Its a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

[tmcom]

Someone else mentioned that Irland was ...ed, here you go.

Quote

But plans to dramatically slash carbon emissions by ditching tried and tested energy sources such as coal and nuclear in favor of renewables will necessarily result in a collapse in living standards according to scientists including Cambridge engineering professor Michael Kelly, who has previously explained that such proposals “represent total madness”.

https://climatechangedispatch.com/ireland-ban-cars-migration/

Apparently Irland's gov, is far more insane that AU, Vic one is.

No New car sales in ten years time, which means that everyone hangs onto older models for 20 years or more, which will pollute more over newer ones.

Quote

Now we have conclusive proof. Living on a small, rainy, northern island produces permanent brain damage.

A diet of nothing but Guinness and potatoes will probably only aggravate the problem.

 

Quote

This is based upon Junk Science and Political Stupidity this dose not make any sense Some people are living in lala land Just wait for the mass deaths from Starvation and Famine The Emerald Isle is being run by a bunch of Lunatics

This explains why they are asking aussies to go and live there, or bringing in a million migrants, since there will be a mass migration to the US.

 

http://jasonendfield.weebly.com/home/isle-of-man-sea-bird-populations-plummet-as-wind-farms-overwhelm-the-irish-sea

And the 40% of bird culling from the worlds biggest night,....ahem wind farm on the ocean off Isle of Man, (near Ireland of course). But they all hit the ocean and the sharks get em, so l guess wind turbine huggers can convince themselves that it is for a good cuase, or better to make some bird species extinct, than it all disappears in a global meltdown.

Unless MMGW never happens then that means conservationists, actively made some bird species extinct on purpose.

 

I really feel for Ireland for having such ....wits in power, and am glad that Aussies rejected this sort of insanity in the last election, but unfortunety not in some states.

 

Yes, the more we hear about tipping points and we need to act, and the situation is desperate babble, the more insane political parties become, and the more they destroy their countries.

Edited June 29, 2019 by tmcom

[tmcom]

Yeah, France is frying, only Greta's brain is.

PS hottest day was in Indiana in the 1930's, not now, but the faithful can ignore that, after all it was a fact.

Edited June 29, 2019 by tmcom

[Doug1029]

On 6/29/2019 at 11:08 AM, tmcom said:

PS hottest day was in Indiana in the 1930's, not now, but the faithful can ignore that, after all it was a fact.

That's US temps, not global.  The topic is GLOBAL warming, not how hot it got in Indiana on one day in 1936.

Doug

P.S.:  the Dust Bowl was part of that high-temperature system that occupied the US in the mid-to-late 1930s.  It occurred ONLY in the US and adjacent Mexico and did not occur anyplace else.  It was a long way from being a global event.  The hottest three days were August 8-10, 1936.

You need to learn the difference between weather and climate.

Doug

Edited July 1, 2019 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

On 6/26/2019 at 10:53 AM, Desertrat56 said:

I feel the same way.  The electric companies charge a lot and are reluctant to put any profits into R&D for new technology, then when they are forced to shut down a coal plant (in the case of PNM in New Mexico) they ask the state to pay off the financing that they could have done.  That coal plant is barely 35 years old and at that time they could have used the money more wisely by setting up wind and solar farms.  They had the opoportunity to be ahead of the curve instead of behind it so that now it is kicking them in the butt and they are kicking us.

They amortized the cost of that coal plant on their taxes over the first 20 years.  According to that, it was paid off 15 years ago.

Doug

[tmcom]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

That's US temps, not global.  The topic is GLOBAL warming, not how hot it got in Indiana on one day in 1936.

Doug

P.S.:  the Dust Bowl was part of that high-temperature system that occupied the US in the mid-to-late 1930s.  It occurred ONLY in the US and adjacent Mexico and did not occur anyplace else.  It was a long way from being a global event.  The hottest three days were August 8-10, 1936.

You need to learn the difference between weather and climate.

