Good Signs: Harnessing the wind.

[William]

I noticed recently that New England Tech has installed a wind turbine on their property just off I-95 in Warwick, RI. Also, a local school district has requested a permit to install one on the campus of a local high school. In addition the state is doing a study on setting up a wind farm on the coast. It’s nice to see some local initiatives pushing renewable energy. Have you seen any recent pushes in your areas?




William

[slates]

sure looks pretty...

one safe nuclear facility or 1000 pretty turbines?

[avalonracing]

Some people say that turbines and wind farms are unsightly but when I think about all the clean power I find them quite beautiful.

[CNY rider]

sure looks pretty...

one safe nuclear facility or 1000 pretty turbines?

Both.

[MattTuck]

sure looks pretty...

one safe nuclear facility or 1000 pretty turbines?

agreed. I am all for wind, solar, tidal, etc. but it is laughable that nuclear isn't a bigger part of the discussion. Waxman Markey, supposedly a bill to address climate change, is completely silent on the nuclear issue.

The next generation plant technologies will deal with almost all the criticisms of current nuclear tech.

But to be sure, we need a diversified energy profile. As they say, diversification is the only free lunch in finance. Diversified energy sources will keep us from being dependent on any one source (such as foreign crude oil, canadian uranium, etc.)

[SamIAm]

sure looks pretty...

one safe nuclear facility or 1000 pretty turbines?

Excellent point, but you probably need well over 1000 to replace a nuclear facility.

Maybe they could disguise them like cell phone companies try to do with their towers.

[93legendti]

The President agreed to sell nuke power to UAE (and said Iran could have nukes for energy), but it's not good enough for us....

You'd think the Middle East would have a monopoly on solar power (and oil!) and wouldn't need nuke power....confusing...

[LegendRider]

Nuclear is going to be an uphill battle with the current administration. Sen. Harry Reid has managed to cut funding for Yucca Mountain (NIMBY) and that alone will cause major problems. Nevertheless, there are 34 nuclear applications in process. Let's see if they get bogged down in red tape...

[Bruce K]

But don't EVER consider putting a wind farm in Cape Cod Bay.

The seagulls will kamakazie by the thousands, the fish will become disoriented from the electromagnetic fields, and oh yes, let's not forget, the fatcats will have to re-route their cabincruisers on the way to Nantuket and Martha's Vineyard.

A local company tried to get a permit for a windmill here in our city and the locals shot it down because it would ruin the scenic view by sticking up above the tree line.

The next town over re-wrote their permitting process so that a wind turbine could not be any higher at the tip than the distance to the boundary of the property in case it fell over. This ensured that no wind turbine could be built tall enough to work properly.

The hypocrasy is astonishing.

We need alternative energy source and should be encouraging their development and construction.

But the NIMBY's come out in droves when someone actually trieds to do something.

Very frustrating at times.

BK

[avalonracing]

But don't EVER consider putting a wind farm in Cape Cod Bay. ...the fatcats will have to re-route their cabincruisers on the way to Nantuket and Martha's Vineyard. The hypocrasy is astonishing.
We need alternative energy source and should be encouraging their development and construction. But the NIMBY's come out in droves when someone actually trieds to do something.


I will have to agree with you on this one. Hell, some turbines might break up another otherwise boring ocean horizon. If I owned a place on The Vineyard or Nantuket I wouldn't fight this.

[MattTuck]

Slightly off topic.... but somewhat related to this thread.


Natural Wilderness is disappearing. Thanks to human activities, true wilderness is disappearing at a rapid rate. Everything from clearing forests, damming rivers, to accidentally importing invasive species like Kudzu or Asian Long Horn Beatle... they all destroy natural wilderness and make it harder (almost impossible) to regain it.

I understand that some of the best wind resources we have are up in the mountains and in very "wild" areas... and I am pretty sure that as a society we'd be better off putting the wild areas to a use as wind generation. But a part of me questions the wisdom of destroying wilderness.

[mschol17]

Cap and Trade, or a carbon tax, doesn't have to say anything about nuclear. If there's a price on carbon, the lower emitting power sources (like nuclear) will automatically become more attractive.

[rwsaunders]

Interesting factoids....not a political statement.

http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm

[William]

Well, going with the thread drift for a moment, I certainly find the wind turbine more aesthetically pleasing than the Nuke plants. Somewhat soothing even with their slow mesmerizing rotation. Of course that is not a comment on how much energy they comparably produce. I’m just happy to be seeing some steps toward renewable energy….which is the original reason I started the thread.


http://blogs.mysanantonio.com/weblogs/clockingin/wind%20turbine.jpg

http://www.lightandmatter.com/html_books/4em/ch02/figs/nuclear-power-plant.jpg



William

[MattTuck]

Cap and Trade, or a carbon tax, doesn't have to say anything about nuclear. If there's a price on carbon, the lower emitting power sources (like nuclear) will automatically become more attractive.


True, to an extent. But if you're interested in producing base load energy that does not contribute to climate change, why not improve the permitting process and make it easier for energy producers to replace coal fired plants with nuclear?

Yes, you could let the cap and trade work.... which it should, assuming there aren't any loopholes. But if you're interested in actually reducing carbon emissions, it seems easy to pass some enabling (not saying tax breaks, just improved permitting and ways to accelerate construction) legislation.

[Ray]

Well, going with the thread drift for a moment, I certainly find the wind turbine more aesthetically pleasing than the Nuke plants. Somewhat soothing even with their slow mesmerizing rotation. Of course that is not a comment on how much energy they comparably produce. I’m just happy to be seeing some steps toward renewable energy….which is the original reason I started the thread.

William
Why do you hate America? :cool:

[RPS]

Excellent point, but you probably need well over 1000 to replace a nuclear facility.

Maybe they could disguise them like cell phone companies try to do with their towers.
It would take a lot more than 1000 turbines of the size in the OP to equal a typical +/- 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant. For large turbines that number would be about right. It's hard to compare because nuclear (and conventional) power plants produce power at rated capacity around the clock over 90 percent of the time, while wind turbines produce power depending on wind (i.e. -- not always at rated capacity).

Large turbines would be difficult to hide behind trees.

[William]

Why do you hate America? :cool:

Look what someone just sent me...

http://rlv.zcache.com/commie_pinko_bastard_tshirt-p23572115460327413833bu_400.jpg


I don't think they realized that it was made from 100% renewable Hemp though.


;) ;) ;)

William

[dekindy]

It is interesting that you bring this topic up today since there was an article on the front page of the Indianapolis Star about the wind farms in Benton Coutny Indiana and further interest in Boone and Clinton counties and 14 other northern Indiana counties. Apparently the farmers are receiving upfront payments and $7,500 annual fixed leases per wind turbine and approximately $2,500 in revenue sharing as a percentage of power produced. However the leases are characterized as one-sided. As an example, there is no requirement for the companies to remove the turbines if they fail to produce or the company goes out of business.

There are apparently concerns beyond the aesthetics. People within a mile of the turbines are complaining of low frequency vibrations that they can feel in their chests and are causing headaches, nausea, insomia and other symptoms. Also there is a strobe effect from the blades reflecting sunlight. Neighbors adjacent to turbine farms are upset that they have to put up with the turbines without receiving any economic benefit. Apparently there is a lot more controversy and opposition than I was aware of.

