This is a pretty funny point noticed by Marlo Lewis at globalwarming.org. Global warming will apparently cause more rain, more drought, more tornadoes, more hurricanes, more extreme hot weather, more extreme cold weather, more snow, and less snow.
Fortunately, the only thing it apparently does not change is wind, and leaves winds everywhere at least as strong as they are now.
Rising global temperatures will not significantly affect wind energy production in the United States concludes a new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.
But warmer temperatures could make wind energy somewhat more plentiful say two Indiana University (IU) Bloomington scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
. . .
They found warmer atmospheric temperatures will do little to reduce the amount of available wind or wind consistency–essentially wind speeds for each hour of the day–in major wind corridors that principally could be used to produce wind energy.
. . .
“The models tested show that current wind patterns across the US are not expected to change significantly over the next 50 years since the predicted climate variability in this time period is still within the historical envelope of climate variability,” said Antoinette WinklerPrins, a Geography and Spatial Sciences Program director at NSF.
“The impact on future wind energy production is positive as current wind patterns are expected to stay as they are. This means that wind energy production can continue to occur in places that are currently being targeted for that production.”
Even though global warming will supposedly shift wet and dry areas, it will not shift windy areas and so therefore we should all have a green light to continue to pour taxpayer money into possibly the single dumbest source of energy we could consider.
This is a hoot, I will give RG this, he gives us entertainment such as these quotes:
“There is 14 times more wind energy than we use on earth. There is 1000 times more solar hitting the earth than we presently use. Arizona can provide enough solar energy to run the world.”
I want to see where your get those figures. I would stand to think that its much higher then what you state there, but in the meantime, why does it matter? Energy is in the rocks too, and we aren’t using it (IE nuclear, coal (Fossil fuels))… how much energy could we be generating that is in the rocks and for how long?
Or another question if you want to compare, how much energy can you take out of the wind before it upsets the climate? You do realize that wind in itself is one of the ways the Earth transports heat energy right?
“About 93% of the warming goes into the ocean. It is warming at the same rate as the atmosphere. Besides we just had a record tieing year in 2010 as being the warmest in recorded temp history. James Hansen has predicted that 2012 will be a record year in the temp history also”
Why aren’t the oceans warming then? Do not lie, its just funny and makes you look like an idiot. James Hansen also predicted that the highway outside of his office would be underwater as of 10 years ago and its still dry… but that prediction didn’t work. Lets hear more about Dr. Hansen’s famous predictions. Or how about this prediction: 99% of his predictions will be wrong which is about the going rate for fortune tellers. Statistics 101 there for ya.
When you offer scare scenarios based off of blonkered GCM’s which use fudge factors for cloud formation and other factors, its no wonder that his going rate on predictions are no better then a fortune tellers…
“You have been ignoring Spain at 35% renewable energy. Go tell them that it doesn’t make sense so that they can tear it down. Wind energy payback is a reality. California is mandating utlity scale storage. Jobs are increasing in the Pheonix area with more solar factories coming the in the United States. I like my platitudes, but you are ignoring the realities.”
What is Spain’s current unemployment rate and California’s unemployment rate? Funny, I was under the impression that they were both higher then similar countries/economies…which goes to show that for every 1 job you create with wind boondangles, you destroy 3 real jobs as a real study showed. Comical indeed…you seem to ignore everything but what you believe.
But lets face it, the people in charge of Spain’s inquisition in the 16th century on believed that witches caused bad weather among with anything else bad that could happen and that by doing something (burning the witches) they were making a difference in the world.
Too bad that they actually encouraged the Black Death with their policies (all cats are witches familiars…so they were killed which helped the mice/rat population to thrive and make the Black Death more prevelent.)….
Good intention there for you. World is full of them, but good intentions do not mean you do good work. Wind power is a fad that will fade very soon as people realize that their own energy bills will go much higher to finance (subsidize) less efficient forms of power. Solar has been getting better, but never has subsidies made products more efficient, so in the end its simply a mistake to use them in this method.
If you really believe AGW is a threat (which I find comical ) then you need to face reality and come up with a solution that will not do more damage then good. Nuclear power could help out a ton with this. With small efficiency increases and subsidies for nuclear power you could easilly power society with just oil, nuclear and a little gas. (80% decrease in CO2 emissions).
On the other hand, I believe CO2 is plant-food, but if you really want to push for a solution, you better face reality otherwise I will fight you along with others tooth and nail.
Rent-seekers, crony capitalists and all the rest have no place in society and by promoting the lies of how wind power is forever and such you perpetuate lies and myths that do not go towards reality.
Wind power is not sustainable. You can not mine like the Chinese do for rare earths forever and not have serious backlash. Solar is in the same boat. The reality is that every power source is NOT sustainable and that in order to understand reality you should face the unquestionable truth:
The most sustainable sources of power are fossil fuels and nuclear. We can live as a society on these for thousands of years and by then once the price starts rising, the incentive will be there to discover new power sources. Given that wind turbines are made to last 30 years and most average a lot lower then that…well hopefully even blinkered people can see that you have to rebuild the cursed things at the end of 30 years. Recent studies have shown the larger ones to average closer to 17 years to be precise. Then you have to start from scratch all over again…and that is considered sustainable?
As for new power sources, it will happen by itself without scaring the pants off of poor people or forcing the old and poor to freeze to death because of doubling and tripling of energy prices (as seen in Spain, California, New England (US), UK)…
And your Texas comment is also funny. Texas had to import power from MEXICO last winter due to the low efficiency of wind power. Please, keep enteraining us, its the least you could do since you spam here like a cat in heat. But if I make you feel bad by showing you too much of reality… just beg your owners to let you go outside and get laid. It will help your state of mind. We all have a right to pursue happiness…and if it makes you happy to scream FIRE in a crowded movie theature when no fire exists except in your computer models, well I will treat you like anyone else who does that and make fun of you for being an idiot.