Doug

And it was caused by winds from Africa not the end is nigh boogy man, and lasted for half an hour, l know it will increase and the whole planet will fry, eternal damnation and so forth.

Or it was more likely caused by fluke winds from Africa on a hot day, fluke weather does happen or heatwaves.

Weather or climate, lol, if that is true then l will go with Russia, which means we are in a mini ice age.

A 16 year old brainwashed kid, skipping school and cherry picking hot spells doesn't equate to squat, it equates to desperation or the MMGW bandwagon has lost a wheel.

[+Desertrat56]

14 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

They amortized the cost of that coal plant on their taxes over the first 20 years.  According to that, it was paid off 15 years ago.

Doug

Right! but they claim they have debt related to it that they want the state to pay, which means the taxpayers.  And part of that money, I am sure, is the million they paid the Navajo Nation for needlessly and recklessly destroying a burial ground.

[Doug1029]

28 minutes ago, tmcom said:

And it was caused by winds from Africa not the end is nigh boogy man, and lasted for half an hour, l know it will increase and the whole planet will fry, eternal damnation and so forth.

Or it was more likely caused by fluke winds from Africa on a hot day, fluke weather does happen or heatwaves.

Weather or climate, lol, if that is true then l will go with Russia, which means we are in a mini ice age.

A 16 year old brainwashed kid, skipping school and cherry picking hot spells doesn't equate to squat, it equates to desperation or the MMGW bandwagon has lost a wheel.

A hot day, huh!  The Dust Bowl started in 1933, continued into 1934, relented somewhat in 1935 and hit hard in 1936.  It lasted four years.  That's not exactly a fluke.

I can tell you're from Australia - you don't have a clue about the Dust Bowl.

BTW:  I live right in the middle of Dust Bowl counrty.

 

And what does a 16 year-old kid have to do with climate science?  You're incoherent.

Doug

[tmcom]

Glad to see that New Zealand is,....ummm.

This is achievable, that is great, lol.

I guess that means that New Zealands natural beauty will be replaced by eyesores, to repent their carbon sins or whatever, and they will be an econonic disaster in the making.

And l have been to New Zealand, (both islands).

 

We all suffer, lol, we or they will all suffer relying on dodgy crap for baseload power.

I saw a lot of sheep when l was in their country, so she is right at home.

And when it doesn't happen again,....oil companies,......or something else!

[Doug1029]

46 minutes ago, tmcom said:

I guess that means that New Zealands natural beauty will be replaced by eyesores, to repent their carbon sins or whatever, and they will be an econonic disaster in the making.

There are many different solutions to climate problems depending on the circumstances. Eletcric cars work in Denmark, but not in the US (at least, not yet).  Windmills work in the US because the Great Plains and Texas have lots of wind.

New zealand may have to go another way.  They have lots of ocean - maybe a wave-driven system will work.

Britain has decided to preserve its scenic country and use offshore wind farms.

China built the Three Gorges Dam as part of its solution.

 

Of course, there's the question of what power source are they using now?  I grew up next to a coal-fired power plant.  I'll take nice clean windmills over smoke-belching chimneys any day.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On 6/18/2019 at 12:22 PM, tmcom said:

Save the planet?

How many wind turbines are there?  59,400+ in the US alone.  How many wind turbines have burned?  Two, worldwide.  Compare that with the pollution from one coal-fired plant.

Doug

P.S.:  the wind turbine in the picture is from a Porutgese wind farm.  The same one where it was first noticed that eagles tend to avoid wind farms, thus making them less-likely to be harmed in collisions.

Good thing, too, because at the time of the study, that rotor hadn't burned up - yet.

Doug

Edited July 1, 2019 by Doug1029

[tmcom]

9 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

There are many different solutions to climate problems depending on the circumstances. Eletcric cars work in Denmark, but not in the US (at least, not yet).  Windmills work in the US because the Great Plains and Texas have lots of wind.

New zealand may have to go another way.  They have lots of ocean - maybe a wave-driven system will work.

Britain has decided to preserve its scenic country and use offshore wind farms.