[William]

Proposed wind generator…

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/maglev_wind_turbine.jpg


It's a vision of a magnetically levitated wind turbine that can generate one gigawatt of power (enough to power 750,000 homes). This is the device proposed by a new Arizona-based company, MagLev Wind Turbine Technologies. The company claims that it can deliver clean power for less than one cent per kilowatt hour using this wind turbine.
Magnetic levitation is a very efficient method of capturing wind energy. The blades of the turbine are suspended on a cushion of air, and the energy is directed to linear generators with minimal fiction losses. But the big advantage with maglev is that it reduces maintenance costs, and increases the lifespan of the generator.
The company also points out that building a single huge turbine like this reduces construction and maintenance costs, and it requires less land space than hundreds of conventional turbines. The company is headed by Ed Mazur, a researcher of variable renewable energy sources since 1981 and inventor of the magnetic levitation wind turbine.
There has been speculation that turbines like these would use "full-permanent" magnets, meaning there are no electromagnets, only cleverly placed permanent ones (probably Halbach arrays).
China already has Maglev wind turbines in operation, see: The World's First "Magnetic Levitation" Wind Turbines Unveiled in China.
This article by WorldChanging goes into the technical details of using maglev in wind turbines.

_____________________________________
The World's First "Magnetic Levitation" Wind Turbines Unveiled in China
by Justin Thomas, Virginia on 07. 5.06
Science & Technology (alternative energy)

Chinese developers have unveiled the world’s first permanent magnetic levitation wind power generator at the Wind Power Asia Exhibition 2006 in Beijing. The device is called a MagLev generator, and is being regarded as a key breakthrough in the evolution of global wind power technology. The generator was jointly developed by Guangzhou Energy Research Institute under China’s Academy of Sciences. The MagLev generator is expected to boost wind energy generating capacity by as much as 20 percent over traditional wind turbines.
According to the chief scientist behind the technology, the generator can dramatically lowers operational expenses of wind farms -- by as much as 50 per cent. This, he claims, would drive the cost of wind power to below 5 cents (U.S.) per kilowatt-hour.
The MaglLev is able to utilize winds with starting speeds as low as 1.5 meters per second (m/s), and cut-in speeds of 3 m/s, the chief of Zhongke Energy was quoted as saying at the exhibition.
The Worldwatch Institute, citing Xinhua News, said the new technology could potentially fill the power void in locations with no connection to the grid by harnessing low-speed wind resources that were previously untappable. "With an increasing number of Chinese and international investors joining the global booming wind power market, the technology is expected to create new opportunities in low-wind-speed areas worldwide such as mountain regions, islands, observatories, and television transfer stations. In addition, the Maglev generator will be able to provide roadside lighting along highways by utilizing the airflow generated from vehicles passing by."

[avalonracing]

Your image was not extreme enough to scare the American Extremist in me. In addition to the Statue of Liberty could you please compare the socialist, pinko turbine to Mt. Rushmore and The Washington Monument. :D

[RPS]

Your image was not extreme enough to scare the American Extremist in me. In addition to the Statue of Liberty could you please compare the socialist, pinko turbine to Mt. Rushmore and The Washington Monument. :D
Believe it or not I like wind power. And my state leads the nation. :beer:

However, I was answering a question in factual terms because I think it does everyone a disservice to hide our heads in the sand and pretend everything with new-and-improved technologies will work out if we just force them enough.

I can’t tell the size of the wind mill in the original post but based on the car and building in the background I’d guess it might be in the range of about 30 feet in diameter, or only 1/10 that of a large industrial turbine. If so, it might take as many as 100,000 windmills of that size to equal one nuke. And I’m OK with that as long as we know the magnitudes of what we are comparing.

[dekindy]

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908090380

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009908090369

[Karin Kirk]

To compare the size of a nuclear power plant to the impact of X thousand wind turbines is incomplete at best, and more like misleading.

Think about the overall footprint of a nuke plant. You have to count the uranium mine on the front side, plus the facility that will house the spent nuclear fuel for some 10,000 years, should we ever actually permit such a facility to open and operate. Every element of the process - the mine, the plant and the waste - will have an enduring effect as we are left with the radioactive residuals to contend with for many generations.

I'm not against nuclear power, but if you want to make a comparison of some sort, you can't simply count the smallest part of the equation.

As for wind power, my sense is that the oft-cited examples of the strobe-like effect or any vibrations are totally overblown. I don't doubt that people stood up in town meetings and claimed this, but I think that's a tiny percentage of the overall feedback yet it gets repeated over and over because it is so ridiculous and it makes for great quotes in the newspaper.

Overall, construction of wind turbines can't keep up with demand and they are popular projects by and large.

The Martha's Vineyard example is truly a sad case and also gets repeated in nearly every talk I've heard about wind energy. This example is hypocrisy at it's finest and is rightfully thrown in liberal's faces at every opportunity.

[Tobias]

As for wind power, my sense is that the oft-cited examples of the strobe-like effect or any vibrations are totally overblown. I don't doubt that people stood up in town meetings and claimed this, but I think that's a tiny percentage of the overall feedback yet it gets repeated over and over because it is so ridiculous and it makes for great quotes in the newspaper.Hold on a second. What makes you so sure that their claims are ridiculous? Have you ever heard a helicopter thumping from miles away? Why is it so hard to believe these 300-foot diameter rotors with 2 megawatts of power (far more than helicopters) are so quiet and can't be felt?

I like wind too, but don't go around attacking citizens that may have one of these farms forced on their property line and then told that everything they experience is not real. Unless you have data to confirm otherwise, how about let's keep an open mind? Both liberals and conservatives alike deserve respect. And I'm not suggesting only conservatives are complaining for I have no idea.

[Lifelover]

....As for wind power, my sense is that the oft-cited examples of the strobe-like effect or any vibrations are totally overblown.....
Exactly like the general public's fears of Nuclear Power are totally overblown!

[Karin Kirk]

Hold on a second. What makes you so sure that their claims are ridiculous? Have you ever heard a helicopter thumping from miles away? Why is it so hard to believe these 300-foot diameter rotors with 2 megawatts of power (far more than helicopters) are so quiet and can't be felt?

I like wind too, but don't go around attacking citizens that may have one of these farms forced on their property line and then told that everything they experience is not real. Unless you have data to confirm otherwise, how about let's keep an open mind? Both liberals and conservatives alike deserve respect. And I'm not suggesting only conservatives are complaining for I have no idea.

You're funny. Yes, I have heard helicopters thump. I have also spent time standing underneath mega-turbines on several occasions and there is no such thumping, flashing or other effects. I started a thread about this after a visit to a big wind farm in WY this past spring, feel free to find that and read about that, plus some actual data about wind energy.
I don't think I did any such "going around attacking" sheesh! What I said was that these comments were real, yet perhaps over-repeated beyond their original proportion to other comments. No wonder I have you on my ignore list! OK, now I will go back to ignoring you.
:beer:

[Onno]

Hold on a second. What makes you so sure that their claims are ridiculous? Have you ever heard a helicopter thumping from miles away? Why is it so hard to believe these 300-foot diameter rotors with 2 megawatts of power (far more than helicopters) are so quiet and can't be felt?

I like wind too, but don't go around attacking citizens that may have one of these farms forced on their property line and then told that everything they experience is not real. Unless you have data to confirm otherwise, how about let's keep an open mind? Both liberals and conservatives alike deserve respect. And I'm not suggesting only conservatives are complaining for I have no idea.

