probably ignore all this and say you are right, but notice that I posted you understand energy vs power early in this thread. It was your own posts which convinced me otherwise.
    "The simple reailty is a person can understand something perfectly well without being able to articulate it well. "
    Then don't go and try to correct people when you are not able to articulate it well. I posted more on the issue so you could improve yourself. I don't see it as disqualifying, though others might and I can't fault them for it. I wrote
    " What you reported for an hour was not energy, it was power. For one hour the numbers would be the same."

    You didn't have to chime in with "In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other."
    This is wrong. You may think you have it right and is just being articulated poorly, or perhaps you think it is right as is, since you haven't conceded an error on this, but it looks like a conceptual error to me.

    I later pointed out:
    87.48 GWh v 87 GW, not the same units.

    Which if you were articulating poorly but thinking about it right(which incidentally was what I was thinking at the time), should have let you immediately spot the error.
    Instead you responded with:
    "You've quoted what I said as though it proves you right, but the reality is what I did does nothing to support what you say. The simple reality is when you have 87.48 GW produced for one hour, you get 87.48 GWh in one hour. If you then look at how much energy was produced in one hour, you get 87.48 GWh/h, which cancels out to 87.48 GW."

    Again wrong, and evidence of a conceptual error.
    Either way, if you are articulating poorly, it will be hard to get your point across.

    As for your being hostile, consider just in this post:
    >Seriously people, you're making it difficult for me not to insult you. ue, you say:
    For some reason, my post went through with a different name, and you thought it was a new commenter.

    >EnlightenmentLiberal continues cocking his ridiculous attitude while saying things like:
    >Where he cites nameplate capacity values and acts haughty despite the fact what he responded to was a remark about demonstrated maximum instantaneous discharge rates, a very different issue. He even says:

    >And MikeN, you take the cake. What you said was literally so dumb it damaged my mind. I am not kidding. I was rendered unable to vocalize anything but weird sounds and gibberish for hours due to you breaking my mind. You asked me:

    >I don't want to be rude. I prefer not to insult people. But... dear dog.

    I was expecting something like this from EL, when I simply responded NO, but he gave you two detailed posts to help you understand it. It's up to you whether you try.
    I will continue to highlight errors as I see them not as an attempt at an ad hominem argument, but to help you improve. If you follow up with more error rather than recognizing the error, that's on you.

  372. > If you had spent even a fraction of the time you've spent criticizing me commenting on other misrepresentations on this thread,

    I think I have spent a fraction, especially if you separate personal criticism(energy vs power, you don't get it, etc) from evaluation of your arguments. I also have argued against people(perhaps all of the commenters) on 'my side', which while I am leaning one way, I have been open to both sides, though I am pretty close to falling over.

  373. preponderance of the evidence
    n. the greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

    https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/preponderance+of+the+evidence

    This looks to me like it complicates things and that might be to Jacobson's advantage. He's relentless at finding every conceivable benefit to his stupid schemes, and every conceivable disadvantage for competting technologies, especially nuclear. He's infamous for larding the carbon footprint of nuclear with soot from fires started by a nuclear war.

    On his ad hoc hydro turbine buildout, perhaps the utter ridiculousness of it, along with it not being in the original paper, could outweigh the non-mentionment in Clack's response. But look at how Jacobson can find thirty some statements that he claims are false. On one side of the scale, Jacobson will be piling on copious amounts of industrial strength hair splitting. On the other side, Clack will have a mountian of absurdity. It reminds me a little of Arcady Renko, in Martin Cruz Smith's novel, Gorky Park. His main talent was to take a bad situation and make it more complicated.

    I suspect Clack would go with arbitration, rather than risk having a jury with fans of Naomi Klein and Bill McKibben. Also, Jacobson is very fast talking, charismatic and imposing looking. He looks sort of like Don Draper on Madmen. What does Clack look like? I heard a podcast interview with him. He sounds sort of like John Cook.

  374. Brandon, what's the story on the "Errata" your pal Jacobson posted at stanford ed:

    http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CombiningRenew/Clarification-PNAS15.pdf

    I don't see anything on that at PNAS. Is that supposed to correct Jacobson's inexplicable omission of the famous "assumption" of adding 1300 GW of turbines by tearing up existing big concrete dams with a lot of water behind them and retrofitting them with gaggles of turbines, pipes, tunnels and whatever, to expand hydro instantaneous generating capacity by 15 times, without building any new dams? Where are all those turbines going to fit in? How can that "assumption" be justified? Is it not obviously silly? Clack says:

    "The scale of this error is staggering. The maximum instantaneous electricity generation capacity of
    all electricity sources in the United States today is 1170 GW (U.S. Energy Information
    Administration 2017). Jacobson et al. neglects to mention an assumed 1500% expansion in
    generation capacity of hydropower, leading to this system being capable of producing more power
    than all sources combined in the US today."

