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.
Ted
Our whole electric infrastructure happened with gov support. The libertarian solution would leave behind competitively with other nations because it would be too slow. Gov should be allowed to fail in order to get to the successes. R and D is all about failure. If you are afraid to fail, you will succeed at very few things. There are good ideas that need help getting off the ground. Government is there to help lessen the risk. That is what brings in the private capital when the risk is high.
Take for instance nuclear power. It wouldn’t of happened without gov support. It won’t happen today with out gov support. Are you saying don’t support nuclear power with gov subsidies?
Nuclear power and even wealthy oil companies get subsidies. So are you just picking and choosing who gets the subsidies and who doesn’t? It appears that way to me.
Renewable Guy,
Electrification of our nation was an obvious opportunity for government assistance. The tax revenues from the industries created over the first few decades more than made up for the cost and the congress new that was very likely to be the case.
Your ill-conceived “renewable” projects are highly unlikely to generate enough energy to even replace the fossil fuel technologies you want to abandon let alone provide more energy.
The only conceivable reason to implement these kind of massive subsidies would be if our country and the entire world agreed that we face an imminent disaster from the CO2 that would be released from “business as usual”.
That is why people like James Hansen and their ilk proclaim “the end of civilization as we know it” to scare people into following this doomsday scenario.
Sorry buddy but there are intelligent and scientifically educated people that know this is a lie. I’m not sure if you are convinced than carbon-o-geddon is really looming or if you have other financial interests or whatever, but enough people know that we face no real threat and we’re not going to let you bamboozle the public into disastrous changes to the world’s energy infrastructure or let you impose draconian “carbon reduction” schemes that would cripple the world’s industrial economies, reduce our standard of living and condemn the people in developing countries to perpetual low energy poverty.
So you can bullet point all the slanted drivel you like but these are the facts.
And as John Adams once said, “…and facts are stubborn things.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2293607
D R Tucker changed his stripes on AGW.
You really don’t have any facts supporting your position. Just hunches.
The science is deep and almost endless in facts and evidence. Your skill at ignoring it is astounding.
As D R Tucker said, you are entitled to your opinion but you aren’t entitled to your facts. Good science puts ideologies way down at the bottom. Yours clouds your whole judgement.
Richard Alley from Penn State is one of the leading Climatologists in the world. Is a registered Republican. He does not do as you are doing now.
Adding more co2 to the earth’s system changes things. Its just a matter of studying it and finding out. If you read watts up for your view of the science, you are getting the distorted science. It always comes out everything is ok and no need to worry.
So now you are focused in hate, you may never know and practice the truth.
This next decade will increase in average temperature about .15 to .20 centigrade.
As for Renewable Energy, with present technology in solar alone, a portion of Arizona can power the world. I agree with you that facts are stubborn things.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Theres-no-room-for-climate-of-denial.html
Denial is as old as humanity but is not the same as scepticism. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a sceptic as ”A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite conclusions”. We should thus all seek the truth. Genuine scepticism in science is one of the ways science progresses.
Denial is very different; it is a refusal to believe something, no matter what the evidence. Climate change deniers often call themselves ”sceptics”. However, refusing to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence is not scepticism but denial.
#####################################################
From the D R Tucker article. He started reading openly when he learned that republicans used to be conserned about the environment. Richard Nixon signed off on the EPA. Now the republicans practically hate environmentalism. Something has gone awry in your group and its big time dysfunctional.
Renewable Guy:
Kind of tough doing that since the department of interior has already shutdown construction of solar plants because of destruction of endangered species.
The Department of Interior ordered BrightSource Energy LLC to temporarily halt construction on phases 2 and 3 of the Ivanpah Solar Energy Generating System since the project’s impacts on the endangered desert tortoise have exceeded initial estimates.
I have never seen so many junk posts by one person on any other Forum as Renewable Guy has made on this thread and I regularly scan the majority of “Climate” forums on the net.
It is almost as if the answers are made by a computer search engine.
AC Osborn:
Amen, brother!
A C Osborn:
I have never seen so many junk posts by one person on any other Forum as Renewable Guy has made on this thread and I regularly scan the majority of “Climate” forums on the net.
It is almost as if the answers are made by a computer search engine.
#####################################################
Denialism is about creating your world out of thin air.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/06/09/241120/solar-is-ready-now-%e2%80%9cferocious-cost-reductions-make-solar-pv-competitive/
New solar is now cheaper than new nuclear.
Of course if you don’t read it, then its easier to deny what is happening in the world.
