Wind Turbine ********. Just opened the mail and seen the plan for three massive units

[williaty]

Duke University just published a study that states Global Warming is more moderate than the IPCC scenarios.

More moderate than the worst case predictions, not the ones with the highest confidence. The paper also is self-published and not picked up by a major journal, which usually says there's problems with it.

Most of the IPCC Scenarios that we hear about in the media are "worst case" scenarios.

Duh, the media loves to sensationalize everything. Why focus on the high probability scenarios when you can scare the crap out of everyone with the unlikely, extreme scenarios. You get more money from both the supporters and deniers if you do that.

I do not believe in the "worst case" scenarios of global warming or that man is the primary cause.

Thankfully, you're not a climate scientists, so your beliefs (like mine) don't matter a darned bit. Among scientists qualified to hold an opinion, anthropogenic climate change is not in doubt. As you noticed, the magnitude of warming is still uncertain.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

Depends on how you define pollutant. If pollution means byproducts of doing things that we need to do which have negative consequences for the environment and us, then the amount of CO2 we're talking about absolutely is a pollutant.

If we put 1/2 the money spent on CO2 reduction into reducing real pollution (NOx, SOx, Lead, Mercury, etc) we would be much better off. An also probably reduce CO2 as a side benefit.

While I agree with you that a whole-system view is more useful than focusing on one specific symptom, CO2's role in climate change is a bigger danger to us and our children than anything you listed.

Our contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is minimal. About 4% per year.

If our emissions, no matter their size, are measurably stepping on the gas pedal of climate change, they're a problem. And they are.

We are worried about running out of water. Did you know that burning 1 gallon of diesel fuel creates 1.5 gallons of water? All the fuel we are burning is actually adding water to the atmosphere. Isn't that a good thing?

First, your 1:1.5 ratio is off. Someone is doing chemistry wrong. If you do the reaction correctly, 1 gallon of diesel reacts with oxygen to form .99 gallons of water plus a bunch of CO2. While this doesn't really matter due to my next point, it's still worth being correct when possible.

It's still not a good thing. We're running out of potable water in places we need it. The water isn't disappearing, it's just moving to places we can't use it and becoming contaminated with things that prevent us from taking advantage of it. The water produced by oxidizing diesel only helps us if it comes back to the ground as rain or snow in a time and place we need it. If it falls somewhere we already have to much of it (flooding) or if it falls in the ocean, it doesn't help us at all. In fact, the contributions of that water vapor and the accompanying CO2 will just further accelerate climate change making things worse overall.

 

[williaty]

I agree. One of the big issues I have these days is that everything is so polarizing and each side only presents evidence that supports their claim. I'm more of a moderate, and "fact" based thinker that prefers to look at empirical evidence. If the changes are going to adversely impact some areas, doesn't it stand to reason that the same changes might improve some other areas?

Example: I know this is probably overly simplistic, but if the climate change raises the world temperature and makes some areas too hot for agriculture, wouldn't it stand to reason that areas that were previously too cold, may now have an optimal temperature for crops?

If this happened very, very slowly, there's a good chance we could adapt. After all, the geological record shows lots of climate changes and the animals and plants evolved to adapt to the new environment. The problem is the rate of change. Climate change is happen at a fast (geologically speaking) rate already and we're making it faster, not slower. The real question is whether we, as a species, can adapt to the changing climate at the rate we're causing the climate to change. Sure, everyone in a low-lying coastal area could be relocated to higher ground over time. Can you relocate New York City, London, most of the Boston-Atlanta metropolitan axis, about half of India, and who knows how much of China to higher ground as fast as the storms are flooding places? Who's going to accept the refugees from NYC or Miami Beach? Where are we going to house them. Who's going to pay for all this? Same story for crops. If the Salinas Valley becomes too dry for farming, there might be somewhere else in the world that opens up. How do you get the infrastructure there as fast as we need it to happen so worldwide food production doesn't dip for a decade or more? Where's the infrastructure come from? How are you going to move all the people to the new place? What do you do with all the people who are already there? Who pays for this?

