Climate Change is a Hoax

[lost_shaman]

Sorry have to watch Beto make a fool of Dems Live on CNN. I'm sure he will say something crazy about Global warming.

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, lost_shaman said:

Sorry have to watch Beto make a fool of Dems Live on CNN. I'm sure he will say something crazy about Global warming.

Beto you mean the sea sponge, (previous video, no not the dancing one)? Yeah, post it here l wouldn't mind seeing that idiot get blasted.

[tmcom]

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6015455887001/#sp=show-clips

At least apart from a few d***headed celebraties, the world will end in 12 years is inaccurate.

The world has been trying to end over the last 50 years, l am sure it will end soon, lol.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

At least apart from a few d***headed celebraties, the world will end in 12 years is inaccurate.

Not true and never was.  You show a complete misunderstanding of the subject.  The twelve-year figure is only the estimated point where average temperature rise will reach 2C.  And at that, it could get there four years earlier or 10 years later.  After that, things will start to accelerate noticeably.  At the current rate we will reach 4C about 2070.  That's pretty-much the end of our grace period.

Global warming is not so much a forecast as it is history.  It has already happened; it is happening.

Doug

[tmcom]

4 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Not true and never was.  You show a complete misunderstanding of the subject.  The twelve-year figure is only the estimated point where average temperature rise will reach 2C.  And at that, it could get there four years earlier or 10 years later.  After that, things will start to accelerate noticeably.  At the current rate we will reach 4C about 2070.  That's pretty-much the end of our grace period.

Global warming is not so much a forecast as it is history.  It has already happened; it is happening.

Doug

True, l need to research Cortez more after all she dances and is in congress.

[Doug1029]

On 5/20/2019 at 9:14 AM, tortugabob said:

I love this one.  Many a truth was spoken in jest. 

 

He says that climate scientists have over-estimated global warming by a factor of two.  Suppose he's right.  That only means we have more time to fix the problem before it becomes critical.  Better get crackin'.

Doug

[Doug1029]

2 minutes ago, tmcom said:

True, l need to research Cortez more after all she dances and is in congress.

Too late.

Doug

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Man I don't know where you are living but I've been utterly surrounded with about 700+ of the damn things! 

Imagine the Scrap Metal market here in 20 years?

The life expectancy of a wind turbine is 25 to 30 years with minimal maintence, extendable indefinitely beyond that.

Just think:  you're generating enough power for almost a million people.

Doug

[tortugabob]

Lost_Shaman in answer to your question/statement  "Man I don't know where you are living but I've been utterly surrounded with about 700+ of the damn things! Imagine the Scrap Metal market here in 20 years?"

I live in part of the USA where there is not enough wind to justify windmills, thank the gods. My area has a mix of hydroelectric, nuclear, gas turbine and a few coal fired plants that are slowly being phased out as it's cheaper to install gas turbines than replace aging boilers. I'll be the first to admit that phasing out the coal plants is a good thing.  Real pollutants like, NOX, SO2 and fly ash are a problem. American coal should be left in the ground for later development when we need to make liquid and gaseous petroleum products out of it.  I am looking for a map I saw that actually shows suitable regions for wind power generation in the US.  It is surprisingly small and located in rough line running north / south in the mid-west.  I pity the fools that buy into the scam that wind power electricity will be cheaper in those areas. The fact that the windmills have to be replaced every 20 to 30 years will make cheap wind energy unfeasible.  Plus as I said before in areas where wind power is used they still have to keep  gas turbines and fossil fuel boilers on-line at a low fire setting and ready to go 100 percent of the time in case the wind stops. They also have to maintain that infrastructure. Add that to the costs of wind and I wonder what the true costs are?  When I have time I'm looking in to it.  

Edited May 22, 2019 by tortugabob

[tortugabob]

Doug sez:  "The life expectancy of a wind turbine is 25 to 30 years with minimal maintence, extendable indefinitely beyond that."

He means in the unicorn world, the one without friction and black swan events like tornadoes, hurricanes and stuff like that.