Duracomm is doing way far better than the rest of you by bringing up posts. You want to show otherwise than
what I profess, get your posts going. To back off and say I shouldn’t have to, weakens your argument.
The denial side only weakens itself over time, because they are eventually backed into a corner trying to prove their version of reality.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8001?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theoildrum+%28The+Oil+Drum%29
“When I was thinking about the highly technical and huge investments needed, it is sure that the time of cheap oil is finished and has been for some time. It is something which is absolutely obvious, and the low-cost cheap oil is only remaining in OPEC countries in the Middle East…there are all these more technical oils such as deepwater, extra heavy oil, arctic oil, which can be produced but only when the price is right, and which depends on the law of offer, supply and demand, due to which oil demand is very important”
########################################################
Here are some of the signals in the world of energy. This is the ceo of TOTAL oil company saying that the price of producing oil is going up.Also discussed is world volatility. WIth Libertarian attitudes of no support for businesses, then that means no tax write offs for oil and coal also. Theirs are huge.
Total CCEO says we will peak at 95 million barrels a day.
Nuclear cannot even make it without gov sub and yet there is a pro nuclear drumbeat on this blog conversation.
Where is the reality?
The only reason the price of oil is going up is because production of oil is controlled by cartels that set the production level among themselves. All to keep the price of oil up. It isn’t going up because we are running out of oil.
Nuclear does just fine without the subsidies in countries that use it. The reason it is so very expensive in the US is because the government deliberately makes it cost multiple times more than it should with over regulation and government red tape. If the regulations and hoops were reduced to reasonable levels for safety the cost to produce nuclear power would be among the cheapest out there. If you want a good example of this look at France. They are almost exclusively nuclear powered.
So the claim that nuclear only makes it with subsidies is a strawman argument the only reason that it needs subsidies is because the government artificially drives the price of nuclear power up.
Tom T:
Well said. The AGW crowd spins everything to make their point. Any effort at a calm discussion is shouted down with a new wave of crap.
TomT:
Canada has not gone forward with nuclear without saying why and they believe it is just skyrocketing costs.
#So the claim that nuclear only makes it with subsidies is a strawman argument the only reason that it needs subsidies is because the government artificially drives the price of nuclear.#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
The economics of new nuclear power plants is a controversial subject, since there are diverging views on this topic, and multi-billion dollar investments ride on the choice of an energy source. Nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for building the plant, but low direct fuel costs (with much of the costs of fuel extraction, processing, use and long term storage externalized). Therefore, comparison with other power generation methods is strongly dependent on assumptions about construction timescales and capital financing for nuclear plants. Cost estimates also need to take into account plant decommissioning and nuclear waste storage costs. On the other hand measures to mitigate global warming, such as a carbon tax or carbon emissions trading, may favor the economics of nuclear power.
#####################################################
If you overlook certain parts of nuclear, its peachy keen. On a realistic level the ceo’s know what it takes to bring a nuclear power plant online. It’s very risky and expensive. You can 10 billion dollars not returning any investment for 10 to 15 years. Its takes a stable entiity like the gov to insure its success. Renewable energy does not need that hand holding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
In recent years there has been a slowdown of electricity demand growth and financing has become more difficult, which has an impact on large projects such as nuclear reactors, with very large upfront costs and long project cycles which carry a large variety of risks.[1] In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.[1] Where cheap gas is available and its future supply relatively secure, this also poses a major problem for nuclear projects.[1]
Analysis of the economics of nuclear power must take into account who bears the risks of future uncertainties. To date all operating nuclear power plants were developed by state-owned or regulated utility monopolies[2] where many of the risks associated with construction costs, operating performance, fuel price, and other factors were borne by consumers rather than suppliers. Many countries have now liberalized the electricity market where these risks, and the risk of cheaper competitors emerging before capital costs are recovered, are borne by plant suppliers and operators rather than consumers, which leads to a significantly different evaluation of the economics of new nuclear power plants.[3]
#####################################################
All evidence that I find points to expensive nuclear power. Like I said before, its unstable without outside life support. In the grand scheme of libertarianism, this one is a big fat failure. Now in terms of socialism, which is a total irony, that is what it takes to make nuclear work.
Ted Rado:
Tom T:
Well said. The AGW crowd spins everything to make their point. Any effort at a calm discussion is shouted down with a new wave of crap.
#####################################################
Nobody ignors the evidenece better than you do Ted. You are welcome to give evidence to the contrary of what I am posting at any time.
Ted:
Still waiting Ted. Anytime now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
is not a reliable source of information. You absolutely can not trust or rely on anything found on wiki as your source of accurate neutral information. The problem with wiki is that anyone with an agenda can basically make it their personal project to keep a wiki article spun their direction.