I can't speak for Karen, but I agree with her that these claims are ridiculous. We have several dozen of the large turbines where I live, and I've ridden by them, walked up to them, stood near them, in high winds and low. I've only ever heard a very faint whooshing noise when I'm within about a hundred yards of them. This is a LOT less noise than that of the cars, trucks, motorcycles (!), that whiz by. I think the noise pollution and 'illness' complaints are a smoke screen.

That said, I have also heard small wind turbines in high wind, and they are unbelievably loud. One on our campus (which produces about enough electricity to power a couple of dorm rooms) actually does sound like a helicopter in high winds, in part because of very high rpms. The large turbines NEVER spin fast because the blades are automatically feathered to keep the turbine spinning at a relatively constant speed.

[Karin Kirk]

Exactly like your fears of Nuclear Power are totally overblown!

My fears of nuclear power?? Where are you getting that from?

[RPS]

I can't speak for Karen, but I agree with her that these claims are ridiculous. We have several dozen of the large turbines where I live, and I've ridden by them, walked up to them, stood near them, in high winds and low. I've only ever heard a very faint whooshing noise when I'm within about a hundred yards of them. This is a LOT less noise than that of the cars, trucks, motorcycles (!), that whiz by. I think the noise pollution and 'illness' complaints are a smoke screen.

That said, I have also heard small wind turbines in high wind, and they are unbelievably loud. One on our campus (which produces about enough electricity to power a couple of dorm rooms) actually does sound like a helicopter in high winds, in part because of very high rpms. The large turbines NEVER spin fast because the blades are automatically feathered to keep the turbine spinning at a relatively constant speed.
Keep in mind that the tip speed is one of the design factors that is common across many sizes. Just like a small wind mill gets a lot louder in high speed wind so does a big one.

If you rode by one on a rideable-wind day maybe they were not working at maximum capacity. It is possible in my mind that objections come from those few days that gets them up to full speed -- or some other condition that visitors won't necessarily experience because they are not frequent.

Maybe it's like a neighbor that only plays loud music on Friday nights. The rest of the week they may be OK.

[Tobias]

I don't think I did any such "going around attacking" sheesh! What I said was that these comments were real, yet perhaps over-repeated beyond their original proportion to other comments. No wonder I have you on my ignore list! OK, now I will go back to ignoring you.
:beer:Cool, because anyone who thinks they are an expert after standing ten minutes under a turbine as a visitor scares the hell out of me.

Ruling out a noise problem based on one visit to one farm and one turbine under one set of conditions demonstrates too much brilliance for me to communicate with in the first place.


P.S. – Not that you are going to read this, but your exact word was “ridiculous”. Seems like an attack to me unless you happen to KNOW they are lying.

[goonster]

Why is it so hard to believe these 300-foot diameter rotors with 2 megawatts of power (far more than helicopters) are so quiet and can't be felt?
Because I've been to Germany and Holland, which are virtually awash in wind turbines. Some are more efficient than others, which affects the earnings of the landowners, and there is a modest amount of birdkill, but there are no complaints about noise or flashing.

Keep in mind that the tip speed is one of the design factors that is common across many sizes. Just like a small wind mill gets a lot louder in high speed wind so does a big one.
I believe the mills are designed to run within an optimal speed range, emphasizing steady, continuous output over peak loads. In practice, they seem to run at either a slow, uniform speed, or not at all.

[RPS]

I believe the mills are designed to run within an optimal speed range, emphasizing steady, continuous output over peak loads. In practice, they seem to run at either a slow, uniform speed, or not at all.
Because of their immense size what you see as slow angular speed is actually very fast tip speed. ;)

Because of gearing and power generation frequency limits they have a range of speed they have to run at, and I’m pretty sure that changing blade pitch to maintain acceptable speed probably affects noise and vibration. Whether significant or not I don’t know, but there has to be variations across the range of speed and wind conditions.

[Lifelover]

My fears of nuclear power?? Where are you getting that from?
I may have made a false assumption. I corrected my statement.

[avalonracing]

I believe the mills are designed to run within an optimal speed range, emphasizing steady, continuous output over peak loads. In practice, they seem to run at either a slow, uniform speed, or not at all.

You mean they don't start to spin out of control to 6,000,000 rpm killing billions of birds while making a noise so deafening that people for miles around commit suicide? Oh, in that case I'm all for them. Unless they also try to kill Palin's kids... then I'm aginn' 'em.

[Karin Kirk]

I may have made a false assumption. I corrected my statement.
I appreciate that and I agree with your corrected statement.

[1centaur]

To compare the size of a nuclear power plant to the impact of X thousand wind turbines is incomplete at best, and more like misleading.

Think about the overall footprint of a nuke plant. You have to count the uranium mine on the front side, plus the facility that will house the spent nuclear fuel for some 10,000 years, should we ever actually permit such a facility to open and operate. Every element of the process - the mine, the plant and the waste - will have an enduring effect as we are left with the radioactive residuals to contend with for many generations.

I'm not against nuclear power, but if you want to make a comparison of some sort, you can't simply count the smallest part of the equation.



Actually, it is wise to compare just one part of the equation (which may or may not be the smallest) at a time in order not to get bogged down. Human minds are only so complex. If every time anyone here compared wind turbines and nuclear they had to compare the cost of fabricating, constructing and transporting X thousands of wind turbines, as well as their visual blight in areas of scenic beauty (aren't they all?) with the cost of fabricating, constructing and transporting one nuclear facility, its inputs, its outputs and their storage, all with costs known, unknown, tangible and intangible, politically motivated or honest, the quote function of the Serotta forum would overflow, among many other downsides. Save those "complete" comparisons for 1,000-page congressional reports that nobody reads but everybody quotes bits of. Even if we could agree on the facts, and we can't, we would not agree on the value judgments. 30 years of super cheap power vs. 10,000 years of stuff glowing in mountain caves? That debate alone would be 7 pages on this forum. So I appreciate simple power vs. power diagrams and don't find them misleading in their simplicity.

On the noise/strobe debate - easily tested and observable - the truth will win on that one soon enough.

On cap'n trade (arrr, Jim lad!), something to bear in mind is that costs don't disappear, they go somewhere. If we as a nation lose $1 trillion in housing wealth, that loss is not eliminated by printing dollars and propping up institutions or risk-blind homeowners. The costs just get spread around in less obvious ways. With cap and trade, taxing previously built energy capacity changes the economic assumptions such capacity was built under in a way that might have prevented it from being built. That is value destruction. Better to use prospective taxation of carbon to encourage green energy, but of course that does not raise cash today, which is really the goal, I suspect. If the money raised from that process is then used to build/encourage inefficient power sources rather than efficient ones, that also is a value destroyer. Companies that repeatedly make bad investment decisions eventually fail. Countries that repeatedly make bad investment decisions lose growth, wealth, and power. If the US chooses to subsidize inefficient power based on feelings of greenness, and our rivals do not do the same, those costs will be born by us. A fair-minded administration with concern for the environment/climate would be spending a lot of effort trying to maximize efficiency within the green construct. Whether that effort is evident re: nuclear says plenty about the competence of those in Washington vs. their desire to get re-elected.

