You're not going to convert many people with the story of "It doesn't matter if global warming is happening or not, we should just react like it is happening because we think it's good for you" because the skeptics already think you believe "It doesn't matter if global warming is happening or not, we should just react like it is because we think it's good for you".

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPI...ref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

I was listening to some Algore wannabe talking about global warming and her diatribe was convoluted to say the least. I also saw a video about areas of the rainforest being deforested by the population chopping down trees to make characoal for cooking and clearing the land to grow crops for the ever growing population. The ever growing population is the end cause of all the issues. More people require more food, require more energy, require more medical care, more housing, more water, better sanitation. The population is drawing in more oxygen and expelling more carbon dioxide just by living.

While I agree it cant hurt to help, nothing humans can do is going to affect it enough to make a change before humans become extinct anyway. We would have to do something like flood the planet a foot deep in ammonia or pipe hundreds of billions of cubic miles of methane directly into the air to affect anything. The ONLY thing we can do to affect the environment in short term is have an all out worldwide nuclear war. Vehicles and power plants wont do the job.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: While I agree it cant hurt to help, nothing humans can do is going to affect it enough to make a change before humans become extinct anyway. We would have to do something like flood the planet a foot deep in ammonia or pipe hundreds of billions of cubic miles of methane directly into the air to affect anything. The ONLY thing we can do to affect the environment in short term is have an all out worldwide nuclear war. Vehicles and power plants wont do the job.

The planet is going to outlive us by a very wide margin.

The planet is heating up right now. It will cool off at some point. It's been doing this heat/cool cycle long before we showed up. It will be doing it long after we're gone. It's not a good or bad thing to the planet....it just IS. The global population is rising exponentially right now. At some point, and for some reason, it will contract. Nothing any of us can do will change that.....Every living thing, be it a human, a tree, or the population as a whole....is born, grows, matures, declines, and eventually dies. Such is the grand scheme of things.

Relax, fill your Fieros (or whatever you enjoy driving) and don't feel guilty about it. Life is short.

Some guy's opinion piece on CNN isn't going convince anybody. But try looking up the consistently growing glaciers and bear in mind that this is the second bad winter in Europe, and bear in mind that the brave forecasts of rising seas, starving polar bears, and drowning islands, and record hurricane seasons HAVE NOT COME TRUE.

How many years of mistaken and incredibly wrong forecasts does it take to put this falsehood to bed?

Citing the Government and UN directed and funded weather scientists is not the way to prove the point. They've already been caught lying. And besides which, having the whole northern hemisphere in a dramatically severe winter is simply episodic and situational?

I don't think so.

Arn

Really the big problem is people who post topics in the wrong place.

quote Originally posted by Old Lar: I was listening to some Algore wannabe talking about global warming and her diatribe was convoluted to say the least. I also saw a video about areas of the rainforest being deforested by the population chopping down trees to make characoal for cooking and clearing the land to grow crops for the ever growing population. The ever growing population is the end cause of all the issues. More people require more food, require more energy, require more medical care, more housing, more water, better sanitation. The population is drawing in more oxygen and expelling more carbon dioxide just by living.

That problem is easily solved.
No need to invent or alter technology to reduce emissions.

The final solution will fix it.
You know the one.

------------------

The author asks why wouldn't we go for: "energy independence, preserve rainforest, sustainability, green jobs, livable cities, renewables, clean water and air, healthy children, etc., etc." - Because most of that is just a fairy tale.

Persuing a reduction in CO2 will result in HUGE new taxes, it will raise the price of everything, and it appears it will be for nothing. And remember, if it costs more for "green energy", then it will cost YOU more. Tell ya what, do this experiment. Right now, take 30-40% of whatever you make, and give it away. If you still can meet all your financial obligations, you *might* survive Cap and Tax and all the other green nonsense they're pushing. If not, get used to it, because that's what Cap and Tax will do. Period. Don't believe me? Look up the Harvard study that says Cap and Tax will turn $3/gallon gas into $7/gallon gas.

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: That problem is easily solved. No need to invent or alter technology to reduce emissions. The final solution will fix it. You know the one.

Free condoms for liberals?

quote Originally posted by dobey: Really the big problem is people who post topics in the wrong place.

No crap eh? That really ticks me off too when I see some jerk doing that. ppl need to watch what they are doing more.