    Jacobson et al. decided not to mention the "assumption" in the paper, because it is too silly to explain. They hoped nobody would notice.

    And this is a big lie in the alleged "Errata":

    "However, as indicated in Figures 2b, S4b, and S5b, it is assumed here that 1,282.5 GW of turbines are added to
    existing hydropower dams to increase the maximum instantaneous discharge rate of
    hydropower to a total 1,370 GW without changing the reservoir size or maximum
    potential annually averaged discharge rate of hydropower of 87.48 GW."

    There is nothing in those Figures to indicate that 1300 GW of turbines are "assumed" to be added to existing hydropower dams, or added anywhere else. There is nothing in the entire paper. Is this "assumption" trivial? What were they thinking? They must have discussed it. I bet somebody said, "Hey fellas, we need to explain this assumption." and he was immediately and unceremoniously dropped from the team.

  375. MikeN:

    Because they couldn't spot all your errors, that makes it wrong to point out some of your errors?

    See, this is the sort of remark that epitomizes this discussion thread. It doesn't come close to being a reasonable or accurate portrayal of what I said. It is the exact sort of lame, rhetorical strawman one could predict someone would make if they thought people weren't interested in a real discussion.

    Then you follow it up with statements like this:

    Unlike you, I don't claim expertise on every subject.

    Which is about as close to a lie as one can get without there being any doubt. I have never claimed expertise on any subject in my life. Even in things like the hockey stick debate, where I note my knowledge is greater than all but a handful of people, I don't claim to be an expert. I certainly never claimed to be an expert regarding anything involved in this discussion.

    The reason I "hate that [you] engage in telepathy" is the same reason I hate that anyone does - they always get it wrong. Your remarks above show how inaccurately you interpret things I write. The idea you could reliably read what I think is laughable.

    On top of this, I cannot possibly prove what I think or feel. If someone writes a comment where they use telepathy to declare I am furious when writing responses, I can't ask readers to get inside my head and realize I'm bemused or mildly frustrated. What this means is people doing this say things they have no way to know to be true which can never be verified or proven false.

    I'm not going to respond to the rest of the non-technical points you make because, quite simply, I don't think there's a point. If you or anyone else honestly thinks the first two quotes I provided in this comment are accurate or reasonable, pointing out more inaccurate/unreasoable things you've written seems unlikely to do any good.

    If you can show where I've portrayed myself as an expert in every field or that I suggested failing to point out all errors means a person shouldn't point out any, then fine, we can accept you're right about me. When you cannot do either, that should show the credibility of the rest of your claims (on non-technical points).

    (A comment on a technical issue to follow.)

  376. MikeN:

    This is wrong. You may think you have it right and is just being articulated poorly, or perhaps you think it is right as is, since you haven't conceded an error on this, but it looks like a conceptual error to me.

    I think it is right because, as best I can tell, it is. If I thought I were wrong, I would say so. It isn't like I'm shy about admitting errors. For all the rhetoric people have thrown out on this issue, (as far as I can tell) nobody has addressed the very simple point I made, which is when you have h/h, you can cancel them out. I'll break this down to show my understanding. Here is a simple start:

    1 W = 1 J/s
    1 Wh = 1 W * 3600 s
    1 W * 3600 s = 1 J/s * 3600 s
    1 Wh = 3600 Js/s
    1 Wh = 3600 J

    There is nothing remarkable about these steps. The result matches what you would find anywhere, such as on Wikipedia. I imagine nobody here would disagree with it (though if I'm wrong, people should feel free to speak up). The question now is what happens when you divide that last step by 1h?

    1 Wh/h = 3600 J/h
    1 Wh/h = 3600 J/3600 s
    1 Wh/h = 1 J/s
    1 Wh/h = 1 J/s = 1W
    1 Wh/h = 1 W

    I don't see anything wrong with any of those steps. If there is anything wrong with any of them, I'd love to hear it. However, nobody has even asked me to show them or anything ilke them. The reason I haven't conceded any error on this issue is nobody has done anything (that I can see) to address what seems to be very simple logic. When I said:

    In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other.

