Looking for freedom and at stars. Interested in tech and energy. Tracking Europe's power grids | Charts & Insights
Joined May 2025
- Tweets836
- Following122
- Followers66
- Likes9.9K
Pinned Tweet
Interesting, so the Bogus/Bonus climate "scientist" blocked me the moment I wrote some argumented critique on the article he/they were promoting. Well, here is the article in question. acp.copernicus.org/articles/…
@cremieuxrecueil @JeremyTColes only if you find it interesting?
An article on measuring the effect of CO2 increase from space have surfaced on my timeline. The article, as I understood, is cherished and cited by climate scientists as a direct evidence of CO2 causing temperature increase on the Earth. Well, since I am scientist myself (not the climate, but energy) I've decided to have a look on the methodology, data, results and assumptions.
So my critique would only apply to general scientific methods, data processing, and fundamental physics and cannot go beyond that obviously. 🕵️♂️
1) There is no formal statistics. Only standard deviations reported but no confidence intervals whatsoever on the difference between theory and observation. Further, all channels are correlated, and in statistics this means that there are no sufficient independent confirmations. At one point, the standard deviation reported in the paper (0.025) was larger than observed noise. Actually it's unclear to me at all how SD was taken.
2) There is a mean-versus-mean comparison which seems to be quite a weak test, e.g. the theory used CO2 set to the 2003-2012 mean increase. It is not stated how multi-year differences were converted into an annual mean. So why not plotting radiance difference against delta CO2 for every year? 🤔 That could be quite stronger test.
3) The authors state that the temperature and humidity changes over 2000-2020 amount to only ~25% of the CO2 signal. If analogue matching had failed completely, the observed curve would still be within 25% of theory. So any unmatched radiance could also agree with theory? But this defies the method's claim that it can separate CO2 from temperature?
4) Theory CO2 uses July values, but analogue search profile of temperature and humidity spans June-August. But CO2 shifts across months and seasons, how can these be matched? The difference can be exactly the paper looks for.
Other points are difficult for me to judge on and require deeper knowledge.
To conclude, I think this the paper is a valid feasibility demonstration but as the evidence is weak on above points. What do other nerds think?
20-year Contract for Diference (CfD) with strike price £91.20 per MWh, inflation adjusted. How is this called an investment? It's a fat multi-decade subsidy for the wind lobby, again. The government will cover any difference between that strike price and the spot price of electricity. It's a fucking theft. When will it stop?
We've secured £12 billion of investment from @RWE_AG, alongside £1bn public money, for two major UK offshore wind farms off the coast of Norfolk - powering millions of homes and supporting thousands of jobs.
This is another vote of confidence in British homegrown, clean energy.
3
25
An article on measuring the effect of CO2 increase from space have surfaced on my timeline. The article, as I understood, is cherished and cited by climate scientists as a direct evidence of CO2 causing temperature increase on the Earth. Well, since I am scientist myself (not the climate, but energy) I've decided to have a look on the methodology, data, results and assumptions.
So my critique would only apply to general scientific methods, data processing, and fundamental physics and cannot go beyond that obviously. 🕵️♂️
1) There is no formal statistics. Only standard deviations reported but no confidence intervals whatsoever on the difference between theory and observation. Further, all channels are correlated, and in statistics this means that there are no sufficient independent confirmations. At one point, the standard deviation reported in the paper (0.025) was larger than observed noise. Actually it's unclear to me at all how SD was taken.
2) There is a mean-versus-mean comparison which seems to be quite a weak test, e.g. the theory used CO2 set to the 2003-2012 mean increase. It is not stated how multi-year differences were converted into an annual mean. So why not plotting radiance difference against delta CO2 for every year? 🤔 That could be quite stronger test.
3) The authors state that the temperature and humidity changes over 2000-2020 amount to only ~25% of the CO2 signal. If analogue matching had failed completely, the observed curve would still be within 25% of theory. So any unmatched radiance could also agree with theory? But this defies the method's claim that it can separate CO2 from temperature?
4) Theory CO2 uses July values, but analogue search profile of temperature and humidity spans June-August. But CO2 shifts across months and seasons, how can these be matched? The difference can be exactly the paper looks for.
Other points are difficult for me to judge on and require deeper knowledge.
To conclude, I think this the paper is a valid feasibility demonstration but as the evidence is weak on above points. What do other nerds think?
unavailable
Did you not have 30 years to address literally all of it? Why is this "Gish gallop"? I thought you climate "scientists" have answers to absolutely every question and you know certainly better?
unavailable
1
1
71
Polish power prices are the most unaffordable in Europe, with today's peak at €883/MWh. It's trully harmful for industries and consumers.