The last question is really the big one. We're living in a world crippled by debt, facing declines in energy affordability, with only higher costs in the future. How are we going to pay for the massive global upheaval required to adapt to a warmer climate as fast as we're causing that climate to change?

 

[buickanddeere]

Isn't the earth to still naturally warming up since the last ice age ?

 

[williaty]

Isn't the earth to still naturally warming up since the last ice age ?

We're still in an ice age. The scientific definition of ice age is having any ice at all at either of the poles. We've got ice in both the arctic and the antarctic.

 

[buickanddeere]

We are only 12,000 years into the 115,000 warm season between iceages. Safe to say there is going to be more natural warming up before the climate cools down again. mankind or not.

 

[MossRoad]

All of my life I have been looking at the visual pollution of telephone /electrical poles and overhead wiring along our streets and roadways. I view this pollution as more objectionable than wind turbines although I don't want to see turbines on every ridge-line.

I would like to make the developers of wind turbine projects bury X amount of poles and wiring underground for every turbine they install.

Every windfarm I've seen go up here in Indiana has no wires in the farm. They do eventually connect to transmission lines somewhere, though.

 

[MossRoad]

So far all delivery systems have thier unique problems of being up to date. Don't think I'd want to live along side of high voltage transmission line corridor.

Pro'&con's

Aww heck! I spent the first 24 years of my life with a high voltage transmission line running right through our neighborhood and it didn't effect me in the least.... I'm a completely normal human being with no physical or mental problems. Just look at all the completely lucid posts I've made over the past 13 years............


hahahahahahahahaaaaa!!! hahahahaaa!!! hahahahaaaa, haha!!! Ouch! I think I hurt myself. :laughing:

 

[LAFarm]

Wow...I'm glad to see some support for CLEAN, RENEWABLE ENERGY--I was getting worried, until I got to page 3--LOL. (In other words, I was beginning to think, when reading so many ANTI-wind posts)...wow...and I actually seek out tractoring advice from these people? :laughing: Obviously, areas of people's interest and expertise varies, but as someone who has studied renewable energy options, for years, it is easy to tell who is possession of FACTS and who is simply recycling BIG OIL, GAS and COAL's PROPAGANDA....

One thing that continues to amaze me by its total absence of discussion, about wind, solar, hydro, tidal and geothermal energy--is that these energy sources DELIVER THEMSELVES TO THEIR RESPECTIVE POWER PLANTS. IOW, there is no daily trucking/rail/pipelines involved (and our country desperately needs a new, beefier, electrical grid ANYWAY, regardless of the power source, so that "build out" should be planned with renewables in mind, to maximize the potential savings involved).

Again...the RENEWABLE (and FAR-LESS CABRON-INTENSIVE) ENERGY, DELIVERS ITSELF.

Kindly indulge me, and think about that, for just a moment, if you please. (Because I'm the only one I've ever heard say it, and I think it's a pretty important piece of the total cost/benefit analysis of the life cycle of renewables vs carbon-based energy systems).

That savings, alone, in fuel/carbon footprint/time and labor, is something I feel is an overlooked benefit of renewables that, in and of itself, represents a CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS, of both energy and pollution.

Now...where is my Nomex (flame-retardent) driving suit?

My Hoe

We installed 15 kw of solar panels at our home 3 years ago and have been absolutely pleased with our experience. They generate enough electricity to power our home each month. Any excess is fed back into the local grid and is sold by the utility to our neighbors. The utility is only required to pay us wholesale rates for the surplus when we sell our home and/or disconnected our service. Our only maintenance has been a seasonal washing of pollen and dust.

 

[texasjohn]

Nice testimonial:dance1:, LAFarm

 

[tjcarguy]

Wind and solar work , just not very well , that's why the Ontario Gov. has to pay the carpet baggers 10 times as much per KWH as viable producers ---Trevor