Why aren't we going after the one greenhouse gas that far outclasses CO2 in percentage of atmospheric content, tonnage, and other stats?

Ho do we reduce Dihydrogen Monoxide in our atmosphere? CO2 is small potatoes compared to airborne DHMO.

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Why aren't we going after the one greenhouse gas that far outclasses CO2 in percentage of atmospheric content, tonnage, and other stats? Ho do we reduce Dihydrogen Monoxide in our atmosphere? CO2 is small potatoes compared to airborne DHMO.

Yeah! That stuff can turn metal to dust, and can kill a human being in a matter of minutes. Why, just last week, several roads and airports were temporarily shut down because of crystalline Dihydrogen Monoxide.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 12-29-2010).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick's Dad: Why aren't we going after the one greenhouse gas that far outclasses CO2 in percentage of atmospheric content, tonnage, and other stats? Ho do we reduce Dihydrogen Monoxide in our atmosphere? CO2 is small potatoes compared to airborne DHMO.

hahah. I asked my nephew if he'd sign that petition, then dumped some on him.

I say why not reach for alternative energy? Can't hurt anything. Not to save CO2 but maybe to have a little less gray in the air and to stop being dependant on others. We'll lose jobs some may say... No retrain the workers to be maintenance techs on the new systems. On my drive home I drive past a Medium sized wind turbine and Love the looks of it. I also pass by a few small units too. The medium sized one has been shut down for the last three months. Not due to lack of wind, just shut down. Seeing this kinda pisses me off. I would love to have one, build one, experiment. Bad thing is I live in town and have large trees covering three sides of my house.

Yea Bear. latest I heard this morning is gas will be $5 @ gallon in 2012.

Of course weathermen and economists cant predict anything past the next 2 hours ever. This mornings news was heavy rain all day with downpours and thunder, starting after midnite last nite. It drizzled about 3am, nothing after that and suns trying to poke thru. Guess I should have switched channels for a different forecast, lol.

How many windmills would you trade for a power plant?

1,000? Would you be cool with putting up 1,000 windmills instead of a single power plant?

quote Originally posted by DIY_Stu: hahah. I asked my nephew if he'd sign that petition, then dumped some on him. I say why not reach for alternative energy? Can't hurt anything. Not to save CO2 but maybe to have a little less gray in the air and to stop being dependant on others. We'll lose jobs some may say... No retrain the workers to be maintenance techs on the new systems. On my drive home I drive past a Medium sized wind turbine and Love the looks of it. I also pass by a few small units too. The medium sized one has been shut down for the last three months. Not due to lack of wind, just shut down. Seeing this kinda pisses me off. I would love to have one, build one, experiment. Bad thing is I live in town and have large trees covering three sides of my house.

The best and most efficient windmill system in the world is in Germany. Their windmills operate at about 27% efficiency and generate only 5% of their power requirements which are chiefly supplied by coal.

The fact is that they have thousands of windmills. Maybe this should give us a clue.

Arn

Actually yes I would.
Would you like Nuclear or Coal?
If Nuclear where's the waste go?

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The best and most efficient windmill system in the world is in Germany. Their windmills operate at about 27% efficiency and generate only 5% of their power requirements which are chiefly supplied by coal. The fact is that they have thousands of windmills. Maybe this should give us a clue. Arn

Depends on how you look at it I suppose.

Effieciency and Capacity are different, "For instance, the average efficiency of the US electricity generation infrastructure is about 35% – this is because in most thermal plants, about two thirds of the input energy is wasted as heat into the environment. The mechanical conversion efficiency of commercial wind turbines is a fairly high, in the range of 90%. Wind power plants have a much lower capacity factor but a much higher efficiency than typical fossil fuel plants. A higher capacity factor is not an indicator of higher efficiency or vice versa."


Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time

Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50% . A modern wind turbine will generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the course of a year.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-30-2010).]

I think the global warming hoopla is really the new 'pollution is bad, mmkay?' campaign. the US and most developed countries can wash their hands of all their past misdeeds and try to keep China and India in line with their industrial growth if we (the guilty) create a 'just discovered/realized' worldwide disaster. The refusniks are getting in the way of the secret society's goal of curbing runaway expansion and domination of the new economies in China and India while at the same time diminishing the importance of middle east oil. So play along, okay?

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The best and most efficient windmill system in the world is in Germany. Their windmills operate at about 27% efficiency and generate only 5% of their power requirements ...