China built the Three Gorges Dam as part of its solution.

Of course, there's the question of what power source are they using now?  I grew up next to a coal-fired power plant.  I'll take nice clean windmills over smoke-belching chimneys any day.

Doug

Wave driven,.....Australia has thrown tens of millions at wave tech, and every time, when we get a storm it ends up as scrap and the company goes into receivership. New Zealand has claciers, (l know since l walked on one) so dams is probably their most viable option. That or sheep power?

8 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

How many wind turbines are there?  59,400+ in the US alone.  How many wind turbines have burned?  Two, worldwide.  Compare that with the pollution from one coal-fired plant.

Doug

P.S.:  the wind turbine in the picture is from a Porutgese wind farm.  The same one where it was first noticed that eagles tend to avoid wind farms, thus making them less-likely to be harmed in collisions.

Good thing, too, because at the time of the study, that rotor hadn't burned up - yet.

Doug

Yea, with hundreds of aging wind farms this will become more prevalent, especially with wasps and such making the internal mechanism, (warm) a perfect home, at least til it shorts out.

[Tatetopa]

9 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Yea, with hundreds of aging wind farms this will become more prevalent, especially with wasps and such making the internal mechanism, (warm) a perfect home, at least til it shorts out.

I have to admire your persistence, you can find a reason that nothing is worth trying because there will be some failure mode inherent in it.

I am surprised you have the energy to get up everyday knowing how many failure modes the human body has, and eventually on or more will fail.

It is good to run a failure mode analysis and figure out how to prevent failure, so in that you are helpful.  You could also come up with some solutions.

[tmcom]

6 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I have to admire your persistence, you can find a reason that nothing is worth trying because there will be some failure mode inherent in it.

I am surprised you have the energy to get up everyday knowing how many failure modes the human body has, and eventually on or more will fail.

It is good to run a failure mode analysis and figure out how to prevent failure, so in that you are helpful.  You could also come up with some solutions.

Geesh negative, lol, but coal or gas turbines are inside or not prone to insect issues, and wind is, (l know the faithful dance around a wind turbine, sacrificing a disbeliever to the Coal Gods) outside.

Unfortunately to a crackpot institution, (read it in AU, Financial Review today) Gas is actually just as bad as Coal, since substantial amounts of methane is released during processing and extracting.

And they added that AU, (us) should invest in more wind/solar, or dodgy crap that doesn't work a good part of the time. And of course costs are coming down, (supposedly) until you close another coal plant down then elect, goes up, substantially.

Only a greenie with parrot on what is left of his brain would say that!

[Doug1029]

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

Wave driven,.....Australia has thrown tens of millions at wave tech, and every time, when we get a storm it ends up as scrap and the company goes into receivership. New Zealand has claciers, (l know since l walked on one) so dams is probably their most viable option. That or sheep power?

You need to perfect the technology before you throw billions at it.  Do a little research first.

9 hours ago, tmcom said:

Yea, with hundreds of aging wind farms this will become more prevalent, especially with wasps and such making the internal mechanism, (warm) a perfect home, at least til it shorts out.

There will be more, I have no doubt.  Now that we are operating wind turbines on a massive scale, we will be learning exactly how frequent each type of failure is and we can redesign the next generation of wind turbines to eliminate the problems.

Technonology will solve or minimize most of these problems.  Even your much-vaunted nuclear power systems fail.  Chernobyl, Windsale, Chalk River, Detroit Fermi, Fukushima.  I once heard a pro-nuclear lecture by a guy who said there had never been a fatal nuclear accident (That was before Chernobyl.).  He didn't like it when I reminded him of Idaho Fast Breeder No. 3 (three dead).

I guess that's the difference between you and I.  I think good engineering can solve the problems - if politicians don't jump the gun on implementation.  I guess you've never solved a problem.

Doug

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, tmcom said:

Unfortunately to a crackpot institution, (read it in AU, Financial Review today) Gas is actually just as bad as Coal, since substantial amounts of methane is released during processing and extracting.