Open Letter to Congress and the President:
Many of us are interested only in determining the influence of human activity on climate.
(((((Although the planet stopped warming years ago, demonstrating that human activity has had little, if any, influence on climate,)))))
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-basic.htm
All the indicators show that global warming is still happening.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html
NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years.
it appears that many of you remain unconvinced.
Many have been deceived by those who stand to benefit by continuing to deceive. They benefit by getting government grants to continue to examine the issue. Tens of billions of dollars have been wasted in futile attempts to prove that added greenhouse gases are a major cause of Global Warming and to predict what might happen if the planet continued to warm. Observe that their and your credibility decline as the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to rise and the planet continues on its cooling trend.
###################################################
If there is deception and it is your claim, then it is up to you to prove so.
IF you can show that the observations are false, then you have a case. This is just a discussion blog that we are on. I don’t think that deniers will ever get anywhere and will make up stories of why they aren’t making it.
In the mean time co2 continues its build up in the oceans and atmosphere changing the chemistry of the earth and the radiative balance of energy entering and leaving the earth.
Deniers have stalled the process of action moving forward. Notice the action the eliminate the EPA. An extraodinary amount of harm will be done to our environment for the sake of not accepting global warming.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
The IPCC and others who proclaim that the planet is still getting warmer, and that the main cause is increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide, are egregiously wrong. This is demonstrated by publically available measurements. From 2001 through Feb, 2011 the atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 22.2% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased and the average of the five reporting agencies has been on a declining trend since about 2005 and has been declining steeply since the peak of the last El Nino in about March 2010. The 22.2% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.
###################################################
Your claim is that the earth is now in a cooling phase is just false. Denialism is so strong that the observationally based science is being ignored by the deniers. Which is also you. I’m in the same boat you are on this earth and that is why I consider it important to have this discussion with you. The easy way out is to go to the conspiracy file. Do the work. Scientists from all over the world are doing the work independently. There isn
‘t a collaboration to fool the public.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth’s total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperature record and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Q-and-A-Haydn-Washington-co-author-Climate-Change-Denial.html
2) How do you distinguish between skepticism and denial?
They are actually opposites. Skepticism is about looking for the truth, denial is about hiding from it. All scientists should be skeptics, but when you get an overwhelming ‘preponderance of evidence’ from many different types of research, a true scientist will accept it – a denier won’t. Many climate change deniers call themselves ‘skeptics’ and say the word ‘denier’ is an insult, as if they are ‘holocaust deniers’. However, people can deny anything, but when people deny the fact that every Academy of Science and 97% of practicing climate scientists say human-caused climate change is happening and very serious – it is important to call these people by their true name. They are deniers.
####################################################
Almost everyone I have talked to on this blog is a denier. A lot of change is being asked of you, and you are having a gut reaction to the huge change suggested. And it is huge, no doubt. Everything that we need to make the adaptations to the earth is available to us now.
BenfromMO:
This is a hoot, I will give RG this, he gives us entertainment such as these quotes:
The most sustainable sources of power are fossil fuels and nuclear.
###################################################
Saudi Arabia says that it can no longer sustain the market for lower prices on oil by increasing supply.
There is plenty of oil supply on the world market at the moment and yet we are paying premium prices for it. This has happened in the last two administrations.
Ricahrd Alley is a registered Republican, and a Climate Scientist. He has made the film “Earth the operators manual” There is a book that goes along with it. I have watched the film and attempted to transcribe all that it is saying. It is an information packed film. I got it from this source for information about solar energy and wind.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1855661681/
Wind power is not sustainable. You can not mine like the Chinese do for rare earths forever and not have serious backlash. Solar is in the same boat.
####################################################
I find it interesting that you as a denier just don’t need any evidence to refute me and yet you ask for a mountain of evidence and believe none of it. That would be one of the definitions of denial.
All radioactive components cannot be recycled without risk of harm to our selves. That’s a fact. All wind components can be nearly 100% recycled and made into more wind turbines or whatever we choose.
Peak oil is now. Supply will be harder and harder to reach. Its in all the literature. To claim otherwise shows you are behind in your understanding of energy.
Wind and solar will be with us for the next million years. On just a fianancial basis oil and coal will be impractical to use within the next 50 years. To avoid future recessions from such undersight its better to start now getting out of both oil and coal.
Nuclear to me is an interesting discussion. I get the subsidy argument all the time with solar and wind and yet Nuclear gets the lions share of subsidy. Nuclear is the most financially weak form of energy generation there is without the government. Nuclear cannot survive on its own without the government. Try to see if a utility is totally responsible in a large scale nuclear accident. See if wall street will go forward without the government holding their hand the whole way.
###################################################
Why aren’t the oceans warming then? Do not lie, its just funny and makes you look like an idiot.
###################################################
Denial requires that you make yourself feel superior. This projection that you have onto me, is actually about yourself. I’m presenting my argument rationally and you are using irrationality to make your point. More than likely you will keep being irrational so that you don’t have to change.
To the oceans warming. You have heard of the argo buoys by now.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm
The only place the earth is cooling is in your imagination. Observations show otherwise.
@ Renewable Guy:
Firstly, the wind energy industry is only growing as fast as it is because of tax subsidies.
Secondly, if fossil fuel were really in danger of running out and becoming a rare and expensive commodity any time soon we wouldn’t NEED any convincing or subsidising to invest in alternative energy sources; the free market would do this anyway out of sheer necessity.