The last I read, Denmark currently generates about 20% of its annual electricity consumption (19% in 2009) from wind turbines, most of which are located on the Jutland peninsula.

quote Originally posted by newf: Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time ...

Having studied wind turbines for power generation since the early 1970s, I strongly disagree. Most commecrial wind turbines have a "cut in" wind speed of around 12 mph, below which they generate no power whatsoever. Above the "cut in" speed, power output is roughly proportional to the cube of wind speed. A commercial wind turbine's maximum rated wind speed is somewhere in the range of 29 to 35 mph, at which point they begin feathering the blades and eventually have to be taken off line to prevent mechanical damage due to excessive aerodynamic loads and/or excessive mechanical (e.g. centrifugal) loads due to high rpm.

I support wind power as one partial solution (out of many partial solutions) to our energy needs, but scientific integrity requires that we be realistic about its limitations. "A modern wind turbine [will produce] electricity 70-85% of the time" only in those locations where the wind exceeds the cut in speed 70 to 85% of the time, such as on the North Sea coast.

From GE, a plot of output vs. wind speed for their commercial 2.5 MW wind turbine:




Edit: to correct data on Danish wind power generation

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-10-2011).]

quote Originally posted by DIY_Stu: Actually yes I would. Would you like Nuclear or Coal? If Nuclear where's the waste go?

I would prefer Nu-Clear energy.
The rest of the world is wise enough to be building them.
The new ones the Chinese are building are safe and produce very little waste.
We have been screwing with the others for more than 30 years and they are still just pipe dreams.
All of the money we have wasted on solar, wind and sea weed would have paid for rockets from now to eternity to send all of the waste to the sun.
Wake up America, the rest of the world is passing us by.

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: Having studied wind turbines for power generation since the early 1970s, I strongly disagree. Most commecrial wind turbines have a "cut in" wind speed of around 12 mph, below which they generate no power whatsoever. Above the "cut in" speed, power output is roughly proportional to the cube of wind speed. A commercial wind turbine's maximum rated wind speed is somewhere in the range of 29 to 35 mph, at which point they have to be taken off line and the blades feathered to prevent mechanical damage due to excessive aerodynamic loads and/or centirfugal loads due to high rpm. I support wind power as one partial solution (out of many partial solutions) to our energy needs, but scientific integrity requires that we be realistic about its limitations. "A modern wind turbine [will produce] electricity 70-85% of the time" only in those locations where the wind exceeds the cut in speed 70 to 85% of the time, such as on the North Sea coast.

I agree there are plenty of other "clean" sources of energy that can be harnessed. All have various limitations and advantages and disadvantages.

The quote I used is from this site. http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: The last I read, Denmark currently generates about 50% of its base load from wind turbines, most of which are located on the Jutland peninsula.

It might be helpful to see the source for that. Meanwhile...

Danish Wind Power Overblown

Two Danish experts in the field of wind energy will be in Washington for the next three days to speak on the subject of wind generated electricity. One would expect they are here to brag on the fact that their country is a leader in the field and that they already satisfy, as President Obama puts it, "20 percent of the electricity through wind power." One would be wrong in such an expectation. They are here to warn us about the dangers of putting our electricity needs in the wind power basket.

A nation of 5.4 million — between Missouri and Wisconsin in population — the windy nation is "carpeted" with wind turbines. Of the electricity generated from all sources, the 5,500 wind turbines contribute about 19 percent of the country's electrical demand. But this is far less than the amount utilized by the Danish people, which varies between 5 and 10 percent. Why the disparity? This is explained in a report — “An Assessment of Danish wind power: The real state-of-play and its hidden costs" (pdf) — authored by Hugh Sharman, an engineer and founder of a company specializing in off-shore structures. It is Mr. Sharman and Martin Agerup, chief executive officer of Copenhagen-based Center for Politiske Studier, who are in the U.S. to alert American audiences of what the true energy situation is in Denmark.

Concerns are many, primarily the problem of system instability when the wind energy component nears 10 percent in most applications. Electricity has a value based not just on the power produced, but on when it is available. When there is over-capacity, power is sold by West Denmark to customers in Germany and to the UCTE grid in Europe. In a similar situation, power from West Denmark (the East and West grids are not connected) is sold to Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Norway uses a portion of this for pumped storage thus increasing its value. Since this occurs when the electrical demand by Denmark's customers is also low, the electricity is sold below cost — the difference being made up by taxes and residential rate payers. (Industrial customers are given very preferential treatment in electricity pricing policy.)

