Global warming 'on pause' but set to resume

[Doug1029]

Windmills kill birds.

Not if you screen the small, fast-turning ones (Use wire mesh.). And large ones turn slowly enough the birds can see them. I've heard there's a video of hawks riding the blades for a boost to a higher observation point.

There was also a story about te windmills keeping the hot air near the ground so they increase your global warming.

How do you make this thing do those laughing faces? We have fewer than 200 windfarms in the state. Even if we had a thousand I can't imagine how a windmill could keep hot air from rising. There's a picture of a whole herd of cows lined up in the shadow of one of those things. At least, it's cooler in the shadow.

Further it isn't reliable.

Read this thread. I've explained how to use the grid to shunt power around when the wind isn't blowing and how to use hydrogen to provide base load. Time to do a little reading.

Doug

[Doug1029]

And don't put it on taxes or US laws. Guys, you're a bit provincialist. We are not all Americans and not all of us live there. We here in Europe have the same thoughts, worries and problems. Of course in US you (and your government) are more prone to oil than us, since you have a huge deposit of it, while we have to import it from other countries. Anyway, we are all ruled by oil lobbies, here like there.

I talk about the US because that's where I live - right in the middle of the oil patch. There are a dozen drilling rigs within 20 miles of me. And there are several hundred windmills. Gives one an interesting perspective.

I guess I am a bit provincial (maybe stated?). I think the solutions are much the same all over the world. The final mix of power sources will have a little of everything. Even though it pollutes, there will still be some uses for coal and oil. And hydroelectric. And maybe even nuclear. Each country or region will find one mix works a little better for it than another does. There are a lot of questions yet to answer and I'm hoping to answer some of them. That'll be my contribution.

Doug

[Parsec]

Doug, feeling touchy? Actually I was talking more to danielost and zaphod, who brought up the matter first, but hey, feel free to contribute!

[danielost]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

[Doug1029]

Doug, feeling touchy? Actually I was talking more to danielost and zaphod, who brought up the matter first, but hey, feel free to contribute!

Yes. I've been here since 8:00 this morning (It's 1:00 a.m.). Worked the same kind of day yesterday. Been working kin-to-kaint for six months trying to make a deadline. It's tomorrow and I don't know whether I'll get things done or not. But I might die trying.

Anyway, your comments are appreciated. Even though I might be a little provincial.

Doug

[Doug1029]

http://www.telegraph...-new-study.html

Sounds like they stir the air up a little and might even affect local weather. But contributors to climate change? Even the people who did the study say a lot more work is needed (Researchers always say that.). You've got a long way to go before most climate scientists will accept it.

But stay tuned.

Doug

[Guest]

There are no reliable temperature records for thousands of years back. There are educated guesses, that is all. But yes, lets say there was linear, slow decline.

And that was reversed by *humans*? Not by any of the other millions of factors around, including e.g. sun activity? And while we are at humans, this was only caused by CO2? What happened to the CH4 emitted by farting cows --- the UN itself declared that this was a bigger factor than the evil CO2.

Cornelius, dont say you are a cow fart denier??

Ice cores and other proxies give us very good estimates of global temperatures going back at least 8kyrs.

CO2 is the most significant man made global warming gas, but you are correct in saying that CH4 is as well. If you repeatedly insist on ignoring what I have said regarding cattle, I cannot engage you in discussion. CH4 is significant in that it represents a massive feedback mechanism in that there is huge methane stores in the permafrost which are been released as temperatures in the Arctic circle climb. However man made CH4 emissions are not as signi9ficant as man made CO2 and I would have to see the UN quote before I would accept your statement.

The Sun has shown completely the wrong activity to account for recent warming so cannot be used as an explanation for AGW.

You seem to have bought into every single denial gambit going - do you read WHATS UP ?

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Windmills kill birds. There was also a story about te windmills keeping the hot air near the ground so they increase your global warming. Further it isn't reliable.

Old windmills kill birds (because of their fast rotor), modern windmills have slow rotors and bigger gearing - they no longer kill birds.

Your information is out of date.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

http://www.telegraph...-new-study.html

You should look into the temperature effects of large coal powered power plants, they generate a hot CO2 plume which covers huge areas and alters the temperature - they also produce significant warming of local rivers/lakes which they use for cooling which significantly impacts local ecosystems. It also has to be pointed out that if this finding is true it represents a localized redistribution of energy rather than a net warming of the planet.