Thirdly: I really hate the use of the term “denier.” Pro-AGWers know this though, and that’s why they use the term – it’s cheap. You use the term like we’re “denying” that the sky is blue. We’re not denying any falsifiable facts, we’re only suspending belief in the CAGW hypothesis. And as much as you might like to think of it as a physical “law” (which if the case then the term “denier” would be appropriate) it is still just a HYPOTHESIS.
No one here denies that climate changes.
No one here denies that it has generally warmed since the end of the last ice age (or more recently since the Little Ice Age).
No one here denies that sea level has generally risen since the end of the last ice age.
No one here denies that the last decade has been the warmest on record (I mean duh, it’s been warming until relatively recently so of course the last decade will be warmer than preceding ones).
And there are some other things that we also do not deny:
the absence of a “hotspot” of increased humidity (ESSENTIAL to the hypothesis – without this hotspot there is no catastrophic humidity/temperature feedback);
the lack of an increase in the frequency hurricanes;
the lack of an increase in the *rate* of sea level rise (since satellite records began);
the absence of the predicted 50M climate refugees (this has now been postponed to 2020);
the increased vegetation around the planet;
the stagnation of warming in the last 12 years;
the medieval warm period (as evidenced by historical and proxy data from America through Europe to China and elsewhere – local my ass);
the fact that historically and prehistorically temperature change has always *preceded* CO2 level change and not vice versa, and yet when temps DID rise, and when as a result CO2 DID rise, it somehow DIDN’T spiral out of control in a continual feedback loop and fry the planet;
the fact that each cycle has always included a period of cooling whilst CO2 continued to rise (due to sea temperature lag) showing CO2 is evidently not the driver;
the hiding of inconvenient data and refusal to share data with sceptics whose objective is to find something WRONG with it;
I could go on but you get the point. I would bet that you would probably “deny” all of this.
Firstly, the wind energy industry is only growing as fast as it is because of tax subsidies.
################################################
All utilities have been subsidised by the public sector in one way or another. Especially nuclear.
##################################################
Secondly, if fossil fuel were really in danger of running out and becoming a rare and expensive commodity any time soon we wouldn’t NEED any convincing or subsidising to invest in alternative energy sources; the free market would do this anyway out of sheer necessity.
#################################################
There does need to be a central movement which is the role of government. The private sector won’t take care of it in time without unecessary recessions.
##################################################
Thirdly: I really hate the use of the term “denier.” Pro-AGWers know this though, and that’s why they use the term – it’s cheap. You use the term like we’re “denying” that the sky is blue. We’re not denying any falsifiable facts, we’re only suspending belief in the CAGW hypothesis. And as much as you might like to think of it as a physical “law” (which if the case then the term “denier” would be appropriate) it is still just a HYPOTHESIS.
###################################################
co2 follows physical laws. No it is not a hypothesis. It is a theory. A theory can lay out what will happen on a climate basis. Scientists are predicting on a climate level what changes will take place in the future. Remember the difference between climate and weather.
###################################################
I could go on but you get the point. I would bet that you would probably “deny” all of this.
###################################################
Sorry, but you are choosing the the deniers false science over the real science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Every argument you are making in this blog is answered in the above link with science based observations. You aren’t ready yet to face up to the real deal. Enjoy your fantasy.
Rewnewable chooses ad hominem and false dichotomy over substantive argument. How predictable. When a ‘faith’ is out of real arguments it always resorts so.
RG:
I see that you at least looked at “Open letter…” which was made public on 4/11/11. If you had looked closer you may have noticed that it contains 3 graphs that start at 3 different times in the past. One covers the last 4 years and contains data from each of the five reporting agencies, another graphs the average (after the noted offsets to account for different reference temperatures) of the five agencies for the last 12 years and the third graph shows the average of measurements by three agencies back to 1880 which is as far back as they report. This third graph also shows the calculated values (using the equation given therein) for that period and the projection till 2037 assuming the sunspot numbers are similar to those following 1914 (the last time that the sun was acting like it is now) and two different assumptions of CO2 influence.
As already noted, the equation, based on the physical phenomena involved, with inputs of accepted measurements from government agencies, calculates the average global temperatures (agt) since 1895 with 88.4% accuracy (87.9% if CO2 is assumed to have no influence).
The numerical data for these graphs is copied from the web sites of the agencies as identified in the pdf made public on 3/10/11. This is the (almost) raw stuff that is available to the public. The reports agree with each other fairly well. They are averaged to avoid bias. There is no “interpretation”.
You appear to believe writings from people whose pay checks depend on predictions of looming catastrophe while you ignore that which is actually happening as reported by all of the government agencies that do report.
You don’t challenge anything from a technology standpoint. Your comments appear to be driven by misinformation and blinded by ideology. Apparently you have no scientific ability to question what you read and have nothing to contribute.
How wide will the growing spread between the rising atmospheric CO2 and not rising average global temperature need to get for you to realize that maybe you missed something?
ADiff:
Rewnewable chooses ad hominem and false dichotomy over substantive argument. How predictable. When a ‘faith’ is out of real arguments it always resorts so.
###########################################################
faith/fāTH/Noun
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
When no apparent proof and you still beleive in spite of all that is around you.
Science is not an act of faith. It truly questions anything and it must stand on its own.
Yours Adiff is an act of faith the professional deniers are feeding you what want to hear. You are going on faith that the scientists are wrong about climate and that everything will be the same or ok. The unfortunate thing is that the change is slow enough that you will be able to talk yourself into they are liers for the next two decades. Each decade will be higher in temperature for the next fifty years. What then? Is it the sun? What about internal variablitiy of the oceans? Will the disapearing ice at the north artic just be PDO? About a foot of sea level rise is expected by 2050, was that PDO?