That mag-lev tower looks cool, but NIMBY :)

[RPS]

The bigger issue IMO is not about windmills, birds, and noise, but how are we going to get enough electrical power to charge-up all the electric and plug-in-hybrid vehicles we are fast tracking.

If we as a nation don’t plan this right, we could easily end up with more electric cars than we can power without causing massive blackouts. Windmills are good, but we can’t afford to ignore the kinds of loads that are heading our way that can not be handled by wind and solar. I know no one is saying wind and power is the only solution, but it seems that there is a group who thinks that as long as we keep installing turbines we can keep from building nukes or coal. I don't see how that view can be viable once electrics come online.

IMO something is going to have to give – limit electric-powered cars, build nukes and/or coal, or ration transportation as we know it today. I don’t see how solar and wind can solve our planned transformation of the auto industry.

[Karin Kirk]

RPS is right, the tip speed is remarkably fast. For the 1.5 MW turbines, which is the standard size for wind farms on land, the tip speed reaches 125 mph at a lazy spin of just 14 to 20 rpm.

The really huge turbines are intended for offshore use only. I have seen videos of a new 5 mw design that is just enormous!

RPS is also correct that each turbine self-corrects according to the conditions. In slower winds, the blades pitch to catch the best breeze. In fast winds, the blades pitch to dump off extra wind that would cause them to spin too fast. Each turbine has its own computer to make these adjustments constantly.

If you are in the mood to watch something fun, have a look at this exploding wind turbine in Denmark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ
The brakes failed and it spun itself out of control.

[Cinci Jim]

It is interesting that you bring this topic up today since there was an article on the front page of the Indianapolis Star about the wind farms in Benton Coutny Indiana and further interest in Boone and Clinton counties and 14 other northern Indiana counties. Apparently the farmers are receiving upfront payments and $7,500 annual fixed leases per wind turbine and approximately $2,500 in revenue sharing as a percentage of power produced. However the leases are characterized as one-sided. As an example, there is no requirement for the companies to remove the turbines if they fail to produce or the company goes out of business.

There are apparently concerns beyond the aesthetics. People within a mile of the turbines are complaining of low frequency vibrations that they can feel in their chests and are causing headaches, nausea, insomia and other symptoms. Also there is a strobe effect from the blades reflecting sunlight. Neighbors adjacent to turbine farms are upset that they have to put up with the turbines without receiving any economic benefit. Apparently there is a lot more controversy and opposition than I was aware of.

I heard this the other day on NPR. The concern was for low frequency vibration in the ground impacting sleep of people near by. It all reminds we of the complaints about cell towers. All so it is very much of a NIMBY thing.

I have no facts to support either side of the argument. I do know that during the day I don't seem to hear the clock ticking on the wall but at night it can be quite loud. ;)


I guess I wonder also why we are not doing more with tidal power - seems much more predictable.

[CNY rider]

Companies that repeatedly make bad investment decisions eventually fail.

Simple, profound, and unquestionably true in many places, but clearly not in the USA any more.

Countries that repeatedly make bad investment decisions lose growth, wealth, and power. :)

This is what we are about to find out. See above.

[RPS]

Companies that repeatedly make bad investment decisions eventually fail. Countries that repeatedly make bad investment decisions lose growth, wealth, and power. If the US chooses to subsidize inefficient power based on feelings of greenness, and our rivals do not do the same, those costs will be born by us.So how do we place a monetary value on being green that will keep us from dragging the economy down the tubes?

Your words above reminded me of a comment I heard on CNBC days ago that made me laugh big time regarding living within one's limits:
“We are running our country’s finances like Michael Jackson ran his….you haven’t had a hit record in 20 years but you are still living like a rock star”. This was based on the fact that we haven’t exported more than we’ve imported since 1975. Regardless of great intentions, this is not a sustainable model long-term. We can’t fix the environment by borrowing, living on credit, and having to pay it back with interest.

So we don’t want to trash the environment, but we also don’t want to fall behind other economic superpowers to the point of never being able to catch up. In this light, how do we manage environmental needs that cost green to be green? Of course, green that saves green is not much of an issue and takes care of itself.

[rwsaunders]

How about turbo trainers?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XHl-WrefNE

[goonster]

So how do we place a monetary value on being green that will keep us from dragging the economy down the tubes?
There are ways, but they would all be decried as "socialist".

[BumbleBeeDave]

I don't see much discussion of that in this thread--just the usual flame wars starting on something that has little if anything to do with cycling.

But out of the whole thing, it's the NIMBY hypocrisy that burns me the most.

Everyone wants a strong cell signal but no one wants to look at a tower.

Everyone wants "green" power as long as they don't have to live near a nuclear plant, look at a windmill on the horizon, or even have a neighbor with solar panels on their roof.

Everybody wants more jobs and industry, but no one wants to live next to a factory, or prison, or landfill, or . . . you name it.

Everyone wants the benefits, but nobody wants to pay any of the price. Grow up, people . . .

BBD

[93legendti]

......

[Tobias]

IMO something is going to have to give – limit electric-powered cars, build nukes and/or coal, or ration transportation as we know it today. I don’t see how solar and wind can solve our planned transformation of the auto industry.
GM announced that the new Volt will have the equivalent mileage of about 230 MPG (based on some form of EPA rating). If you believe in those kinds of numbers for real-size electric cars in real-world driving, then a small amount of the oil used to power the cars they replace could be used to run electric generating power plants to produce the incremental electric power.

I’m just a little skeptical of the 230 MPG equivalent.

[Onno]

RPS is right, the tip speed is remarkably fast. For the 1.5 MW turbines, which is the standard size for wind farms on land, the tip speed reaches 125 mph at a lazy spin of just 14 to 20 rpm.

The really huge turbines are intended for offshore use only. I have seen videos of a new 5 mw design that is just enormous!

RPS is also correct that each turbine self-corrects according to the conditions. In slower winds, the blades pitch to catch the best breeze. In fast winds, the blades pitch to dump off extra wind that would cause them to spin too fast. Each turbine has its own computer to make these adjustments constantly.

If you are in the mood to watch something fun, have a look at this exploding wind turbine in Denmark http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nSB1SdVHqQ
The brakes failed and it spun itself out of control.

Very cool video, Karin, though comments posted about the youtube clip show that it is being interpreted as clear evidence of how horrible turbines are.

It may be that the tips of the big blades go very fast, but they still don't make nearly as much noise as the small blades at super-high rpms. No doubt there's a lot more turbulence for the small blades.

I don't really understand where all the hostility towards windpower comes from, frankly. There is a lot of it out there, probably for a lot of reasons. My mother hates them, which really took me aback, since she's generally fairly progressive and open-minded and Dutch (!). She's convinced that they cost more energy to produce and maintain than they actually produce--she heard this on the radio (Canadian radio) somewhere, and it clicked for her. She lives on the prairies, where wind power seems a no-brainer, but she will argue quite strenuously that it's a terrible idea.

Somehow, wind turbines, like the spotted owl or polar bears, have become symbols of ideological conflict, rather than a matter of facts and science.

[Karin Kirk]

I guess I wonder also why we are not doing more with tidal power - seems much more predictable.

I can't remember the numbers offhand, but the energy yield is apparently tiny. It certainly is predictable, but it does not add up to a significant amount of energy to have broad appeal. Too bad, it's a nice idea.