The only test I know of was conducted in eastern Colorado.  They estimated 4% of the gas lost to leaking pipes.  Presumably, gas companies would rather sell the gas than let it escape, but there are an awful lot of things that go wrong.  My daughter is a geostearer/mud logger for the oil industry.  She's the one who tells the driller what target to hit.  Imagine hitting a three-foot square window with a drill bit from two miles away around a right-angled bend.

AND:  gas releases just as much CO2 per BTU as does coal.  No such things as "clean gas" or "clean coal."

Doug

[tmcom]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

You need to perfect the technology before you throw billions at it.  Do a little research first.

There will be more, I have no doubt.  Now that we are operating wind turbines on a massive scale, we will be learning exactly how frequent each type of failure is and we can redesign the next generation of wind turbines to eliminate the problems.

Technonology will solve or minimize most of these problems.  Even your much-vaunted nuclear power systems fail.  Chernobyl, Windsale, Chalk River, Detroit Fermi, Fukushima.  I once heard a pro-nuclear lecture by a guy who said there had never been a fatal nuclear accident (That was before Chernobyl.).  He didn't like it when I reminded him of Idaho Fast Breeder No. 3 (three dead).

I guess that's the difference between you and I.  I think good engineering can solve the problems - if politicians don't jump the gun on implementation.  I guess you've never solved a problem.

Doug

Unfortunately our premier is gun-ho about saving things, so he just throws 100m, (unfortunately an accurate figure) of taxpayer cash at some new company, which builds whatever in the ocean, we have a cyclone or storm, (storms produce freak waves) and the 100m is a trainwreck the next day.

Good engineering, it would have to be electronic, as putting fly spray containers in each one, would be unviable and impractical. And electronic deterrants, could malfunction or become useless over time.

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

The only test I know of was conducted in eastern Colorado.  They estimated 4% of the gas lost to leaking pipes.  Presumably, gas companies would rather sell the gas than let it escape, but there are an awful lot of things that go wrong.  My daughter is a geostearer/mud logger for the oil industry.  She's the one who tells the driller what target to hit.  Imagine hitting a three-foot square window with a drill bit from two miles away around a right-angled bend.

AND:  gas releases just as much CO2 per BTU as does coal.  No such things as "clean gas" or "clean coal."

Doug

Yes, apparently Fracking releases, an undisclosed amount, (their words) of methane while extracting the gas, although methane is considerably less of a worry than, (supposedly) CO2, extracting or fracking the planet, may make it less so, (without checking).

So coal is bad, gas is bad, nuclear is promising but a b**** to ditch the waste somewhere, the other two are intermittent.

Fusion is always 10 years away, and fusion as a rocket engine setup, (space exploration thread) may be the most promising commercially available option?

Edited July 2, 2019 by tmcom

[+Desertrat56]

5 hours ago, tmcom said:

Geesh negative, lol, but coal or gas turbines are inside or not prone to insect issues, and wind is, (l know the faithful dance around a wind turbine, sacrificing a disbeliever to the Coal Gods) outside.

Unfortunately to a crackpot institution, (read it in AU, Financial Review today) Gas is actually just as bad as Coal, since substantial amounts of methane is released during processing and extracting.

And they added that AU, (us) should invest in more wind/solar, or dodgy crap that doesn't work a good part of the time. And of course costs are coming down, (supposedly) until you close another coal plant down then elect, goes up, substantially.

Only a greenie with parrot on what is left of his brain would say that!

I don't understand.  There are many acres of wind farms in Texas and New Mexico and we are not having any of the problems that you describe.  In fact, more farms are being invested in as well as more solar farms.

[tmcom]

13 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

I don't understand.  There are many acres of wind farms in Texas and New Mexico and we are not having any of the problems that you describe.  In fact, more farms are being invested in as well as more solar farms.

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15126

Maybe not, but the bats are getting clobbered.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/for_those_near_the_miserable_hum_of_clean_energy/

Sonic effluence.