Deniers have faith that it is not AGW with no evidence. Just the manufactured misinformation coming out of think tanks.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=1&t=368&&a=15
Looking for your climate realists sites I came across your conversation on skeptical science. You have quoted Spencer Lindzen and Monckton. Sorry, but you have hung your hat on some interesting charachters that are making my point that I have made on this site many times. The confusion effect from the fossil fueled monied think tanks have even effected a talented person such as yourself. The IRIS effect of Lindzen is now going down the drain from science observations. Cloud feedback on short term data is now showing positive feedback.
http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
Lindzen is in it for the attention and money from the different denial organizations.
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer
Roy Spencer is in the same boat as Lindzen dipping his hands into the pockets of fossil fuels to help them with their problem of AGW is bad for their business.
You also quoted Monckton on Skeptical Science. I can’t even believe you take this guy seriously. He is so flawed its unbelievable.
You have a level of talent that I don’t have Dan, but and that’s a big word here, but you have chosen the denier route for whatever your reasons are. I’m not able to criticize as of yet where your math and assumptions are going wrong. If you take the time to study the science first, I might be able to get on the same page with you.
Positive feedbacks are a real problem with increased co2. Paleoclimate studies are bearing this out from the PETM. Paleo Eocene Thermal Maxim. An interesting point by James Hansen is that we are increasing co2 10,000 times faster than that time 55 million years ago. That period of time in its much slower increase of co2 than now created one of the mass extinctions of life on earth. I’m not ready to go into your math world that you have created. If you really have something valid, turn it in as a paper for publication in a reputable science journal. Your first stumbling block will be the peer review.
Very interesting point. And the issue is that wind power is by definition unreliable and needs to be supplemented, but with what?
Middle Ground View:
Very interesting point. And the issue is that wind power is by definition unreliable and needs to be supplemented, but with what?
############################################################
All of the utility is multiple source power.
Part of it would be modernization of the utility. All utilities would be interconnected which they aren’t now. The wind is always blowing somewhere.
Another source would be solar in its different forms.
Utility scale storage. Compressed air energy storage. Battery storage of different kinds. There are liquid batteries that could be massive used for storage. Electric cars will increase in number and their batteries could be used for peak load. The utility would pay you for your battery. A person could earn $1000 to $2000 per year. Other ideas not mentioned.
HVDC lines. High volatage direct current. This is the most efficient form of transmission of electricity. North Dakota drew up plans several years ago to transmit wind to the Chicago market. The east coast could transmit wind 1200 miles westward off the Atlantic to penetrate inland. That would reach into Ohio and Indiana.
Smart metering: this could regulate the load side or called peak shaving.
Reducing the load decreases the need for having to build more power supply.
Ah yes our fine shill for wind power is back.
A couple things we are no where near running out of oil/coal/gas. Estimates are we won’t hit the so called Peak for at least 100 – 200 years even at the pace we are going now.
Second yes most energy has some subsidies. But for the vast majority of them the subsidy isn’t really that much of the revenue stream. Wind has massive subsidies to the extent that no one would bother producing wind power if it was subsidized to the level that every other energy source is.
Last energy companies love wind power. Not only can they rake in the subsidies but it gives them an excuse to sell and produce more gas power plants. We don’t have the capacity of stand by power available without adding more regular power plants despite RG’s claims to the contrary which means that the energy companies get to rake in more money producing that standby power.
Remember Boon Pickens? The real reason he pushed wind power so much is that his is big in the natural gas industry and stood to make a fortune from the standby power plants to support wind power.
Wind power is a fine and dandy energy source for any situation you have where you can use intermittent power. But it just does not work reliably as a primary source of power.
So far my favorite stories are of Texas wind generators actually paying consumers to use their power so they could collect the subsidies, and of Spanish wind producers using gas generators to generate power, then selling it as ‘wind power’ for huge subsidies.
Lovely, just lovely…..
Tom T:
A couple things we are no where near running out of oil/coal/gas. Estimates are we won’t hit the so called Peak for at least 100 – 200 years even at the pace we are going now.
############################################################
WHEW
Tom T:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
It appears you haven’t been reading up on peak oil. If and when demand starts to outstrip supply, the prices simply go up. If you notice oil sands are starting to come into play. That’s one of the signals that the cheap oil is starting to run in the future.
Anthracite coal peaked in the 1950’s and we are now using bituminous coal which has a lower energy content. The energy returned on energy invested is lower for bituminous. China now imports coal from other parts of the world. Austrailia is the biggest coal exporter in the world with china as its biggest customer. I have read articles that coal will peak in 2014. So to generalize bituminous coal will take more effort to bring it to market and there is a growing demand for coal in the world.
Before we can use up the supply it will become uneconomical to use.
############################################################
Second yes most energy has some subsidies. But for the vast majority of them the subsidy isn’t really that much of the revenue stream. Wind has massive subsidies to the extent that no one would bother producing wind power if it was subsidized to the level that every other energy source is.
############################################################
Take nuclear power for example. That gets more subsidies than any other power source. Also has the greatest potential for catastrophic harm. Unless you forget Fukishima. Now there is true socialism in action. I don’t think you realize how much a new generation plant is subsidized.
############################################################
Last energy companies love wind power. Not only can they rake in the subsidies but it gives them an excuse to sell and produce more gas power plants. We don’t have the capacity of stand by power available without adding more regular power plants despite RG’s claims to the contrary which means that the energy companies get to rake in more money producing that standby power.
############################################################
And again I don’t think you have your facts straight. We have enough gas powered standby to retire the coal plants if we want to. Again you haven’t studied the issue like I have. Spain is at 35% renewable energy now and has 50% in its sights shortly in the future.
http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
Wind can be economically adapted to.