[goonster]

I’m just a little skeptical of the 230 MPG equivalent.
You should be. The car can go 40 miles on full batteries alone, thereafter the engine starts and it gets 50 mpg. The EPA rating is calculated by assuming X trips of length Y, etc. I'm not even sure if the charging electricity is included in that number.

[Tobias]

So how do we place a monetary value on being green that will keep us from dragging the economy down the tubes?By doing it over a long period of time.

As much as I hate taxes and government involvement, I would have liked a gradually-increasing tax on energy itself over a long period of time and then have government step out of the way and let private innovation and free markets take over. If gasoline would have started going up at only $0.10 per gallon per year since the 70s we wouldn’t have large SUVs today. Or 5,000 square feet homes that use too much energy, or business based on too much travel, etc….

The key is to do it gradually over decades to let free markets adjust without creating shock waves.

[avalonracing]

a lot more turbulence for the small blades.

I don't really understand where all the hostility towards windpower comes from, frankly. There is a lot of it out there, probably for a lot of reasons. My mother hates them, which really took me aback, since she's generally fairly progressive and open-minded and Dutch (!). She's convinced that they cost more energy to produce and maintain than they actually produce--she heard this on the radio (Canadian radio) somewhere, and it clicked for her. She lives on the prairies, where wind power seems a no-brainer, but she will argue quite strenuously that it's a terrible idea.

Does she watch Fox News or listen to Rush, Beck (not the musicians) or Hannity? I'm serious.

[goonster]

I would have liked a gradually-increasing tax on energy itself over a long period of time [ . . .] If gasoline would have started going up at only $0.10 per gallon per year since the 70s we wouldn’t have large SUVs today. Or 5,000 square feet homes that use too much energy, or business based on too much travel, etc….
You have just described the Clinton BTU tax proposal of '93, except that it was much more modest than your numbers here. I think it seems pretty darn reasonable now, but if you do a search, you'll only find articles about how much everyone hated it then.

[Onno]

GOD NO. She only listens to CBC, national and local. I think someone must have raised this as a possibility, or at least as a factor that pro-wind folks don't talk about in their calculations, and she ran with that idea, since it confirmed some other sense she has about why wind power is bad. My guess is that she thinks windmills are thought of by pro-wind people as a quick and easy fix, and so she opposes them because they are not. Also because Saskatchewan (where she lives) has lots of uranium, and she has friends in the industry, and she wants to see the province develop nuclear power. This is not unreasonable, of course, but it comes out as rather radical opposition to wind, that it's stupid and pointless.

[David Kirk]

I don't see much discussion of that in this thread--just the usual flame wars starting on something that has little if anything to do with cycling.

But out of the whole thing, it's the NIMBY hypocrisy that burns me the most.

Everyone wants a strong cell signal but no one wants to look at a tower.

Everyone wants "green" power as long as they don't have to live near a nuclear plant, look at a windmill on the horizon, or even have a neighbor with solar panels on their roof.

Everybody wants more jobs and industry, but no one wants to live next to a factory, or prison, or landfill, or . . . you name it.

Everyone wants the benefits, but nobody wants to pay any of the price. Grow up, people . . .

BBD



I feel the same way my friend. I think there is a single word that says this very well - entitlement.


Dave

[William]

Hey BBDave, they can put a wind mill in my yard....just so long as I get to tap the energy it produces.




William

[RPS]

You should be. The car can go 40 miles on full batteries alone, thereafter the engine starts and it gets 50 mpg. The EPA rating is calculated by assuming X trips of length Y, etc. I'm not even sure if the charging electricity is included in that number.
I'm not sure but certainly hope so because electric power plants are not all that much more efficient that auto engines when running at peak load and speed.

The article below states that the Volt cost $0.40 per day to charge at $0.05 per kilowatt-hour. I'm paying more than twice that, but that in itself isn't that bad since it would be about $1 a day, or $30 per month. However, that's only 8 kilowatt-hours of energy, which isn't much compared to what I normally use on my CR-V on an average day. :confused:

And at $40,000 I'm not about to buy one anyway.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_volt_mileage

[Tobias]

You have just described the Clinton BTU tax proposal of '93, except that it was much more modest than your numbers here. I think it seems pretty darn reasonable now, but if you do a search, you'll only find articles about how much everyone hated it then.In retrospect I love Clinton more every day. ;)

[palincss]

The next generation plant technologies will deal with almost all the criticisms of current nuclear tech.


What do they do with spent fuel?

[rwsaunders]

In retrospect I love Clinton more every day. ;)

She's the Prez....it's a well kept secret. :cool:

[1centaur]

So how do we place a monetary value on being green that will keep us from dragging the economy down the tubes?

So we don’t want to trash the environment, but we also don’t want to fall behind other economic superpowers to the point of never being able to catch up. In this light, how do we manage environmental needs that cost green to be green? Of course, green that saves green is not much of an issue and takes care of itself.

I think the answer above about gradualism is part of it, along with sucking the politics out of basic research. If the cost has to go somewhere, the trick is to make it go as many places as possible so it's diluted, such places being across time as well as across geography. Why do you think the big Washington push to get India and China on board? One of my suggestions back when the stimulus bill was being written was windmill factories. My thought was: stimulus bills are inherently inefficient, why not at least get something of lasting value out of the deal, teach some skills and set a course for energy independence? Progress is often made in a series of little inefficient moves. Lots of greenies wasting money on useless personal gestures and soon enough the tipping point gets closer and easier. Mandating the end of incandescent bulbs is another example of gradualism. Using Federal dollars for solar cell research when economic reality says it's a waste is another, but not a trillion dollar program until the end zone is visible. These are social as well as economic choices, and as with health care, if pushed too hard too soon and with the wrong attitude you create push back that is legitimate and strong and frankly justified. For example if there had been a huge solar program in the mid-70s, it would have been a catastrophic mistake. Let people and businesses (which are people too) adapt as creatively as they can and you can accomplish a lot in a short period of human history. Abandon realism and you fail. So if I were in Washington, I'd be putting legions of gnomes to work to find a million little things that make economic sense now or will in the near future and I'd push them publicly and privately, all the while changing the culture without threatening what people have come to love (their cars, their homes, their freedom). We'd get to our solar/wind/tidal/geothermal/fusion/lithium crystal future at least as fast, save some energy along the way and get along better. A constant dedication to improvement is so much more likely to succeed than throwing hail Mary passes on every down. That's why I like to see windmills such as the one from the OP. It's almost certainly way too expensive for the benefit it provides, but it's one brick in the wall and represents a good aspect of human nature.

[Dekonick]

Exactly like the general public's fears of Nuclear Power are totally overblown!

THANK YOU!

Nuc is the best solution we have right now.

[Dekonick]

What do they do with spent fuel?

Enrich it and use it again. At some point, you do have waste, but there are solutions. I would worry more about low level radioactive waste from medical uses than what a breeder reactor produces. There are solutions to the problem - and yet the big bad nuc is ignored. France is powered by nuc - I havent seen the French countryside destroyed by them... Everyone who has been poisoned by the anti-nuc propaganda should wake up and realize it is the best solution at hand for the world population and modern needs. I do not suggest that we shouldn't supplement with other sources (every home in the US should have some form of solar - be it window design, photoelectric on the roof, reflective paint/siding to reduce AC needs in summer, the oposite in winter... in effect a green home design...) but other sources do not have the potential energy to supply all we need.