[Doug1029]

11 minutes ago, tmcom said:

Unfortunately our premier is gun-ho about saving things, so he just throws 100m, (unfortunately an accurate figure) of taxpayer cash at some new company, which builds whatever in the ocean, we have a cyclone or storm, (storms produce freak waves) and the 100m is a trainwreck the next day.

Good engineering, it would have to be electronic, as putting fly spray containers in each one, would be unviable and impractical. And electronic deterrants, could malfunction or become useless over time.

Yes, apparently Fracking releases, an undisclosed amount, (their words) of methane while extracting the gas, although methane is considerably less of a worry than, (supposedly) CO2, extracting or fracking the planet, may make it less so, (without checking).

So coal is bad, gas is bad, nuclear is promising but a b**** to ditch the waste somewhere, the other two are intermittent.

Fusion is always 10 years away, and fusion as a rocket engine setup, (space exploration thread) may be the most promising commercially available option?

I don't recall ever reading about wind turbine breakdowns caused by insects or birds.  I suppose it's possible and if that is the case, we will eventually have one.  But then we'll also have some numbers to work with.  If bird/insect-caused breakdowns are rare, then it becomes a matter of economics:  The amount you can spend is determined by a simple formula:  $$$$$ = (cost of repairs)*(probability that the breakdown will occur).  Rare events thus are frequently not worth defending against.

The wind turbnes being built around here run about $3 million apiece - about the same as a gas well.  Figuring a 0.00002 chance of catastrophic failure (which is probably higher than the actual figure), you could spend about $60 on prevention.  Maybe some screen to keep the bugs out, but that's about it.  Otherwise, just take your chances.

 

Methane is a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, but in about 10 years, half of it oxidises to CO2.  It doesn't hang around long.  But it still adds to CO2 in the air.

Fracking around here is at a depth of about two miles.  Very little chance of gas reaching the surface outside of the pipe.  Most releases are from leaky pipes, or from orphan wells that were abandoned years ago.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On 6/14/2019 at 1:28 PM, lost_shaman said:

Weather.

Weather.

Weather. 

Climate drives weather.

Doug

[Tatetopa]

7 hours ago, tmcom said:

Geesh negative, lol, but coal or gas turbines are inside or not prone to insect issues, and wind is,

Failure modes man.  They are everywhere.   Turbines powered by natural gas and coal are subject to acidic corrosion from the combustion mix.  Coal plants also have fly ash erosion to contend with.  I work for an aerospace casting company.  One plant specializes in replacement blades for land based power generation turbines.  They run 24/7, no end to replacement part orders. 

Everything fails.  The art is knowing how much does a failure cost, how serious is the impact to downstream outputs, and how long does it take to fix it.  

Yeah, I know there are wind devotees as solid in their beliefs as coal devotees. Its all just comes down to cost and benefit.

[Doug1029]

21 hours ago, tmcom said:

https://www.pnas.org/content/111/42/15126

Maybe not, but the bats are getting clobbered.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate/for_those_near_the_miserable_hum_of_clean_energy/

Sonic effluence.

I recently sat in on a seminar on bats vs. wind turbines.  Your reference agrees that woodland species are more-prone to wind turbine deaths than other species (I suspect they got that info from the same lecturer I listened to.).  Around here there is a simple solution to that problem - build the wind farms way out on the plains, away from woodlands.  Five miles eliminates most of the problem.  In other words:  build west of I-35.  As that is where the cheapest land and best wind is, the problem is self-correcting hereabouts.

Bat deaths are believed to be caused by barotrauma when the bats fly through the vortices off the ends of the moving blades.  The sudden drop in air pressure ruptures their lungs.  But that is speculation as no bat autopsies have ever been done.

As for "the miserable hum of clean energy:"  if you can hear the rotors, you are trespassing.  The minimum setback is 700m worldwide.  Maximum volume recorded at foreward-mounted wind turbines is about 40db.  At 700m, that is inaudible to the human ear.  Backward-mounted rotors are louder, but there are no new ones being installed, so once the current generation wears out, there won't be any "hum."