############################################################
There are lots of problems with fossil fuels and nuclear power. WIth an ever growing world population wanting to use coal and oil, its taking a tole on our climate and environment. Coal ash can be devastating to a community when it is not properly stored. Nuclear power is just deadly when things go wrong. It is also very difficult to get back under control when it boils off its reactor coolant.
And then we have the antiregulation crowd that fights further saftey rules that make a difference. When safety systems are hampered in congress, and more people are hurt due to this, at what point do we say enough is enough?
ADiff:
So far my favorite stories are of Texas wind generators actually paying consumers to use their power so they could collect the subsidies, and of Spanish wind producers using gas generators to generate power, then selling it as ‘wind power’ for huge subsidies.
Lovely, just lovely…..
############################################################
Did you just make that up Adiff?
Oh boy, another wind power conversation with renewable guy…. WEEEEEEEE
Peak Oil is a myth that has been debunked over and over. Just ask the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html
If we have enough gas powered plants to retire coal plants then why in the world do we need wind power?
“TomT:
If we have enough gas powered plants to retire coal plants then why in the world do we need wind power?
May 9, 2011, 4:17 pm ”
The rent seekers, AKA the crony capitalists need to make a killing otherwise their political support for certain political parties was wasted money. That is why we have wind power, pure and simple…
As for RG, here is your proof..
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/05/14/questioning-ocean-warming/
Took me 2 seconds on an internet search. Try it, and use your brain and look at real websites versus a cartoonists website who has zero understanding of the climate, statistics, or biology.
TomT:
Peak Oil is a myth that has been debunked over and over. Just ask the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html
############################################################
So this opinion peice is proof? Why are we going deeper and deeper in the ocean? Why are we going to oil sands in Canada? The energy return in Canadian oil sands is lower than regular easy oil. He doesn’t talk about that at all. Britain is now an oil importer when it used to be an oil exporter. About 3 billion Asians are going to come into the energy realm by about 2050. If it simply means 500 million more cars, what will it do the climate and environment to support that?
There are a lot of questions that this author didn’t answer. Try studying the issue instead of just shooting from the hip.
TomT:
If we have enough gas powered plants to retire coal plants then why in the world do we need wind power?
############################################################
Global warming.
BenfromMO:
Took me 2 seconds on an internet search. Try it, and use your brain and look at real websites versus a cartoonists website who has zero understanding of the climate, statistics, or biology.
############################################################
There are lots of John Cooks in Austrailia. Instead of repeating the rumors why not check it out.
If all you will read is just denialism, you leave yourself in pretty bad shape.
I see the point the author of the opinion blog is making. So what. What point would you like to make? Have you opened the paper that the author is talking about? Is this guy on track or is he bullshitting around writing a science story that you enjoy reading?
Are you able to discuss this with me?
The paper is quite large and I am not going to read the whole thing. I usually just read the end to get the summary by the authors in this case. They actually go into some length talking about substantial warming trends in the oceans. Most of the time denial sites do a lot of fibbing to you. He is interpreting the science, only to embarass you in front of people like me. He knows the science and you don’t. He’s the liar and you are not. Your doubt is real and he’s played you.
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/ipcc_says_renewables_could_meet_most_of_energy_needs_by_2050/2935/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+YaleEnvironment360+%28Yale+Environment+360%29
Should governments embrace renewable energy programs, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere can probably be held below 450 parts per million, a major goal of the IPCC. “It is not the availability of the resource, but the public policies that will either expand or constrain renewable energy development over the coming decades,” said Ramon Pichs, co-chairman of the IPCC’s Working Group III, which compiled the report.
According to a UK Govt report,
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/sectors/infrastructure-companies/
as summarized by the Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/09/climate-change-wi-fi-connections
global warning will get in our ‘nets and mess with our WiFi!
Wally:
I can’t imagine that anyone is still trying to have an intelligent discussion with renewable. The subject of climate and renewable energy is worthy of serious discussion. Renewable seems to be incapable of anything other than AGW rant. Give up and go have a beer. It will be more rewarding.
Ted Rado,
You might be correct, but I do correct lies and errors I see these trolls post on the internet. As you will notice, he did not respond once with a reply to prove me wrong other then one lie: Oceans are warming which is not an expert opinion, but an opinion that RG repeats from a cartoonist website. I will argue that one to the grave, because any scientist knows that we have seen no warming from the oceans from the bouy data.
As for John Cookie as I call him at times…. other political hacks and true believers will probably say the same thing, because if there is one thing about life that we can all say, is that people who believe that man is destroying the planet will see that destruction in every aspect of the so-called science of climatology.
John cook is no exception, and I notice that our good friend RG likes to link to his website. I went through it a few months ago and I could prove his rantings incorrect about 98% of the time with the actual data.
The problem with actual data such as the bouys is that they are accurate and they only show warming if you ignore certain cooling happening at the same time. Basically if you cherry pick the data, yes you can show warming or cooling anywhere in the globe. Question for you RG: If I cherry pick data and show that CO2 actually caused the temperature to drop, does that make me right? Did I actually prove something? Be careful, answering no to that question means that the point made by John cook is also incorrect, and as such his entire opinion on this subject is then false. Two can play at the “interpreting the results” and as an actual scientist I take great pride in being more well-qualified to make an opinion on this matter. There is no warming shown in the data for the oceans. That is a fact.
Fact is, our oceans are not warming or cooling for that matter either. Since AGW has been dependent on two sets of conditions to spread warming from the tropics elsewhere, and there is no magical troposphere hotspot and the oceans are not warming, the only conclusion a smart person could make is that AGW is an incorrect and incomplete theory.
But that is where reality hits you the hardest…That and when you show that the more wind turbines you set up, the more energy prices go up. You see, the mistake that AGW proponents made is that they have a problem that they believe needs to be fixed:
And this is what results:
They want OTHERS to pay for it.