[Doug1029]

27 minutes ago, tortugabob said:

I pity the fools that buy into the scam that wind power electricity will be cheaper in those areas. The fact that the windmills have to be replaced every 20 to 30 years will make cheap wind energy unfeasible.  Plus as I said before in areas where wind power is used they still have to keep  gas turbines and fossil fuel boilers on-line at a low fire setting and ready to go 100 percent of the time in case the wind stops. They also have to maintain that infrastructure. Add that to the costs of wind and I wonder what the true costs are?  When I have time I'm looking in to it.  

Wind power already is cheaper.  Use levelized costs - those take into account construction costs.

Wind turbines can be extended beyond 30 years with some maintenance.  Like all power sources, they decrease in efficieny as they age and at the same time, maintenance costs go up.  You tear them down when the maintenace costs exceed the value of the electricity they are generating.  Sort of like trying to decide when to replace your car.

In Oklahoma the wind stops about 10% of the time; however, it is still blowing elsewhere in the same wind farm, meaning that wind farm is generating about 99% of the time.  By networking wind farms together, the risk of wind failure can be virutally eliminated.  Wind farm spacing needed to achieve this is about 350 km.  We already have power failures every few months, some of them lasting hours to days.  Wind should be no different and no more frequent.

At the present time, Nexterra is building gas plants as backup.  They plan to operate these only at times low wind is forecast.  Start-up for a gas turbine takes several minutes as another engine (deisel, gas, oil, etc.) is needed to start the gas turbine, bring it up to purge speed, then bring it to generating speed and assit it until it reaches full capacity.  Two or three minutes at most.  Fuel costs and engine wear dictate that these generators not be kept online all the time.

I view the presence of backup systems as a good thing.  They will hardly ever be needed, maybe never.  As the companies get more experience with wind, I expect they will quit building backup plants.  In Oklahoma those are cheaper simply because they use the same transmission lines as wind - don't have the extra cost.  My daughter, an oil field geologist working in Oklahoma, is predicting that there is only 20 years of gas left here and only a trickle of oil.  Gas backup will probably not be available when the first generation of windmills reach the ends of their lives.

Maintenance consists of the turbines themselves, transmission lines (The average wind farm has four miles of trasmission lines needed to connect it to the grid; Wind Catcher has 350 miles.) and service roads - mostly dirt with some gravel in the mudholes.  The turbines are expected to operate for the first 25 to 30 years almost without maintenance.  After that, it all depends on where the profitability figures are.

One last thought here:  wind may turn out to be nothing more than an interlude.  Technology is advancing rapidly and there's no telling what invention may put wind out-of-business altogether.

While there are some areas, like the Oklahoma panhandle that have the best wind, wind poer can be generated almost anywhere.  There is a six-turbne wind farm near Pittsburg, for example.  And building wind turbines on orphan spoils would be a good way to bring jobs to Appalachia.

Doug

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, tortugabob said:

Doug sez:  "The life expectancy of a wind turbine is 25 to 30 years with minimal maintence, extendable indefinitely beyond that."

He means in the unicorn world, the one without friction and black swan events like tornadoes, hurricanes and stuff like that.

Yes, unicorn indeed and it would probably destroy our planet by trying to clean it up.

Quote

At a density of, very roughly, 50 acres per megawatt, typical for wind farms, that many turbines would require a land area greater than the British Isles, including Ireland. Every year. If we kept this up for 50 years, we would have covered every square mile of a land area the size of Russia with wind farms. Remember, this would be just to fulfill the new demand for energy, not to displace the vast existing supply of energy from fossil fuels, which currently supply 80 per cent of global energy needs.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/wind_turbines_are_neither_clean_nor_green_and_they_provide_zero_global_ener/

Quote

As for resource consumption and environmental impacts, the direct effects of wind turbines - killing birds and bats, sinking concrete foundations deep into wild lands - is bad enough. But out of sight and out of mind is the dirty pollution generated in Inner Mongolia by the mining of rare-earth metals for the magnets in the turbines. This generates toxic and radioactive waste on an epic scale, which is why the phrase ‘clean energy’ is such a sick joke and ministers should be ashamed every time it passes their lips.