I have NO problem living next to a nuclear plant. I did so for almost a decade and last I checked I have 10 fingers, one head, don't glow and my kids are normal. HAVING said that - a poorly designed plant can be a true hazard...but by producing a standard plant design the risks can be mitigated. I would worry more about an asteroid crushing us more than a reactor on my doorstep.

Have you seen the video of pen and teller and the dihydrogen monoxide?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4

[rbtmcardle]

near me - been around for a few years (2005), no substantive issues with sound or bird kill, this site is within a few miles of the brigantine national wildlife refuge and if any of you are "birders" you will know that south jersey is a vital stop on the migratory path of most waterfowl. I have ridden my bicycle many times on a major road within a half mile of the wind farm and havent heard the turbines at all. The smell from the wastewater plant on the other hand, whew.

http://www.njwind.com/project.html
The 7.5-megawatt (MW) Jersey-Atlantic Wind Farm is the first wind farm to be built in New Jersey, and the first coastal wind farm in the United States. The wind farm is located in Atlantic County, NJ and is visible to more than 30 million Atlantic City visitors each year from downtown Atlantic City and the Atlantic City Expressway. The project produces approximately 19 million kilowatt-hours of emission-free electricity per year, which is enough emission-free energy to power over 2,000 homes. The electricity is used by both the Atlantic County Utilities Authority (ACUA) Wastewater Treatment Plant and delivered to the regional electric grid.

[William]

A constant dedication to improvement is so much more likely to succeed than throwing hail Mary passes on every down. That's why I like to see windmills such as the one from the OP. It's almost certainly way too expensive for the benefit it provides, but it's one brick in the wall and represents a good aspect of human nature.

Exactly. And essentially to reason the thread was started in the first place. It's all just another brick in the wall.




William

[Climb01742]

By doing it over a long period of time.

As much as I hate taxes and government involvement, I would have liked a gradually-increasing tax on energy itself over a long period of time and then have government step out of the way and let private innovation and free markets take over. If gasoline would have started going up at only $0.10 per gallon per year since the 70s we wouldn’t have large SUVs today. Or 5,000 square feet homes that use too much energy, or business based on too much travel, etc….

The key is to do it gradually over decades to let free markets adjust without creating shock waves.

i would only debate the time frame. couldn't most industries/companies adjust over years vs decades (such as a 10-year window vs a multi-decade window)? and do we (meaning the earth) have decades to get a handle on this? but i fully agree with your underlying point: set reasonable goals and a time-table, then let private enterprise figure it out. of course the devil is in defining "reasonable". :D as an example, i'd point to how japanese and european car companies have adjusted to european fuel taxes.

[merlinmurph]

Take a look at this company (http://reed-reed.com/) which has gotten into building wind farms in New England.

[William]

Take a look at this company (http://reed-reed.com/) which has gotten into building wind farms in New England.


Cool, a "local" mfr giving it a go. :cool:


I pass that wind turbine twice each day and I find I look forward to seeing it. Of course as I pass it the low frequency vibrations make me pass out and the next thing I know I wake up parked in front of an A&W with a bacon double cheesburger in my lap and chop sticks in my nose....don't ask. It's a small price to pay for progress.


Seriously, I felt more vibrations and noise 24-7 when I lived about 75 yards from the Sunset Hwy in Portland, OR. It becomes white noise after a while and you don't notice it anymore.




William

[William]

Here is an interesting residential option....

http://www.mariahpower.com/default.aspx






William

[Ray]

I pass that wind turbine twice each day and I find I look forward to seeing it. Of course as I pass it the low frequency vibrations make me pass out and the next thing I know I wake up parked in front of an A&W with a bacon double cheesburger in my lap and chop sticks in my nose....don't ask. It's a small price to pay for progress.

You shouldn't ride bikes near wind turbunes. When you combine the vibrations at the unique frequencies created by spinning bicycle wheels and wind turbines, it.....















......attracts SQUIRRELS!!!!

-Ray

[William]

You shouldn't ride bikes near wind turbunes. When you combine the vibrations at the unique frequencies created by spinning bicycle wheels and wind turbines, it.....















......attracts SQUIRRELS!!!!

-Ray


There's a song in there some where.....I know it!!

http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/img/2008/squirrel-band.jpg




:D :)
William

[Tobias]

i would only debate the time frame. couldn't most industries/companies adjust over years vs decades (such as a 10-year window vs a multi-decade window)? and do we (meaning the earth) have decades to get a handle on this? but i fully agree with your underlying point: set reasonable goals and a time-table, then let private enterprise figure it out. of course the devil is in defining "reasonable". :D as an example, i'd point to how japanese and european car companies have adjusted to european fuel taxes.
Climb, the greatest advantage I see to setting goals that may not seem aggressive enough but will have a significant impact over a long period of time is that they might actually get approved quickly instead of being debated to death. I also like the fact that it gives companies (and the market place) time to invest in the most effective long-term technologies knowing that they can count on energy costs continuing to go up gradually but steadily. If the time table is too aggressive companies are forced to invest in short-term solutions that are often wasteful when viewed in hindsight.

A 10-year period may seem plenty to allow markets and companies to adjust, but I’m not so sure it would work that way without causing shock waves to the economy. Decisions made today knowing the certainty of energy costs for the next 10 years would change that decision too quickly; not allowing enough time for gradual adjustments. For instance, if we “knew” for a fact that gasoline was going to triple in cost over the next 10 years, it would send additional shock waves through the auto industry. Very few would buy medium or large vehicles as of today since many are held for most of those 10 years, more unemployment would follow, demand for tiny cars would skyrocket and exceed supply, etc… I’m sure the American auto industry would have opposed it back in the 70s because it would have benefited the Japanese brands too much. The same thing would happen today in that too much opposition would kill the effort.

I think the same would apply to housing. Many cities wouldn’t even have time to figure out and implement revisions to their zoning and building codes to allow the kinds of houses that people would want to build/buy if they knew energy was going to triple over 10 years. I’d expect the housing industry would also oppose the change.

A 10-year time frame would also send shock waves through the air travel industry. Since many planes last far longer than that, companies wouldn’t have time to replace them with more fuel efficient designs without writing off their previous investments. Manufacturers also wouldn’t have time to create new planes specifically designed for newer and more fuel efficient engines like GTFs. And not knowing how these changes would affect aircraft designs it would be more difficult for airports to make accommodations for them.

The above examples are just a few of why I think change is opposed when too aggressive. I prefer slow, steady, and well-defined in advance otherwise we end up going in circles as we have been doing with badly needed social security and health reform. To me 10 years doesn’t seem like that long a period. Hell, I have riding shorts older than that.

[Climb01742]

tobias, you make some good points. it would be interesting to look at various industries, at their "inherent" rate of change now, and try to figure out a good timeframe for systemic change. bet it would vary a lot. for example, look at the rate of change in the financial services industry. or technology. versus say the energy generation industry or any large scale manufacturing industry. we have hare industries and we have tortoise industries, and finding equitable timeframes for each would be an interesting challenge. but as i thought about this more yesterday, the more this approach seems to make sense for change: government as goal setter and private enterprise as goal achiever.

[Tobias]

Seriously, I felt more vibrations and noise 24-7 when I lived about 75 yards from the Sunset Hwy in Portland, OR. It becomes white noise after a while and you don't notice it anymore.
OK, I thought I could let this go but it’s too easy a target.