They want EVERYONE to pay for it.
The Government should force everyone to pay for it.
Land rights and water rights should be stricken at the same time (no reasoning is really given here really.)
Wind turbines are the best of the solutions. (at 3 times the cost rounded down, I really wonder who the idiot was who decided that wind was renewable, sustainable, and could actually work in the first place.)
Really, quite a yarn that has been spun. Too bad that the supposed solutions are so terrible. They might have been able to get society to build nuclear power if CO2 is as evil as stated…or other solutions that would not grind our economy into a recession…(or worse recession).
In that same vein, I fully believe subsidies of any type are a mistake, but wind requires at the very least 3 times more money for the same amount of power. (rounded down no less.)
And that is on top of the requirement that all power generated by wind turbines be bought by utilities…regardless of whether the power is useable or not….which brings us to the equations of the actual efficiency of wind power.
100 MW wind turbine.
25-33% efficient in the best conditions.
20-40% of that energy is actually useful and is used. But the customers pay 100%.
Lasts 30 years.
Even with that, the wind turbines will suck down the money forever, because even with current subsidies they do not pay for themselves over their life-times.. The subsidies will either need to go up or people will lose money…but I guess that is all in the life of rent-seekers and crony capitalists who do not look 30 years into the future when their so called beloved wind turbines will start falling down, but only look to the next election and what sort of mess they can invest in that will make them money.
Crony capitalists such as RG who no doubt have financial incentive to spread lies about wind power. No one else is stupid enough to try to spread lies of that extent.
But don’t take my word for it, and DO NOT take RG’s word for it…do your own research.
Benfrom MO:
I have been doing some calcs re backing up wind or solar with hydraulic storage. This is just for my own amazement, as we all know large scale wind power is nonsense. As soon as “free” backup capacity is exceeded, the idea falls apart, even with government subsidies.
Reported efficiencies of large water pumps and water turbines are 90% and 95%, respectively. This is when running at the optimum conditions, which will not obtain all the time. An additional loss will occur due to pressure drop in the piping carrying water to and from the reservoir. Thus, the net available head is the total elevation difference less the delta-P in the up and down piping. Since the max combined pump and water turbine eff. is 85.5%, and realizing that long pipes will be required to carry the water up and down the mountain, max total efficiency will no doubt be in the 60-70% range. This means that a third or so of the energy will disappear in the energy storage system. Even neglecting capital and operating costs of the storage system, on an energy balance alone the cost of power will be 50% higher than the cost at the wind farm. The capital cost will of course be astronomical, as huge pumping stations and water turbine plants need to be built, as well as reservoirs. The capacity of the pump and turbine plants, in kilowatts, will greatly exceed the wind farm pruduction. If the efficiency were 100%, the total power used and generated for pumping and water turbines, would be twice the wind farm output. Then divide this by the efficiency. This gives you an idea of the amount of electrical and other equipment required.
For these sort of reasons, thermal power plants need to be used for backup. The only type that can be started up quickly are open cycle gas turbines. These have a much lower thermal efficiency than conventional thermal power plant. Thus the lower efficiency during the 70% plus part of the time that standby is running will eat up much of the fuel saving by having wind farms in the first place.
Another factor which I have not taken into account is that since wind power is only available 30% 0f the time, the pumping capacity must be such that all the necessary water can be pumped during that 30% of the time. Thus, the pumps and wind farm must have 3.33 times the capacity of the electrical demand. The whole thing gets out of hand quickly.
By the way, comressed air storage is even worse due to thermodynamic losses in compression and expansion of the air.
I have no objection to people proposing all sorts of energy schemes. The more the better. However, before spending big bucks, engineering studies of the ENTIRE system must be made. This is routinely done in industry to avoid spending limited R&D resources on projects that are unworkable and/or uneconomical. The government apparently ignores this approach and pays for all sorts of R&D and demonstration plants, whether they are nonsense or not.
I have studied most of the alternative energy schemes that have been proposed. Not a one passes muster when subjected to the most elementary calcs. For example, one could show that ethanol was a joke in an afternoon’s study. Calculations similar to the above can readily be made by any engineer (unless he is an AGW zealot or a USG employee). I guess a better idea is to push money out the door and pray for divine intervention.
The USG is certainly reinforcing my view that anything that can be done by private competitive industry is a HUGE improvent over government work.
Ted Rado:
Wally:
I can’t imagine that anyone is still trying to have an intelligent discussion with renewable. The subject of climate and renewable energy is worthy of serious discussion. Renewable seems to be incapable of anything other than AGW rant. Give up and go have a beer. It will be more rewarding.
############################################################
If its not supposed to work according to you then why is renewable energy working?
BenfromMO:
Ted Rado,
You might be correct, but I do correct lies and errors I see these trolls post on the internet. As you will notice, he did not respond once with a reply to prove me wrong other then one lie: Oceans are warming which is not an expert opinion, but an opinion that RG repeats from a cartoonist website. I will argue that one to the grave, because any scientist knows that we have seen no warming from the oceans from the bouy data.
###########################################################
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
After reading the Skeptical Science article from gpwayne, I went through the 22 page science paper talking about the ocean heat content. As summed up in this paper through graphs and data the heat content of the oceans is increasing. Get back to me and lets have a discussion on ocean heat content.
Ted Rado:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071121144907.htm
The researchers used hourly wind data, collected and quality-controlled by the National Weather Service, for the entire year of 2000 from the 19 sites in the Midwestern United States. They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power. These percentages would hold true for any array of 10 or more wind farms, provided it met the minimum wind speed and turbine height criteria used in the study.
################################################################################
IT’s being worked out Ted.