Are you concerned about coal/nuclear and its effects on local temps - or are you simply seeking a reason to dislike windfarms ?

Br Cornelius

Edited July 26, 2013 by Guest

[Zaphod222]

You should look into the temperature effects of large coal powered power plants, they generate a hot CO2 plume which covers huge areas and alters the temperature - they also produce significant warming of local rivers/lakes which they use for cooling which significantly impacts local ecosystems.

They also produce the energy that allow you to sit at your computer and pontificate about Flying Spaghetti Monsters and man-made global warming on the internet. I would like to hear you squeal if that power wasn`t available anymore.

And I notice that you are still in denial about Cow Farts. OK, you don´t deny that it is an issue, you just fail to write reams of comments about them, because, well.... the politicians and mainstream media can not find a find a good way to mold cow farts into a simplistic talking point and simplistic demands for new taxation.

Or is there another reason?

[Zaphod222]

Wind is already replacing oil - right here in the middle of the oil patch. Wind generates 3.2% of US power right now and that is expected to rise to 20% by 2030. We are currently building about 1200 megawatts of capacity a year and that amount is expected to rise.

Is that amount amount expected to rise because it is realistic economic option, or simply because generous government subsidies (taken from the rest of the economy) are paying for it?

And does you calculation include the ADDITIONAL conventional power plants that are required for windmills to be permanently on standby to compensate the wild fluctuations that a random power source like wind introduces into the system? And the additional costs in those, because of the very high wear and tear because they can never run at optimum level, but have to be power up and down constantly?

No? I am not surprised.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Zaphod222

[Guest]

They also produce the energy that allow you to sit at your computer and pontificate about Flying Spaghetti Monsters and man-made global warming on the internet. I would like to hear you squeal if that power wasn`t available anymore.

And I notice that you are still in denial about Cow Farts. OK, you don´t deny that it is an issue, you just fail to write reams of comments about them, because, well.... the politicians and mainstream media can not find a find a good way to mold cow farts into a simplistic talking point and simplistic demands for new taxation.

Or is there another reason?

I advocate a diversification away from coal, using conventional gas as the bridge to allow the infrastructure roll out to a sustainable energy mix. This leaves a small window in which to divest of our dependence on fossil fuels. It represents a challenge as great as the electrification of the world - and it will happen on roughly the same time scale. Vested interest (fossil fuel) is apply a brake to that process which is a tragedy.

I have explained two of the main issues with Cows, not their farts which is a minor issue. The fact that you are two ignorant of the subject to follow up and confirm what I say is true tells me a hell of a lot about your mind set. You seem to have a fixed idea about cows, gained from a denial website, but are totally unwill to look into the complex reality that Cow farming actually represents. SAD.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Is that amount amount expected to rise because it is realistic economic option, or simply because generous government subsidies (taken from the rest of the economy) are paying for it?

And does you calculation include the ADDITIONAL conventional power plants that are required for windmills to be permanently on standby to compensate the wild fluctuations that a random power source like wind introduces into the system? And the additional costs in those, because of the very high wear and tear because they can never run at optimum level, but have to be power up and down constantly?

No? I am not surprised.

All major infrastructural changes in the past have been backed by Governments through bonds or subsidies. Its how strategic objectives are achieved. Wind is only uncompetitive in the building phase and so receives subsidies. Nuclear and coal still receive subsidies to build the infrastructure so its hardly an unusual situation. Once the infrastructure is built Wind is a cheaper form of electricity to generate - it is price competitive with coal.

You obviously know less about power generation than you claim. All power networks have "Peaker" capacity to cope with uneven loads. Its standard practice and a necessary part of any grid system. Part of the roll out of Wind/wave/tidal power will involve building significant pumped storage facilities to replace inefficient gas peakers. The High Voltage DC network and storage facilities are already been designed and built - the sustainable future is been built slowly and quietly despite your bleetings.

Do you deny that this is the way nations get their infrastructure ? Is it just support for Wind which you disagree with ?

Br Cornelius

Edited July 26, 2013 by Guest

[Capt Amerika]

I love the green energy movement and how the Liberals push it to the bitter end.

Yet look at what happens when the movement affects them....

Cape Wind Project - The best suited area in the nation for wind power and look at the Libs fight tooth and nail to stop it and why?

Because its right offshore from the Kennedy's and other Libs homes and affects their ocean view.