    All I was doing is noting 1 Wh/h = 1 W, or 1 GWh/h = 1 GW. I don't see anything remarkable abougt that. As I noted, one can write GWh/h to make it clear one is referring to energy rather than power, but since 1 GW and 1 GW/h are equal to one another, you could choose to use them interchangeably.

    Now please, if I'm so wrong and have no idea what I'm talking about, what exactly about the formulations I presented are wrong? Or if they're not wrong, why is it using 1 W in place of 1 Wh/h is nonsensical even though the two are equal to one another?

  377. I forgot to mention something I think important MikeN:

    I think I have spent a fraction,

    You may think this, but that's true only in the most literal sense (even one example would technically create a fraction, no matter how small). I could quote dozens of remarks worse than anything you've criticized from me in terms of accuracy from commenters where you didn't say a word. People have routinely and blatantly misrepresented things said by myself, Jacobson and probably others without a peep from you. You've commented on a few more technical points people have made, but even then, you've been far more courteous and generous than with me.

    I'm not speaking idly either. While I've chosen not to respond to many comments, I have still read them all. In the process, I've thought through responses and discarded them as useless as I realized I could write a 5,000 word post pointing out only the most blatant misrepresentations posted in these comments, and I wouldn't have made it through a quarter of what's been written.

    I'm not speaking idly either. If you don't believe me, I've been tempted to do exactly that just to prove a point about how pathetic the quality of comments here have been. Even if one ignores how childish and rude people have been, the actualy substance of what's been written has been terrible. If this represents how Clack et al. is to be defended (and I doubt it does), I suspect he'll manage to lose even the PR battle.

    I won't claim anyone would be convinced by my contribution to this comment thread, but I doubt any disinterested party would read what's been posted here and think well of my critics. I shudder to imagine what would have happened if I had stooped to the level of the average comment on this page. Which come to think of it, has also typically been true when people came here to defend Mann/Tol/Cook/Lewandowsky/etc.

  378. Fine display of pedantry, Brandon. Why don't you address the relevant issues instead of this constant unresolved bickering over nomenclature and semantic quibbling over BS. If you can't get past that crap and on to discussing the central issues, you should quit. Take your ball and go home.

    What is it that you are trying to prove here? That lying is not OK? That's trivial. Your claim is that Clack is lying because he got an email from Jacobson explaining something that was not in his freaking paper. Clack et al. is about the paper, not about some BS CYA email that Jacobson sent with an ex post facto excuse for a very stupid assumption that was not revealed in his paper. Very likely deliberately left out. A demonstrably bad and stupid assumption that was a critical input to Jacobson's BS model. Why isn't that a modeling error? Now pretend you don't see this comment because I don't treat you like a delicate child. You are supposed to be a man. Man up.

  379. Regarding the "preponderance of evidence standard" for civil suits. I do not know, but my understanding indicates that SCOTUS case law has created a stricter standard regarding for defamation of public persons, the "malice" standard. I assume Jacobson will count as a public person, considering that he's a famous author in popular publications like Scientific American, and has appeared on popular shows like Bill Nye Saves The World, and at least on public debate on NPR by the Commonwealth Club of California, and various other public outreach programs. Interestingly, Clack et al might not meet the public person standard, which in principle might make it easier for them to countersue for defamation per se (although I doubt it would happen, and I'm unsure if they could win, leaning towards "no" for both sides).

  380. To Brandon:

    All I was doing is noting 1 Wh/h = 1 W, or 1 GWh/h = 1 GW.

    Practically speaking, no one complained about this. You're attacking strawmen. You should respond to the actual critiques of your posts, and not imagined ones.

    Also, if you think that's true regarding even just that post where you first said that, you need to go re-read your own posts too, in addition to the posts of everyone else.

  381. Oh boy.

    1 W = 1 J/s
    1 Wh = 1 W * 3600 s
    1 W * 3600 s = 1 J/s * 3600 s
    1 Wh = 3600 Js/s
    1 Wh = 3600 J

    There is nothing remarkable about these steps. The result matches what you would find anywhere, such as on Wikipedia. I imagine nobody here would disagree with it (though if I'm wrong, people should feel free to speak up). The question now is what happens when you divide that last step by 1h?

    1 Wh/h = 3600 J/h
    1 Wh/h = 3600 J/3600 s
    1 Wh/h = 1 J/s
    1 Wh/h = 1 J/s = 1W
    1 Wh/h = 1 W

    All true.

    > In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other.