The coal sets prices in the most scarsity hours so abolishing crippling ETS (carbon) charges would be a great start. ETS on coal adds around €100/MWh on top of the electricity price. Also removing additional taxes and levies would further reduce the final cost of consumers and lower their energy bills.
Can somebody tell me, why carbon charges on Polish coal fleet cannot be eliminated?
32
StanFirewings retweeted
1.8K impressions away.
498.2K / 500K verified home timeline impressions. Everything else is already met.
Started this account to talk Tesla and FSD from Norway. Honestly baffled I got here. Thank you all so much! 🙏
I don't expect much. If it covers my $30 Grok Bot sub, I'm happy.
The dream? One day this account pays for my FSD. If it ever gets here 🤣
Reminder on how blackout in South Sweden and part of Denmark looked like nearly 23 years ago. Back then the south was too suffering from the shortfall of nuclear generation. Few units were out due to maintenance while Oskarshamn 3 and Ringhals tripped because of fault. Looking at current system constraints in SE4 and staggering electricity prices, can Sweden really afford building giant Data centers right now? I don't think so
Starting series "Blackouts". The first video is about blackout which took place in Sweden in 2003. Over 1 million people in Sweden and Denmark were left in dark.
1
60
Beautiful underfrequency events today in continental Europe, nicely clustered! Low-wind everywhere, area generation deficit, high demand - like a textbook case. We see in few moments estimates how much balancing the grid and keep the lights on cost today (on top of the exorbitant spot electricity prices).
1
23
Look like electricity price in SE4 (and some other zones) is at its peak of eur 680/MWh. How are you guys coping with that? This is what decades of green ideology, non-professionalism and general negligence of european energy security look like. The sad thing - nobody takes responsibility.
25
I am seeing enormous power imports in Germany in attempts to cover its own residual load which amounts at this moment to almost 63 GW! The fossil fuel generation is at 70% of mix, almost no renewables. What are the decisions from COP31? We desperately need another wind farm!
1
41
The COP crooks have saved the climate, this is very much reflected in the current electricity prices. Not that we are not at the peak, yet
And the Green Righteous are patting themselves on the back right now at their climate summit, COP31.
They party, drive up your energy costs, cripple you as a nation. And you pay.
23
The Sweden's SE4 bidding zone has at this moment the highest electricity price in Europe. With Sweden importing it looks like some constraints are at the swedish side. But I still have doubts that joining flow-based capacity calculation domain was a good decision.
1
57
Enormous drawings from the Dutch natural gas storage (data delayed 2 days). The Netherlands will not escape empty gas storage upcoming winter. Emergency measures incoming.
25
This year German transmission system operators spent estimated €680.2M and counting for such measures as renewables curtailment and redispatch. Staggering energy volume was downregulated, among others onshore wind took the biggest beating - 7.8 TWh which amounts to 39% of total measures. Renewables market was never in agreement with physics of the system and the bill comes due. You will hear more about sudden needs to have more gas-driven generation and extensions of coal power plants lifecycle beyond originaly planned. There are ways to run system cheaper, so ask why are they doing this?
25
While working at one of the European power grid utilities I had an experience interacting with the regulator first-hand. There are absolutely NONE of the technical experts employed by the regulator. Here is how it roughly worked:
- We (the operator) would bring worked out solutions from our technical team on the table
-They would make sure then that these solutions satisfied the prevalent ideology and were in line with the Ministry demands. So they took care of "writing".
- After that some invited lobbies got final remarks on how the outcome of the project/regulation/plan would eventually look like so that implementation could benefit them
At the end, the regulators are experts in politicized writing - don't expect miracles from them
Does it sound like there is much care about ensuring operational security of the power grids, advancing technology and benefiting consumers?
An independent review has found serious gaps in @ofgem's engineering and technical expertise, including in network planning, system operation and infrastructure delivery.
It warns that engineers are not involved early enough in regulatory decisions and that Ofgem struggles to recruit experienced specialists
No wonder Ofgem let's @neso_energy mark it's own homework
@Miatsf @mgshanks @AndrewBowie_MP @ClaireCoutinho @harrietc @ColinMoynihanUK @drlukeevans @ashley7fox @TiceRichard @cmackinlay @DavidGHFrost @mattwridley @Iromg @AllisonPearson @MerrynSW @EdConwaySky @afneil @mattotele @jonathan_leake @julietsamuel @energygovuk
gov.uk/government/publicatio…