When they first started installing wind farms locally, there was an uproar about cattle not liking the sound.  Then I saw a herd of cattle standing in the shade of one of the towers, trying to keep cool.  Evidently, they didn't mind it very much.

Doug

[tmcom]

2 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I recently sat in on a seminar on bats vs. wind turbines.  Your reference agrees that woodland species are more-prone to wind turbine deaths than other species (I suspect they got that info from the same lecturer I listened to.).  Around here there is a simple solution to that problem - build the wind farms way out on the plains, away from woodlands.  Five miles eliminates most of the problem.  In other words:  build west of I-35.  As that is where the cheapest land and best wind is, the problem is self-correcting hereabouts.

Bat deaths are believed to be caused by barotrauma when the bats fly through the vortices off the ends of the moving blades.  The sudden drop in air pressure ruptures their lungs.  But that is speculation as no bat autopsies have ever been done.

As for "the miserable hum of clean energy:"  if you can hear the rotors, you are trespassing.  The minimum setback is 700m worldwide.  Maximum volume recorded at foreward-mounted wind turbines is about 40db.  At 700m, that is inaudible to the human ear.  Backward-mounted rotors are louder, but there are no new ones being installed, so once the current generation wears out, there won't be any "hum."

When they first started installing wind farms locally, there was an uproar about cattle not liking the sound.  Then I saw a herd of cattle standing in the shade of one of the towers, trying to keep cool.  Evidently, they didn't mind it very much.

Doug

The only trouble with that idea, is if a plane 30,000 feet up, flies at just the right angle it can make windows vibrate, (this has happened where l live, residental street) so one of more of these things kms away, can still be a nightmare.

Far better to build a coal plant in a relatively remote area, and then give the new residents the option to stay or not?

Some will put up with the soot and less clean air for a paycheck.

[Doug1029]

51 minutes ago, tmcom said:

The only trouble with that idea, is if a plane 30,000 feet up, flies at just the right angle it can make windows vibrate, (this has happened where l live, residental street) so one of more of these things kms away, can still be a nightmare.

Far better to build a coal plant in a relatively remote area, and then give the new residents the option to stay or not?

Some will put up with the soot and less clean air for a paycheck.

Wind turbines produce an audible hum of about 40db.  That's about the same volume as two people talking to each other at arm's length.  A plane on the ground at a distance of 500 feet produces about 140db - enough to cause hearing loss.  At a distance of 30,000 feet the sound level from that plane would be abuot 1 db.  The threshold of human hearing is about 20 db.  Why do I not believe that plane was anywhere near 30,000 feet?

Building new wind turbines is a major industry here in Oklahoma.  Estimates are that wind provides between 1000 and 2000 jobs in Oklahoma alone.  That's a bigger part of our economy than oil/gas.  Why put up with the soot when you can get a nice, clean paycheck?

Doug

[tmcom]

16 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Wind turbines produce an audible hum of about 40db.  That's about the same volume as two people talking to each other at arm's length.  A plane on the ground at a distance of 500 feet produces about 140db - enough to cause hearing loss.  At a distance of 30,000 feet the sound level from that plane would be abuot 1 db.  The threshold of human hearing is about 20 db.  Why do I not believe that plane was anywhere near 30,000 feet?

Building new wind turbines is a major industry here in Oklahoma.  Estimates are that wind provides between 1000 and 2000 jobs in Oklahoma alone.  That's a bigger part of our economy than oil/gas.  Why put up with the soot when you can get a nice, clean paycheck?

Doug

Because nice clean paychecks are not reliable, and more expensive!

And they are big business since the gov, supsidies them, then offers more perks for operational timeframes, not because they can offer baseload power, only that some gov, wants to take mindless action that at least in my country does next to nothing, to fight something that has no solid proof.

Or they feel good about taking action for the sake of action.

And l live a good 50km from Melbourne airport, so probably 20,30,000 feet or no less than 15,000ft is a reliable figure, and on rare occasions that windows do vibrate.