In cycling terms, is it possible these complaints are more like those of riders who claim their bikes “sometimes” develop a high-speed wobble when descending?

The fact that not all bikes develop high speed wobbles all the time for all riders doesn’t mean that high speed wobble doesn’t exist or that it is imagined, or that these HSW reports are ridiculously exaggerated complaints. And if we rode the bike down a level road at 20 MPH every day for 10 years it wouldn’t develop a wobble in all likelihood, would it? We could easily conclude that these people are exaggerating or outright lying about what actually happens, although it may only happen once in a blue moon.

On the other hand, if a severe high speed wobble happens to you and scares the living crap out of you at 50 MPH you might have a different opinion than the 10 riders that tested your bike around the Wal-Mart parking lot, right?

The fact that events may only happen infrequently under very rare conditions – like plane or auto crashes – doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’m just asking sensible people to keep an open mind and not dismiss complaints as fabrications due to hidden agendas.

[William]

...The fact that events may only happen infrequently under very rare conditions – like plane or auto crashes – doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I’m just asking sensible people to keep an open mind and not dismiss complaints as fabrications due to hidden agendas.


I am keeping an open mind. I'm skeptical, but not saying they're crazy. Your point is valid....just like nuclear melt downs are rare, but can happen. I'll keep an open mind on their use as well.

Btw, I have no "hidden agenda"


William

[JeffS]

sure looks pretty...

one safe nuclear facility or 1000 pretty turbines?


And how safe do you find uranium mining to be?
How do you feel about tearing up national parks to get to it?

[slates]

mining...fairly safe...especially over coal...get educated.

yeah...only place it exists is in national parks...libs are out to declare all property as national parks to keep our natural resources buried so we're more dependent on foreign countries...they already own most of our treasury bills, why not indirectly own natural resources as well...maybe I better start learning Chinese.

[torquer]

What do they do with spent fuel?
Resounding silence seems to greet that question. Maybe they'll just put it in the back of those 230mgp cars and drive around all day.

My own, just slightly less facecious remedy, is to divide up the waste and dole it out to corporate officers of Entergy et al, and make them personally responsible and liable for it. (Let's include stockholders, too, while we're at it.) Then lets see how enthusiastic these folks are about nukes.

[avalonracing]

Resounding silence seems to greet that question. Maybe they'll just put it in the back of those 230mgp cars and drive around all day.

My own, just slightly less facecious remedy, is to divide up the waste and dole it out to corporate officers of Entergy et al, and make them personally responsible and liable for it. (Let's include stockholders, too, while we're at it.) Then lets see how enthusiastic these folks are about nukes.

That is damn funny. But they would most likely throw it in the trash or pour it down the drain they way that probably do with their recycling and used oil.

[RPS]

Resounding silence seems to greet that question. Maybe they'll just put it in the back of those 230mgp cars and drive around all day.

My own, just slightly less facecious remedy, is to divide up the waste and dole it out to corporate officers of Entergy et al, and make them personally responsible and liable for it. (Let's include stockholders, too, while we're at it.) Then lets see how enthusiastic these folks are about nukes.
How about reprocessing like France does?

Notwithstanding your feelings about nuclear waste, what would you do to solve our future energy needs, particularly in the short term? Realistically we can’t install enough windmills or solar panels to meet our growing energy demands (aside from reduction due to recession) so we have to do something else, and if coal is the only other viable option, what would you prefer we do?

Tough choices, but we have to pick something that has a chance of working, right?

[flydhest]

Tough choices, but we have to pick something that has a chance of working, right?

Often, I find myself disagreeing from a philosophical perspective with much of what RPS says (and I mean this as respectful disagreement, not a jab) but this statement is utterly and completely on the money. We (as a nation) have got ourselves into several pickles by allowing each group to kill ideas that they don't like without realizing that we can't reject all ideas, because something has to give.

For something to be the best option doesn't mean, necessarily, that it is a good option.

[Climb01742]

Often, I find myself disagreeing from a philosophical perspective with much of what RPS says (and I mean this as respectful disagreement, not a jab) but this statement is utterly and completely on the money. We (as a nation) have got ourselves into several pickles by allowing each group to kill ideas that they don't like without realizing that we can't reject all ideas, because something has to give.

For something to be the best option doesn't mean, necessarily, that it is a good option.

to build on this: we're all in this together. in small ways we can have separate fates but in the big ways that matter most, my fate is yours and yours mine. this seems to be missing in most debates.

[rwsaunders]

to build on this: we're all in this together. in small ways we can have separate fates but in the big ways that matter most, my fate is yours and yours mine. this seems to be missing in most debates.

+1...everyone is connected, whether we like it or not.

[RPS]

Often, I find myself disagreeing from a philosophical perspective with much of what RPS says (and I mean this as respectful disagreement, not a jab) but this statement is utterly and completely on the money. We (as a nation) have got ourselves into several pickles by allowing each group to kill ideas that they don't like without realizing that we can't reject all ideas, because something has to give.

For something to be the best option doesn't mean, necessarily, that it is a good option.
Disagreement can be good and productive as long as we keep it civil. Thanks. :beer:

I’ve feared this growing problem for decades based on the speed at which technology has been advancing. IMHO the world – and our lives – is becoming more complex every day and no one person can know much about various subject matters at a very high level – whether it’s about nuclear fission or how to fix your own car. Most of us are lucky if we know enough about any one thing to have a productive job doing it.

And since tough issues normally have a high level of complexity relative to our collective education and knowledge, society becomes vulnerable to BS by special interests groups that will deceive us to get what they want. Maybe it’s always been that way, but I doubt it’s ever been this bad.

I know education is a major part of the answer, but we can’t all become true experts on nuclear or on how to meet our energy needs. And when we can’t trust those who are more informed than us to tell us the truth then little gets done. What I find most challenging is that even when the average American knows they don’t know something they still don’t want to relinquish control of those important issues. In a way maybe rebuilding trust is more important than education since we aren’t going to comprehend most complex issues anyway – at least not at a detail level.

[Ray]

Disagreement can be good and productive as long as we keep it civil. Thanks. :beer:

I’ve feared this growing problem for decades based on the speed at which technology has been advancing. IMHO the world – and our lives – is becoming more complex every day and no one person can know much about various subject matters at a very high level – whether it’s about nuclear fission or how to fix your own car. Most of us are lucky if we know enough about any one thing to have a productive job doing it.

And since tough issues normally have a high level of complexity relative to our collective education and knowledge, society becomes vulnerable to BS by special interests groups that will deceive us to get what they want. Maybe it’s always been that way, but I doubt it’s ever been this bad.

I know education is a major part of the answer, but we can’t all become true experts on nuclear or on how to meet our energy needs. And when we can’t trust those who are more informed than us to tell us the truth then little gets done. What I find most challenging is that even when the average American knows they don’t know something they still don’t want to relinquish control of those important issues. In a way maybe rebuilding trust is more important than education since we aren’t going to comprehend most complex issues anyway – at least not at a detail level.
I read or heard an interesting piece recently on how technology has lead us into a world of unprecedented complexity but its also giving us the tools (Google, smartphones, gps etc. being obvious examples) to cope with it. It was put in historic context as just another part of societal evolution, like when the industrial revolution came along it helped create the very technologies needed to continue to cope with the quantum change in lifestyle that represented.