    Not true. Energy is in joules or GWh or something equivalent. What you have in your first set of calculations. Power is in GW or GWH/h like you have in your second set. Energy is not expressed in GW. You never did respond to per and divide question. I don't think those sentences would work as well if you tried to write them out.

    >All I was doing is noting 1 Wh/h = 1 W, or 1 GWh/h = 1 GW.
    Again true.

    >As I noted, one can write GWh/h to make it clear one is referring to energy rather than power,
    NO
    >but since 1 GW and 1 GW/h are equal to one another,
    NO
    > you could choose to use them interchangeably.
    NO

    >why is it using 1 W in place of 1 Wh/h is nonsensical even though the two are equal to one another?
    Perhaps a little unusual, but it is not wrong. However, W is not the same as Wh, and W is not the same as W/h, and Wh is not the same as W/h. I think you should know all this as basic math.

  382. >Using the correct units wouldn't have changed anything about the point so the mistake doesn't affect anything, but you are right that I made a silly error. I'll try to clean that up in a bit.

    If you had stuck to writing things like this, there would be no issue of power vs energy and calling you out all the time. I wouldn't have even realized you're having trouble with it.

  383. Simpler form of my dispute over nameplate. Let's assume Mark Jacobson has implemented all of his changes to hydroelectric facilities so they now perform exactly as he wants and we now have a 100% renewable energy system with the characteristics as seen in his model results.
    How does he calculate 87.48 GW to put in that table?

  384. MikeN, I'll try to focus on one issue since we don't seem to be making progress when discussing multiple ones and this one is so simple. This fork began when you said:

    What you reported for an hour was not energy, it was power. For one hour the numbers would be the same.

    What I reported was in fact energy, which led me to noting:

    In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other.

    As I demonstrated in my recent comment, 1 Wh/h = 1 W. You agreed. I don't know why there's a dispute. I know after typing the formulation out I wrote "1 GW and 1 GW/h are equal to one another," but the intention was for that second term to be GWh/h, the same as in the formulation I provided. Given I was able to provide precise formulation for my point, I don't understand why you feel it necessary to make a remark like:

    Perhaps a little unusual, but it is not wrong. However, W is not the same as Wh, and W is not the same as W/h, and Wh is not the same as W/h. I think you should know all this as basic math.

    Aside from harping on typos, what exactly is the disagreement now? Just a few comments ago you wrote:

    You didn't have to chime in with "In fact, it is not just the numbers which would be the same, but the units. For one hour, power and energy are represented the exact same way. Unless one gives additional context (or writes the strange GWh/h), there's no way to say one was presented rather than the other."
    This is wrong. You may think you have it right and is just being articulated poorly, or perhaps you think it is right as is, since you haven't conceded an error on this, but it looks like a conceptual error to me.

    But you didn't say what was wrong with it. And now, you agree with the formulation which led me to saying it in the first place. What I said about this issue was when looking at a period of one hour,* the terms for energy and power are equal, not only in number as you mentioned, but also in unit. I then noted that without some additional context, it is impossible to tell what is being referred two by the two terms given they are equal in number and units. What exactly are you claiming is wrong with that? Please, do something more than just say, "NO" or, "You don't understand anything, har, har." You say:

    Not true. Energy is in joules or GWh or something equivalent. What you have in your first set of calculations. Power is in GW or GWH/h like you have in your second set. Energy is not expressed in GW. You never did respond to per and divide question. I don't think those sentences would work as well if you tried to write them out.

    I'm not sure what question you're referring to so I may have missed it, but what you say here doesn't contradict anything about the formulations I provided. You say, "Energy is not expressed in GW," but you fail to do anything to estabish why it could not be expressed as such in the situation I provided. I don't deny GWh/h might make one's meaning clearer so people know the purpose is to indicate power, but the fact using non-simplified units might make something clearer doesn't mean people aren't allowed to simplify units.

    In the simplest of senses, all I said is when you have units which divide X by X, the Xs cancel out. I honestly have no idea why that caused any sort of fuss.

    *Something I didn't mention at the time as it seems an obvious given, but is perhaps relevant due to the nonsense which has stemmed from all this, is this statement of mine only applies if one is using a division by hours for their power rate. Other time frames could be used in your power term instead. In fact, other time frames could be used in the energy term as well. This point should be immaterial as one could always convert unit types to make the power and energy have the same time units to create the same situation I described.

  385. Quoting Brandon:

    You say, "Energy is not expressed in GW," but you fail to do anything to estabish why it could not be expressed as such in the situation I provided.