What’s worse is staying in place stuck in the past. Although you don’t recognize the science of Climate warming, its growing into all the infrastructure we have. The military recognizes it for the problems it will cause in national security, and infrastructure problems for the navy. Carbon is the bad boy and not recognizing that as a society has pretty strong consequences.
#################################################################################
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf
K. Conclusion
The important conclusion from all of the calculations is that a system with annual
sales of 91 billion kWh can be run with 76% of total generation coming from intermittent solar and wind sources.
The USG is certainly reinforcing my view that anything that can be done by private competitive industry is a HUGE improvent over government work.
##################################################################################
Each one has their strengths and weaknesses. See what happens to your water bill if it becomes privatized.
Japan scraps plan for 14 new nuclear plants
Japan PM on Fukushima: “Taking this as a lesson, we will lead the world in clean energy such as solar and biomass”
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/10/japan-scraps-plan-for-14-new-nuclear-plants/
#################################################################################
According to you Ted, the rest of the world must be getting stupider. Better go tell them that they are wrong.
Renewable,
Uh, that’s circular….
I am astonished at the repeated idea that since many people are doing it, it must be right. If that is true, numbers could be shown to support it, rather than merely saying it is being done, therefore it must be a good idea. The sad thing is that government subsidies divert our intellectual horsepower from fruitful endeavors to nonsense.
The best wind power sites have already been exploited. As more wind farms are built, they will have to go to less ideal areas. This may be offset to some degree by improveements in tehnology, but there is a limit. I have seen data that in Germany, wind power generated is 18% of nameplate capacity, and solar is 8%. Further, in most countries the wind power capacity is so low compared to existing thermal plants that dedicated standby has not had to be built. After this limit is reached the whole idea fails.
Due to financial problems, Spain is pulling in its horns re wind power subsidies. I have not seen figures on fossil fuel consumption in Spain as wind power capacity increases. How much has it been reduced, as a percentage of wind capacity. Many articles point out that standby power is much less efficient for a number of reasons, such as lower thermal efficiency when idling, lower efficiency of gas turbines, etc. On one particularly windy day, over 40% of Spain’s power was wind. What were the thermal plants doing at that time?
Time will tell. Politicians can support faulty ideas just so long.
Matching Utility Loads with Solar and Wind Power in North Carolina
Dealing with Intermittent Electricity Sources
by John Blackburn, Ph.D.
March 2010
Those reluctant to endorse a widespread conversion to renewable energy sources in the U.S. frequently argue that the undeniably intermittent nature of solar and wind power make it difficult, if not impossible, to provide reliable power to meet variations in demand without substantial backup generation.
The above would be you Ted. 🙂
Several studies, concentrating on areas with ample sources of both wind and solar power have suggested that a combination of the two, when spread over a sufficiently wide geographic area, could be used to overcome the inherent intermittency of each separately, reducing the need for backup generation. Moreover, since the backup power is required at more or less randomly distributed times, the availability of baseload power, so strongly entrenched in utility circles, becomes more or less irrelevant.
################################################################################
This study claims that the intermittency can be balanced out. Here they are using wind and sun. Which is smart. Let’s see how two intermittent sources can provide a substantial amount of power that is reliable enough for the grid.
#################################################################################
This study examines these ideas with data gathered in the state of North Carolina. Contrary to the idea that such an arrangement will be subject to heavy backup requirements from conventional sources, the clear conclusion of the study is that backup generation requirements are modest and not even necessarily in the form of baseload generation.
################################################################################
I am going to try to seperate things into small segments. I don’t really enjoy reading a really long post myself.
In North Carolina the two largest potential renewable electricity sources are solar and wind generation. The former is the case almost everywhere in the U. S., the latter is also the case in North Carolina, given wind resources in the mountains, along the coast, and offshore, both in the Sounds and in the ocean. Hydroelectricity (now 2,000 megawatts (MW) and potentially 2,500
MW) and biomass combustion represent the other renewable sources available in the State.
Solar and wind generation have some obvious complementarities. Wind speeds are usually higher at night than in the daytime, and are higher in winter than in summer. Solar generation, on the other hand, takes place only in the daytime and is only half as strong in winter as in summertime.
#################################################################################
From this statement wind and solar can compliment each other nicely. So already you have spread the generation out over time.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf
Solar and wind power generation constructed as outlined above were then scaled up to represent 80% (40% each) of average utility loads for the four sample months, with the remainder coming from the hydroelectric system (8%) and assumed
biomass cogeneration (12%). The annual utility load was taken to be 90 billion kWh, a somewhat more energy-efficient version of the present 125 billion kWh load. Average hourly loads in each of the four seasons were taken from Duke Energy’s 2006 load profile.Solar and wind power generation constructed as
outlined above were then scaled up to represent 80% (40% each) of average utility loads for the four sample months, with the remainder coming from the hydroelectric system (8%) and assumed biomass cogeneration (12%). The annual utility load was taken to be 90 billion kWh, a somewhat more energy-efficient version of the present 125 billion kWh load. Average hourly loads in each of
the four seasons were taken from Duke Energy’s 2006 load profile.
#################################################################################
I forgot to give the link above for the previous posts. Here are the numbers of the assumptions they are making in their scenario.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf page 6
Not surprisingly, wind generation from the three wind sites combined showed less variability than at each site separately. Solar generation did likewise, but with less variation to begin with. The literature suggests that day-by-day and
hour-by hour wind variation would be further reduced by adding many more sites far enough apart to have somewhat different hourly wind regimes.
#################################################################################
As I have suggested before, with wide area geographic connection, the variability is decreased.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf page 6
As smart grids are developed, some customers will be able to respond to real-time pricing, offering still more opportunities to shift loads during the day. Still other storage opportunities may arise when plug-in hybrid vehicles are in use and have two-way communications with grid operators.