It gets worse. Wind turbines, apart from the fiberglass blades, are made mostly of steel, with concrete bases. They need about 200 times as much material per unit of capacity as a modern combined cycle gas turbine. Steel is made with coal, not just to provide the heat for smelting ore, but to supply the carbon in the alloy. Cement is also often made using coal. The machinery of ‘clean’ renewables is the output of the fossil fuel economy, and largely the coal economy.

A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal-mining output.

So we do this til the year 2070, and vast areas are covered with these monstrosities, the size of Russia when combined, Mongolia is a radioactive cesspool, and we have to use 50 million tones a year of coal to keep up, (to replace is unviable and would turn our planet into a Sci Fi wind turbine nightmare.

So unless we start planting them in our oceans, (serious issues with cyclones, storms and freak tidal wave damage) it is unsustainable, and replacing them in 20+ years is a joke, or our future is km's of rusted, burning or broken wind turbines, as using all of the EU's coal mining output to produce enough to replace the ones we create now or soon, as well as keeping up with demands doesn't work!

But yeah, l know end is nigh, so common sense goes out the door! Gas is the answer til we find something else!

[lost_shaman]

35 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

The turbines are expected to operate for the first 25 to 30 years almost without maintenance.  After that, it all depends on where the profitability figures are.

What? Do you just make this stuff up? The gear boxes have a probability of 37% failure after only 7 years, 93% at 20 years. Not to mention the regular oil changes every few years.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/wind-turbine-gearboxes-fail-hit-20-year-mark/

[Tatetopa]

6 minutes ago, tmcom said:

So we do this til the year 2070, and vast areas are covered with these monstrosities, the size of Russia when combined, Mongolia is a radioactive cesspool, and we have to use 50 million tones a year of coal to keep up, (to replace is unviable and would turn our planet into a Sci Fi wind turbine nightmare.

So unless we start planting them in our oceans, (serious issues with cyclones, storms and freak tidal wave damage) it is unsustainable, and replacing them in 20+ years is a joke, or our future is km's of rusted, burning or broken wind turbines, as using all of the EU's coal mining output to produce enough to replace the ones we create now or soon, as well as keeping up with demands doesn't work!

But yeah, l know end is nigh, so common sense goes out the door! Gas is the answer til we find something else!

Settle down a bit.  Where is YOUR common sense here?  You respond to  "unicorn world" with "monster under the bed world".   

There is a path to follow using  technology and science that does not result in  pie in the sky or  hand wringing 

It is about cost and development and alternatives.  Do you really think natural gas and coal fired turbines require no maintenance?  The company I work for has one whole casting plant that makes thousands of replacement blades for land based power generating turbines every year..  They have to be shut down and overhauled because the hot exhaust gases are corrosive.  In a coal plant they also carry abrasive  ash particles.

The things that you say can go wrong indeed might go wrong.  There is a probability and a cost one can assign to each of those events.  There are also pipeline leaks and coal train wrecks and dams silting up, and nuclear accidents.  There is no trouble free life for us.   It is just a matter of comparing costs and risks.

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, tortugabob said:

Doug sez:  "The life expectancy of a wind turbine is 25 to 30 years with minimal maintence, extendable indefinitely beyond that."

He means in the unicorn world, the one without friction and black swan events like tornadoes, hurricanes and stuff like that.

I mean if you keep repairing it.

"Indefinitely" does not mean "forever."  It means the time is uncertain.  Get out a dictionary and look up words you don't know.

Doug

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/wind_turbines_are_neither_clean_nor_green_and_they_provide_zero_global_ener/

That's just plain BS.  I have several wind farms within 40 miles of me.  All I have to do is drive along the roads and count them.  One wind turbine per 40 acres - exactly the same as oil and has wells.  Each one generating 225 kv.  Each one generating 1.5 to 3 Megawatts. 800 turbines in just one wind farm.  31 wind farms in the state.  At least 1500 turbines in Oklahoma alone.  At $3 million per turbine.  The big power companies don't believe it either.