    There is no situation where energy can be expressed in GW. Never ever ever. I don't care what your situation is.

  386. I don't want to distract from the technical point I was focusing on above, but since you asked such a crucial question MikeN:

    Simpler form of my dispute over nameplate. Let's assume Mark Jacobson has implemented all of his changes to hydroelectric facilities so they now perform exactly as he wants and we now have a 100% renewable energy system with the characteristics as seen in his model results.
    How does he calculate 87.48 GW to put in that table?

    The same way as if the additional turbines (and such) were not installed. The nameplate capacity of a facility is not determined merely by the turbines/generators/etc. An essential aspect of the nameplate capacity is derived from the water that can flow through it and the height the water can fall (which in some facilities can change as reservoir levels drop).

    Turbines are typicaly designed to provide nameplate capacity at a specific value for the water flowing through them. The idea is you pick a rate of flow for the water and a rate for the turbines to operate at which creates an optimal nameplate capacity. Generator capacity is then chosen which can keep up with that rate.

    But that rate is not some maximum output of a facility. The rate chosen for the water flow is typically below the maximum operational value, and in turn, so too are the turbines. This is why a common situation in dams is having turbines which can produce more mechanical power than the generators can convert into electricity. One reason for this is generators often have an "overload" capacity where they can be ran hot for a short period of time to exceed their normal, rated capacity. This is usually only 10-20% and is one reason why existing facilities may exceed their nameplate capacity.

    Crucially, whiel faciilities may have a total "nameplate capacity," each of the pieces of the puzzle have their own rating. You could have 100 MW in turbine rating yet only 75 MW in generator rating. That would mean unless you can run the generator hot, ~25% of the potential power the turbines could produce goes to waste. If something happens to the river and water levels drop permanently, it's possible the facility's rating would drop to 50 MW despite the turbines and generators exceeding that. (At least, if the facility were re-rated. Not all changes to a facility cause a re-rating, which is another reason facilities can have higher output than their nameplate capacity.

    In other words, nameplate capacity is determined by looking at what happens when you consider all the pieces combined. You can't count just the water flow and ignore the facility's hardware. You can't just count the facility's hardware and ignore the water flow. You can't count part of the facility's hardware but not count other parts. Figuring out the nameplate capacity for a facility requires looking at how the entire system can operate. For how long depends on the type of facility and what the intended purpose of the facility is.

    Two final thoughts. First, the same principle applies regardless of what type of facility you're looking at. Details change, but the same thing is done in refineries, manufacturing plants and mines. My personal exposure to it comes from IT work. One surprising example (to me, at least) was how tech support handling customer calls can be modeled in a similar fashion. Similarly, when you want to look at database and server loads for your network, you look at more than just peak demand, especially when you have to start planning out mirrored databases and servers. In other words, figuring out nameplate capacity is not as simple as just taking the highest amount of X for an hour, or even a day, and saying that's that.

    Second, I'm leaving for a conference in a little while. It's not far away and is just for one day, but I probably won't be active for ~18 hours. Believe it or not, I do have something of a life I have to manage.

  387. Like I said from the beginning, I do not have a good understanding of how hydro works.

    If you had simply read the article on the Russian dam disaster linked above, you would have a much better understanding; the pictures and drawings are quite illuminating.  But you won't even read things given to you by people trying to educate you.  You are willfully ignorant.

    If the turbines being added was something similar to making a hole larger or adding an extra hole, then it doesn't matter if you have added 14 new holes, it is increasing the nameplate capacity and lowering the capacity factor.

    With the complication that more flow raises the downstream water level, which reduces the Δh between the reservoir and downstream.  The max available energy from a given mass of water is mgΔh, and at some level of flow you can even raise the downstream level to the height of the reservoir and the available energy goes to zero.

  388. Mike inquires:
    "Simpler form of my dispute over nameplate. Let's assume Mark Jacobson has implemented all of his changes to hydroelectric facilities so they now perform exactly as he wants and we now have a 100% renewable energy system with the characteristics as seen in his model results.
    How does he calculate 87.48 GW to put in that table?"

    Brandon replies:
    "The same way as if the additional turbines (and such) were not installed. The nameplate capacity of a facility is not determined merely by the turbines/generators/etc. An essential aspect of the nameplate capacity is derived from the water that can flow through it and the height the water can fall (which in some facilities can change as reservoir levels drop)."