#################################################################################
As more electric vehicles some into play, they become more than just transportation. They become part of the solution to the grid.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf
The figures used in this North Carolina scenario for solar and wind generation are
quite high — some 41 billion kWh each. The choice of equal solar and wind contributions is an initial assumption and is not optimized in any way. This scenario would include a high percentage development of all onshore potential, some considerable offshore development, and possibly some contribution from Virginia as well. The main point here is to do an initial exploration of the intermittency issue, and to do so with parameters for wind and solar variability based on North Carolina data.
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf
page 19
The wind and solar components will oversupply their share of
system requirements for half the days of the year, and undersupply their share for
the other half. This shortfall will amount to about 25% or less of their daily average output in 2/3 or more of the days of short supply. Shortfalls will exceed 50% of daily average only rarely (one day in this particular simulation). Oversizing the wind and solar components by 10%, as is done here, will greatly reduce these shortfalls.
(((((As Table 1 indicates, supplementary power supplies amount to 6% of total system supplies. Wind and solar generation, supplemented by hydroelectric and biomass generation, do all of the other 94%.))))))
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf
Wind capacity is strongest in winter and weakest in summer, while spring winds are
stronger than those of the fall. Solar capacity is strongest in summer, as one might expect, but is less productive in the fall than in the spring and weakest of all in winter. When the systems are sized to the year’s demand, there will be an abundance of electricity in the spring while the other seasons are more or less well-matched to the load, at least given the characteristics of the North Carolina wind and solar outputs. Output will be close to the load in the summer and winter, these being the seasons of weather-related peak demand. These seasonal characteristics are shown in Table 1. This means that, especially in the
spring, that some power can be sold outside the system or even be wasted altogether, as some power is now.10
#################################################################################
http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf
Incidentally, with these characteristics of flexible grids, the absence of huge
quantities of baseload power (none of which is included in this scenario) is of little consequence. As any of the tables in this study clearly indicate, it is the presence of storage capacity and the use of quick-turn on supplementary facilities that are of decisive importance. One uses solar- and wind-generated electricity whenever they are available and then “plugs” the holes in electricity supply with load-shaping, storage, purchases, and auxiliary generation. Electricity demand is met hour by hour, with no necessity of storing
any energy from day to day, though that capability would be helpful. Surplus electricity, which will necessarily appear at some times of strong winds, may be sold to other systems with somewhat different generation profiles, or may have to be wasted. In an optimized system, with smart grid elements, wasted energy could be considerably reduced.
renewable,
You do realize no one reads this copy-paste propoganda BS, right?
Wally:
renewable,
You do realize no one reads this copy-paste propoganda BS, right?
##################################################################################
Wrong! You will never know that one.
RG, no one reads it, trust me. As a speed reader, even I don’t read everyone of your posts, because frankly they are complete and utter horse manure.
I correct your posts from the beginning of the article because if someone is just browsing through, they will only see the top few posts and will stop searching after they figure out that you are just a troll, which most people will. After that, you are wasting your time. Its human nature, people just don’t want to hear lie after lie.
Speaking of your lies. . . . . Wind power maxes out at 33% on average. What part of that are you debating? You debate this by showing that some wind turbines get 45%? Of course, with as many of them out there some will be that high, it tells us nothing. The average is where we look. 25-33% is a safe average. You should really read Ted’s post again and see if it sinks in….the number of problems he brings up alone (which are not all of them I will remind you) are enough to make sane people question wind power.
And then lets go back to the oceans warming….
From your article:
[1] We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean
for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously
available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental
biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding
some Argo float data. The strong interdecadal variability of
global ocean heat content reported previously by us is reduced
in magnitude but the linear trend in ocean heat content remain
similar to our earlier estimate.
I can not believe you can read that opening paragraph and not see the conflict of interest. They are adjusting without describing the reasoning, they are “correcting and excluding” some of the data….and God only knows what else that could mean. The conflict of interest is that their earlier research showed a similar warming…of course they are going to cherry pick things to support their earlier research, no scientist nowadays would do any less. As I told you before, if you cherry pick and ignore data that is contrary to your beliefs, yes you can always get data that supports your assumptions.
We learned nothing from this so-called science here. Waste of tax-payer monies. We don’t need additional manipulating of data..we have enough of that from other organizations.
Now let me tell you why this does not matter…..The data from ARGOS which is the only real data only goes back to 2003. Since then, it has shown a slight cooling trend. You can not “splice” that data with other data, and the data from earlier is erroneous, haphazardly collected and above all else simply not worth even plotting for all of those reasons. Data from prior to 2003 was gathered by ships primarilly in shipping lanes, and occasionally from other vessals doing scientific work. It was haphazard, gives no true indication of actual temperatures, and was so un-uniform that it shouldn’t even be combined with the ARGO data.
So the only real data we have is either from ~1950 – 2003 or 2003 – today. We can not combine that data in any fashion because just like mistakes made with proxies in the past (Mike’s Nature Trick …haha) and others we just need to look at raw data and go from there…which shows cooling oceans from 2003 – today with a system I trust. I grant you, that the slight cooling trend can be said to be “no change” because in all honesty it could be just that…error could be high enough, and I am not sure I trust the adjustments made to the raw data by Willis as much as some do. Yes, corrections are necessary due to the instrument problem, but whenever you correct actual measurements, you introduce even more error. So perhaps there is very little cooling or no change, but either way your claim of “warming oceans” is made from a paper that incorrectly splices data together kind of similar to most warmist papers out there today.
Maybe I question the fact that everytime corrections are made to data, it turns out that the slope of warming gets larger or cooling becomes hidden. Everytime…..