Wiki is a great tool for looking up some pop culture reference. But the moment you rely on it for anything even lightly brushed by politics or special interests it ceases to be reliable and becomes very suspect. Oh it can make a great starting point for doing research but pointing to a wiki article as proof of something? No.
Most of the sources in that article do not come from disinterested parties but instead parties that have expressed their opposition to nuclear power in the past. You really think that such a person is going to write an objective view of something like the cost of a plant? Not at all they are interested in discouraging nuclear power so it is in their own interest to push the belief that nuclear isn’t a cost effective solution. And many of those articles don’t address the fact that the price nuclear power is artificial driven up by the people who oppose it through government regulation, law suits, and other activist activity. If they ceased driving the price up artificially the price is very economical.
Again look back at the article you point to. It carefully avoids any discussion of France. Why? Could it be that in France where there isn’t this active suppression and opposition of nuclear power it is cost effective and cheap?
I also see they are playing games with the safety issue. Just compare the yearly deaths producing coal, gas, and oil and energy produced from that to the deaths associated with nuclear production and it is staggering what a difference it is. Nuclear is amazingly safe compared to the traditional energy sources.
Basically the article you point to is a great piece of negative propaganda but isn’t a reliable source for the accurate cost of nuclear energy production.
And I’ll point out that another of your favored sites to quote about AGW Skeptical science isn’t a neutral party either. It actively promotes AGW and actively discourages any questioning of it. It’s owner/manager has bought into the AGW religion hook line and sinker but pretends to be a neutral reliable site to go to for accurate scientific facts. That may be true on other topics but they have completely poisoned their own site with regard to accurate information regarding AGW.
Unfortunately that makes the rest of the site suspect now too. If they allow their religion to corrupt the information on one topic what makes any other topic they cover reliable?
TomT:
You are certainly correct about nuclear safety. Many years ago when the hippie anti-nuke movement was in full sway, I pointed out the safety of nuclear energy vs coal, oil, and gas , to a friend as you have now done. The listener, who was technically illiterate, was amazed. Those of us with a technical background need to bear in mind that most of the public has no idea about science and technology. We therefore have a responsibility to stick to facts and cut out the zealotry and hysteria. The politicians supply enough of that without us adding to it.
Tom T:
1.^ a b c Kidd, Steve (January 21, 2011). “New reactors—more or less?”. Nuclear Engineering International. http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653.
2.^ Ed Crooks (12 September 2010). “Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited to the east”. Financial Times. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html. Retrieved 12 September 2010.
3.^ a b c d The Future of Nuclear Power. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2003. ISBN 0-615-12420-8. http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. Retrieved 2006-11-10
####################################################
These are pretty reputable places. Care to elaborate how these are biased sources?
Tom T:
1.^ a b c Kidd, Steve (January 21, 2011). “New reactors—more or less?”. Nuclear Engineerng International. .neimagazine.com/story.asp?
sectioncode=147&storyCode=2058653.
2.^ Ed Crooks (12 September 2010). “Nuclear: New dawn now seems limited t the east”. Financial Times. ft.com/cms/s/0/ad15fcfe-bc71-11df-a42b-00144feab49a.html. Retrieved 12 September 2010.
3.^ a b c d The Future o Nuclear Power. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2003. ISBN 0-615-12420-8. web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/. Retrieved 2006-11-10
####################################################
These are pretty reputable places. Care to elaborate how these are biased sources?
TomT:
And I’ll point out that another of your favored sites to quote about AGW Skeptical science isn’t a neutral party either. It actively promotes AGW and actively discourages any questioning of it. It’s owner/manager has bought into the AGW religion hook line and sinker but pretends to be a neutral reliable site to go to for accurate scientific facts.
#######################################################
Its all based on science to refute the false information being put out.
If you decide to believe the observations of science as being correct, then it is very easy to know what to do.
Repeating what I have pointed out many times, while the AGW idea is debatable, the problems in implementing it are not. We have NO alternative energy scheme that is doable on a large scale at an acceptable cost. Furthermore, unless the Indians and Chinese are board with the fossil fuel shutdown, we accomplish nothing except destroy our own economy to the benefit of the Chinese and Indians.
I have studied the AGW tging for many years. I certainly am not a climate expert, but simply ask the questions that anyone with an engineering or scientific background would ask. I cannot disprove the AGW hypothesis, but it cannot be proven either, except by the passage of time. At this point it doesn’t matter, as we have no viable alternative to fossil fuels, as described above.