So which is it? a needed process to save the planet or a talking point to make money off of green energy ventures that ultimately end up failing after fleecing the taxpayer?

I'm going with the latter.

[Zaphod222]

All major infrastructural changes in the past have been backed by Governments through bonds or subsidies. Its how strategic objectives are achieved. Wind is only uncompetitive in the building phase and so receives subsidies. Nuclear and coal still receive subsidies to build the infrastructure so its hardly an unusual situation. Once the infrastructure is built Wind is a cheaper form of electricity to generate - it is price competitive with coal.

I don´t know what activists sites you are copying this misinformation from, but afaic it is factually wrong.

And Occcams razor says that if, in fact, we could windmill ourselves economically out of the energy prices, then entrepreneurs would be building windmills left, right and center.... instead of only building them when financed by the government, as is actually the case.

By the way, can you update us on how many of Obama`s fabled "green energy" companies have gone bankrupt in the last 6 years, even after absorbing millions of taxpayer money? It is quite an interesting and long list.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Zaphod222

[ninjadude]

Windmills kill birds. There was also a story about te windmills keeping the hot air near the ground so they increase your global warming. Further it isn't reliable.

Oil spills have killed more wildlife and future centuries of windmills.

[Guest]

I don´t know what activists sites you are copying this misinformation from, but afaic it is factually wrong.

And Occcams razor says that if, in fact, we could windmill ourselves economically out of the energy prices, then entrepreneurs would be building windmills left, right and center.... instead of only building them when financed by the government, as is actually the case.

By the way, can you update us on how many of Obama`s fabled "green energy" companies have gone bankrupt in the last 6 years, even after absorbing millions of taxpayer money? It is quite an interesting and long list.

I have no knowledge of the American market so cannot comment.

As Doug has repeatedly pointed out - operationally wind is cheaper than coal. Thats just a fact.

The government has decided to subsidise the infrastructure for strategic reason. The strategic reasons are ;

-climate change mitigation

-long term energy security

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

If cow farts are so bad. What are we going to about all the elephant and whale farts. Let's not forget deer,lins, tigers, humans, all of the animals they all fart. And dead trees give off co2.

[danielost]

I have no knowledge of the American market so cannot comment.

As Doug has repeatedly pointed out - operationally wind is cheaper than coal. Thats just a fact.

The government has decided to subsidise the infrastructure for strategic reason. The strategic reasons are ;

-climate change mitigation

-long term energy security

Br Cornelius

You mean thrown away.

[MysticStrummer]

Are we reeeaaally sure it paused?

http://www.mnn.com/e...op-of-the-world

"The North Pole has not completely melted away; there is still a layer of ice between the lake and the Arctic Ocean underneath. But that layer is thinning, and the newly formed lake is continuing to deepen. It's a dramatic reminder that climate change is real and that the Arctic is being radically transformed. In fact, the lake — we might as well call it Lake North Pole — is now an annual occurrence. A pool of meltwater has formed at the North Pole every year now since 2002."

Edited July 28, 2013 by MysticStrummer

[Frank Merton]

Cow farts are more of a problem because there are so many more of them because of domestication. The global warming problem would be greatly mitigated if we ate less meat.

[danielost]

But what our we going to do with th two biggest contributers of co2, warming oceans and volcanos.

Besides how come it is only american cows.

[Frank Merton]

Just something I picked up. My understanding is that methane from cattle us a major contributor, so there you have it. And who said anything about just American cows; seems to me if one is serious one reduces meat.

[Michelle]

Just something I picked up. My understanding is that methane from cattle us a major contributor, so there you have it. And who said anything about just American cows; seems to me if one is serious one reduces meat.

As opposed to India, where cows are sacred, not eaten and roam the streets?

[Guest]

But what our we going to do with th two biggest contributers of co2, warming oceans and volcanos.

Besides how come it is only american cows.

Volcano's are a constant source of CO2 so have little effect on overall net CO2 levels.

The oceans will outgas CO2 in the future - but are currently a net sink of CO2.

Each population of Cows has a different climate impact - depending on the farming method used and the land use changes it causes. I will repeat myself, In China more cows means less paddy fields which means less Methane emissions. In the USA more cows in permanent lots means more deforestation to grow soya and grain in South America with a net increase in overall methane emissions. LET ME REPEAT - THE CRITICAL FACTOR IS LAND USE NOT COW FARTS.

Br Cornelius