    Brandon has actually said something that is correct. It's just like the 1300 GW of turbines and all the associated modifications to existing dams and the expense of half a trillion dollars never happened. Because the water behind the dams that drives the turbines is not increased. This is the absurdity of Jacobson's paper. Who is going to get the operators of all the dams in the country to install all those additional turbines and associated infrastructure to get no increase in electricity production and who TF is going to pay the half trillion dollars?

    This is Jacobson's account from his fake "Errata":
    "The 87.48 GW in this table is not only the contemporary installed hydropower
    capacity, it is also the maximum potential annually averaged discharge rate of
    hydropower both today and in 2050 in this study. Thus, this maximum potential annually
    averaged rate is held constant over time here. The actual annually averaged discharge
    rate of hydropower in this study for 2050 is 45.92 GW (Table 2), which is much less than
    the 87.48 GW maximum potential annually averaged value. However, as indicated in
    Figures 2b, S4b, and S5b, it is assumed here that 1,282.5 GW of turbines are added to
    existing hydropower dams to increase the maximum instantaneous discharge rate of
    hydropower to a total 1,370 GW without changing the reservoir size or maximum
    potential annually averaged discharge rate of hydropower of 87.48 GW. Thus, while the
    peak discharge rate may increase significantly for some hours, it decreases significantly
    for others to ensure the actual annually averaged discharge rate of hydropower is not
    much different from today and much less than maximum annual value, 87.48 GW. This
    can be accomplished by modifying powerhouses to increase either the number or capacity
    of turbines and the instantaneous flow rate of water to them, by either adding pipes
    around or above dams or widening penstocks through dams."

    This is really not that hard. Why all the bickering over a lot of minutiae and peripheral BS? The most likely reason that Jacobson et al. neglected to mention their huge critically important assumption in their BS paper is that it is absurd per se.

  389. I don't see the typo you are now claiming. I think that's what you wrote to begin with, GWh/h.

    >all I said is when you have units which divide X by X, the Xs cancel out.

    Unfortunately, that is not all you have said. There would never have been a dispute. I started the ball rolling with 'Jacobson uses Twh/h'.
    Now, you are expressing energy in GWh, and GWh/h. The h represents time and you seem to be disappearing it.

    >> What you reported for an hour was not energy, it was power. For one hour the numbers would be the same.
    >
    >What I reported was in fact energy, which led me to noting:

    You were thinking of the table. I was talking about your two items- monthly and hourly max. Yes you reported the energy number, but in units of TW instead of TWh, which automatically makes it a report of power You used 'production' instead of 'rate', which suggests energy but does not preclude power since it could have been shorthand for production rate. Then you compared it to power of 87 GW. You also did so wrongly by saying it was 1.6x instead of 1600x, but my mistake was worse as I thought about the units via my calculation of nameplate monthly max and decided you were right.

    Fundamentally it is the same mistake. Excuse my telepathy, but here's what I think is happening:

    I noticed you wrote early in this thread,
    >you have to define a period of time in which that station would produce that many Watts.

    You are expressing energy in watts. So you are thinking 'power is watts per hour.
    If you have a 7 gigawatts per hour production for four hours, you have produced 28 gigawatts.'

    Then at a higher level you write it out as 28 gigawatt hours because you know energy is expressed in gigawatt hours.
    Sometimes you slip up and just write gigawatts.

    But at a basic level you are thinking in terms of 'watts are being produced at a certain rate per hour, multiply by the number of hours and this gets you the energy production.
    Energy is written in Gigawatt hours, so if you produce a gigawatt hour for an hour that is a gigawatt.'

    That last part is only true because the power is one gigawatt, not the energy. Energy is never expressed in watts.
    In the future, substitute speed for power, mph for watts and miles(mph-hours) for gigawatt hours/watt hours/joules, and distance for energy and your statements should make sense. Or use knots for watts and nautical miles=knot-hours for watt-hours. If they don't make sense, then you have made an error.
    You are saying the analogy breaks down because of how the units are expressed. That is why I am using the analogy, because the units are expressed differently. The rules of unit conversion do not change with energy and power. GWh is not the same as GW. So energy that is expressed in GWh, will not be expressed in GW. That is energy/time expressed in GW.
    Even if you do not accept this, with your basic knowledge of units and basic math, take a look at your use of per and divide. They do not match up arithmetically, and you should be able to see that. Try to write it out as you wrote

    1 W = 1 J/s
    1 Wh = 1 W * 3600 s
    1 W * 3600 s = 1 J/s * 3600 s
    1 Wh = 3600 Js/s
    1 Wh = 3600 J