Unfortunately for the Danes, when the winds aren't blowing to produce sufficient power, they then become the customers of their customers. But now the value of the electricity is very high. As a consequence the Danish people have the highest electric rates of any industrialized nation, an average of about $.38 per kWh compared to $.08 in the United States.

It could be much worse were it not for the countries that Denmark is tied to by electrical grids and that consume about 100 times the power of Denmark. These countries act as a kind of energy spring: When Denmark has an excess, they have a place to put it rather than shutting down their wind farms. When power is needed, other suppliers provide a ready source to step in and ship the necessary megawatt-hours. The United States is not in such a position. We have no energy "big brother" to come to our rescue. We, then, must have generating capabilities necessary to back up all the unreliable wind power and consequently cannot safely shut down any of our current generating plants, and indeed must build more back-up conventional plants anytime the grid needs additional capacity.

The other big mistake that the United States is being pushed toward by environmentalists and their patron in the White House is that of "green jobs." Jobs in the wind industry are always subsidized. When a worker in a non-subsidized industry moves into a subsidized one, there is a double hit on the economy: The "green" job requires the government to take capital from the economy, and the loss of the non-subsidized job precludes the creation of wealth. Much as in Spain where "green jobs" can require a subsidy of $1,000,000 per job, wind-related jobs in Denmark are subsidized at the rate of 175 to 250 percent above average pay, roughly costing taxpayers $90,000 to $140,00 for each "green" employee.

Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) that commissioned the report, is unequivocal in his warning: "In the case of Denmark, you have a nation of 5.4 million, occupying some of the most wind-intense real estate in Europe — and it still doesn't even come close to the 20 percent threshold envisioned by President Obama for the United States. This may indeed be the model for the future — but only if you believe that a combination of smoke, mirrors, and prohibitively high utility rates are the key to our economic and environmental salvation."

There are obvious problems with wind-powered electricity when the generators are on the surface of the land or sea--the way it is implemented in Denmark and other places around the world. Surface wind speed and direction is not as consistent, vs. high-altitude winds in the world's temperate zones. Wind turbines in some otherwise desirable locations are a demonstrated hazard to birds. People don't like to see wind turbines impacting their view of landscape or seascape.

If you're interested in a possible long-term future for wind-powered electricity, you may want to visit this website--Sky Windpower Corporation--which delves into the topic of HIGH ALTITUDE power generation using FLYING ELECTRICAL GENERATORS.

It appears that some realistic thinking and research has already been arrayed in exploring the feasibility of this concept.

I think this concept has definite possibilities for getting the world through another century--even longer. It seems like it could be more feasible than putting solar-powered generators in orbit and beaming the power down to earth via microwave channels.

"Nukes" (nuclear reactors) are "nice", but aside from the radioactivity/safety problems, the reactors consume uranium--and eventually even the world-wide reservoirs of uranium are--like oil--finite and not inexhaustible.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-31-2010).]

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER) that commissioned the report, is unequivocal in his warning: "In the case of Denmark, you have a nation of 5.4 million, occupying some of the most wind-intense real estate in Europe — and it still doesn't even come close to the 20 percent threshold envisioned by President Obama for the United States. This may indeed be the model for the future — but only if you believe that a combination of smoke, mirrors, and prohibitively high utility rates are the key to our economic and environmental salvation."

It might be helpful to check your "independent" source for that. Meanwhile...


Thomas J. Pyle, AEA President, is an oil lobbyist and DeLay operative. Before joining the Institute for Energy Research and the American Energy Alliance, Pyle worked as a lobbyist for the right-wing oil giant Koch Industries, first in-house starting in 2001, and then at the Rhoads Group. In 2008 Pyle became a lobbyist for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Previously, Pyle served as policy analyst for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives and as staff director for the GOP Congressional Western Caucus. Pyle started as a legislative assistant for radical anti-environmentalists Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA). [Institute for Energy Research, Center for Public Integrity]

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-31-2010).]

quote Originally posted by newf: It might be helpful to check your "independent" source for that. Meanwhile... Thomas J. Pyle, AEA President, is an oil lobbyist and DeLay operative. Before joining the Institute for Energy Research and the American Energy Alliance, Pyle worked as a lobbyist for the right-wing oil giant Koch Industries, first in-house starting in 2001, and then at the Rhoads Group. In 2008 Pyle became a lobbyist for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. Previously, Pyle served as policy analyst for Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), Majority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives and as staff director for the GOP Congressional Western Caucus. Pyle started as a legislative assistant for radical anti-environmentalists Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA) and Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA). [Institute for Energy Research, Center for Public Integrity]

Ah, yes, the typical "works for an oil company" argument. Does that invalidate any of the other facts of the article?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Ah, yes, the typical "works for an oil company" argument. Does that invalidate any of the other facts of the article?