 

You may not be aware of the American public land survey system.  The whole state is surveyed into sections, ome mile on a side.  Roads are usually run right down the section line.  There are 16 "forties" in a section.  You can drive completely around the section, see every windmill on it and count them:  one windmill to forty acres.

 

While I'n thinking of it:  a gas well in Oklahoma costs about $3 million to drill - the same as one wind turbine.  The wind turbine has a life expectancy of 25 to 30 years with power production pretty-much steady during that time.

The gas well produces most of its gas in the first few months, then production drops off, following a decay curve.  At twenty years most wells are capped because they can't produce commercial quantities of either oil or gas any more.  How do I know this:  I used to own a producing gas well.

Doug

Edited May 22, 2019 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

5 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Not true and never was.  You show a complete misunderstanding of the subject.  The twelve-year figure is only the estimated point where average temperature rise will reach 2C.  And at that, it could get there four years earlier or 10 years later.  After that, things will start to accelerate noticeably.  At the current rate we will reach 4C about 2070.  That's pretty-much the end of our grace period.

No way that temps get anywhere near 4C! That is pure Climate Alarmism Doug.

[Doug1029]

1 minute ago, lost_shaman said:

No way that temps get anywhere near 4C! That is pure Climate Alarmism Doug.

Like it or not, that's the forecast if current trends continue.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

Like it or not, that's the forecast if current trends continue.

Doug

According to who?

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

What? Do you just make this stuff up? The gear boxes have a probability of 37% failure after only 7 years, 93% at 20 years. Not to mention the regular oil changes every few years.

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/business-news-projects/wind-turbine-gearboxes-fail-hit-20-year-mark/

Hahn, B., M. Durstewitz and K. Rohrig.  2014.  Reliability of wind turbines.  Publisher not given.  This is a chapter excerpted from a larger technical report.

See the thrid page (331).  There's a list of failure rates of the various components that required repair.  Gee!  How about that?  The things are repairable.

Doug

P.S.:  that's a fifteen-year report.  Getting close to your 20 year figure.

Doug

Edited May 22, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

25 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

No way that temps get anywhere near 4C! That is pure Climate Alarmism Doug.

New, M., D. Liverman, H. Schroder and K. Anderson.  2011.  Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (2011) 369(6-19).  https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2010.0303

Did you forget how to use a search engine?  One good thing about it:  I'm learning a lot responding to your stupid comments.

Doug

Edited May 22, 2019 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

9 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

New, M., D. Liverman, H. Schroder and K. Anderson.  2011.  Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications.  Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (2011) 369(6-19).  https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2010.0303

Did you forget how to use a search engine?  One good thing about it:  I'm learning a lot answering responding to your stupid comments.

Doug

That is simply a "What if" Paper.  Nice try though Doug.

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

That is simply a "What if" Paper.  Nice try though Doug.

It ain't there yet.  They're all "what if" papers.

Last I knew, the IPCC said warming was about 1.5C.  My own work says 1.6C since 1826.

Here's another one:

Jones, P. and T. Wigley.  1990.  Global warming trends.  Scientific American. 263(2) 84-91.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24996902.pdf

This is somewhat dated, but it discusses many of the problems we've been talking about.  This doesn't use NOAA's dataset and besides, it's from before that particular controversy started.  And you still haven't learned how to use a search engine.  Or are you just lazy?

Doug

[lost_shaman]

30 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Last I knew, the IPCC said warming was about 1.5C.

 

Global temps have not been 1.5C above the current range base.

[Doc Socks Junior]

 

(Allen, M.R., O.P. Dube, W. Solecki, F. Aragón-Durand, W. Cramer, S. Humphreys, M. Kainuma, J. Kala, N. Mahowald, Y. Mulugetta, R. Perez, M.Wairiu, and K. Zickfeld, 2018: Framing and Context. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.)