I hope it's typical to question where one gets their information and the bias that may be behind it.

The article doesn't seem too big on facts but I'm sure you can read this for yourself and see what you think.

http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Sider/forside.aspx
http://www.windpower.org/en...edge/statistics.html

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 12-31-2010).]

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: "Nukes" (nuclear reactors) are "nice", but aside from the radioactivity/safety problems, the reactors consume uranium--and eventually even the world-wide reservoirs of uranium are--like oil--finite and not inexhaustible.

In 1983, physicist Bernard Cohen proposed that the world supply of uranium is effectively inexhaustible, and could therefore be considered a form of renewable energy. He claims that fast breeder reactors, fueled by naturally-replenished uranium extracted from seawater, could supply energy at least as long as the sun's expected remaining lifespan of five billion years. These reactors use uranium-238, which is more common than the uranium-235 required by conventional reactors.

His paper
http://sustainablenuclear.o...Ds/pad11983cohen.pdf

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-31-2010).]

In Canada, we signed an agreement to ship our nuclear waste to the US for processing. However, the fact is that the Uranium comes out of Canadian mines. It is already in our great Northern wilderness in an inexhaustible supply. We also have hundreds of abandoned mines, and many in the Arctic shield. The spent uranium could easily be taken down those spent mines where we have enough storage capacity for millenia.

If you think that nuclear facilities are an easy target for the enemies of the country, then think about windmills. They are very vulnerable targets for everything from friendly airplanes, to ice storms, and lightning. They also have a known breakage rate. In Canada, we have violent winter storms. This combines high winds with very cold temperatures. These temperatures freeze equipment and cause metal to become brittle. This is a recipe for blade breakage.

Thankyou to Fierobear again. I was wrong about Germany holding the bulk of the windmills. They are buying from Denmark.

It also holds true that the cutoff for usable wind speed varies in locations. In Ontario, the current government wants to build islands in Lake Huron and erect oversized windmills in the lake. This is right near shipping lanes. It also is subject to wind fluctuations. It does not have the sustained winds of the North Sea.

You also have to look at the output of a windmill. It requires many many windmills to produce what a nuclear generator can produce, and they can only do it part time.

If you look at solar, the same holds true. It is subject to cloud, but also snow load. So solar doesn't work well in Canada. If it did, it would require thousands of hectars of land to produce the equivalent of on nuclear plant. You would have to virtually cover the desert states in America and destroy habitat for much wildlife.

You also have to remember that America and Canada both have technology for clean coal burn. Yes it produces CO2, but CO2 is not the villan that Al Gore and company paint it to be.

Big issues, but windpower is unfortunately not the answer.

Arn

We have a nuclear power plant (Point Beach) near by. That single plant produces the equivalant power of 3,000 wind mills.

quote Originally posted by newf: Really how much has been wasted? Got any figures?

That is downright funny there!
I don't have enough days in my life to figure it out.
But billions and billions is close enough.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: We have a nuclear power plant (Point Beach) near by. That single plant produces the equivalant power of 3,000 wind mills.

And it produces it 24/7

Arn

I am an enthusiast of being able to afford to drive to work.

If they are going to let the cost climb so high that it becomes nearly impossible, I wonder what they think will happen. They think people will be able to just choose to buy a new car that doesn't use as much gas?
While at the same time everything that gets shipped (I.E. everything) doubles in price as well?

quote Originally posted by partfiero: Is this an opinion, or do you have facts to back it up?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf

You would clearly kill more people by flying a plane into a stadium than a nuclear power plant. I am not saying they aren't a target. I am just saying they aren't a top target.

quote Originally posted by newf: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34331.pdf

No proof in that article, just speculation.
They are harder targets than the terrorist want to deal with. Not a nice target as you claim.
Has one ever been brought up as even being in the planning stages for any attack?