I think your comment about rebuilding trust is right on. But I have absolutely NO IDEA how we're gonna do that. The last several elections and the inability of anyone to govern very effectively anymore have convinced me that we're so fractured that we essentially have about half the country who wants to live in a VERY different kind of world/country than the other half. With a few people in the middle who shift the balance back and forth. And leaving aside whether one side is right or wrong, we're VERY far apart, tend not to trust the actions or the motives of the other side, and fight like hell to keep from letting them get their way because we see THEIR way as such a fundamental threat. Bush made a lot of us on the left feel that way, Obama is clearly making a lot of you on the right feel that way. And yet both men campaigned on bipartisanship to and extent that I don't think any other recent candidates had. And both found that they couldn't do it and/or didn't need to once in office and we're more partisan now than ever. So we're governed in a dysfunctional way which reduces people's faith in government to even lower levels, which makes it that much harder to rebuild trust. I frankly think that's a much bigger problem than any of the technological problems we face, probably because I just can't see where the solution can come from.

As Climb and others have said so eloquently, we're all in this together. And yet we're not at all together.

-Ray

[RPS]

Bush made a lot of us on the left feel that way, Obama is clearly making a lot of you on the right feel that way.
"You" as in me? :confused: Are you labeling me as being on the right again? Maybe we can start there. :rolleyes:

I know you don’t believe me but I’m not at all as you think. I disagree with “ideas” on both sides equally – trust me on this. I’m very independent and find no one party represents me very well; I don’t see issues in black and white, or right and left. I’m an equal opportunity skeptic – mostly because I think most in politics are in it for themselves.

For me stupid is stupid whether it comes from a Dem or Rep.

[Ray]

"You" as in me? :confused: Are you labeling me as being on the right again? Maybe we can start there. :rolleyes:
Rick, given our history I can understand why you would think I was aiming that "you" at you specifically. I wasn't. Didn't even cross my mind honestly. I meant it in the very general "us" on this side and "you" (all) on that side manner. I have absolutely no desire to go there with you again and wasn't accusing you of any thing. To the extent I was thinking of you at all it was just because I was agreeing with your larger point. Completely.

-Ray

[93legendti]

...As Climb and others have said so eloquently, we're all in this together. And yet we're not at all together.

-Ray

Ray, when the the solution to every new plan of Pres. Obama's is to tax "the rich" to benefit those who pay very little, if any, in fed taxes, I can say with certainty that we are NOT all in this "together".

[Ray]

Ray, when the the solution to every new plan of Pres. Obama's is to tax "the rich" to benefit those who pay very little, if any, in fed taxes, I can say with certainty that we are NOT all in this "together".
That's exactly my point. I'm not getting into a who's right and who's wrong debate because we all know where that will go. Just pointing out the phenomenon, which I guess is all too obvious. Bush drove a lot of people crazy. He drove me a bit wiggy, although I was never one of the alarmingly large fringe who believed he knew about 9/11 in advance or who thought he was in any way comparable to Hitler. Obama obviously has the same effect on LOTS of people (plenty of whom are NOT from the alarmingly large fringe that thinks he was born in Kenya and is in any way comparable to Hitler). They're mostly not the same people who Bush drove crazy (although I suppose there's a small subset who is made nuts by ANY politician).

My whole point is I don't see how we ever bridge that gap - its only been getting more pronounced over the past several years under two presidents who's expressed aim in the campaigns was to transcend partisanship and who either couldn't or decided it wasn't the best strategy to get things done once in office.

Which I think was Rick's initial point about rebuilding trust and my concern about just how exactly we DO that when we're so polarized. I know a LOT of people, both online and in "real" life who I get along with famously when we're doing things together, when we're talking about stuff we both really like (bikes being the obvious example here) but that I couldn't disagree with more on political matters. And yet until we find some sort of common ground politically and culturally, a lot of the larger societal problems are only gonna get worse, not better. But usually we just have to agree not to go there to keep things friendly. Which works very well on a personal level (I just love all of you people here when we're talking about bikes!), but leaves a huge set of underlying problems. Which I'm pessimistic about.

That's all.

-Ray

[RPS]

I wasn't.Excellent. There is plenty of room to disagree and to debate issues without turning everything into us-versus-them arguments. Besides, we don’t need to debate and argue every contentious issue since we can also just share ideas and learn from each other.

Whether we like the way windmills look shouldn’t have much more to do with politics than whether we prefer triples or compacts.

[flydhest]

Excellent. There is plenty of room to disagree and to debate issues without turning everything into us-versus-them arguments.

That's what you people always say!

[RPS]

That's what you people always say!
Thanks. :beer:

[1centaur]

I’ve feared this growing problem for decades based on the speed at which technology has been advancing. IMHO the world – and our lives – is becoming more complex every day and no one person can know much about various subject matters at a very high level – whether it’s about nuclear fission or how to fix your own car. Most of us are lucky if we know enough about any one thing to have a productive job doing it.

And since tough issues normally have a high level of complexity relative to our collective education and knowledge, society becomes vulnerable to BS by special interests groups that will deceive us to get what they want. Maybe it’s always been that way, but I doubt it’s ever been this bad.

I know education is a major part of the answer, but we can’t all become true experts on nuclear or on how to meet our energy needs. And when we can’t trust those who are more informed than us to tell us the truth then little gets done...In a way maybe rebuilding trust is more important than education since we aren’t going to comprehend most complex issues anyway – at least not at a detail level.

There's tons of truth in these words, and no I don't think we've any hope of doing the group decision thing wisely as complexity grows. Education in general would require capacities and attitudes that don't and won't exist among those who teach. If I were going to play the fantasy game, it would be to create a culture that valued fair-minded debate beyond all else, with good, better and best answers the outcome of such debates. The wisdom of crowds can compete with complexity if the best ideas have room to get to the top, but that won't happen when it's so easy to crowd them out for personal gain, humans essentially being scared and selfish (like most or all animals). If we valued reason and the process of truth discovery above our own agendas we could do great things. But complexity and time work against us - the time to say a word, to create a thought, to transmit a thought, to receive a thought, process it, formulate a response and start the process again can seem like forever in a Twittering, sound-bited, meals-to-go world. Thus it is that politics becomes about impressions that lead to emotional conclusions that lead to decisions, while 1,000 page bills are filled with all sorts of stuff that the deciders will never read because others will have to implement those decisions. Trust, in a world like that, is impossible. Even if the decider is your kind of guy/gal, progressive or conservative or libertarian, he won't sweat the details the way you would and faces pressures you don't. Kinda good enough, sorta acceptable is the most anyone can hope for these days. That's not a good way to build a bridge, so why is it a good way to build a society?

This is why a bio-engineered germ will wipe us out someday. Germs are simple. Simplicity rules. Complexity overwhelms.

[Karin Kirk]

We run a series of workshops and programs to help college geoscience faculty improve their teaching. Our most popular workshop of late? Teaching About Energy. We had to turn people away and hence we're repeating the workshop so that more people will have a chance to learn about this.

The workshops expose faculty to the latest developments in the field and offer techniques for getting students to think critically and get a hold of the complexities of the topic. This particular workshop topic is well aligned with my own areas of experience so this is a particularly rewarding project for me.

We may be poised on the brink of a shift in energy use and energy policy. Pressing issues like the longevity of petroleum supplies and rapidly expanding global markets competing for finite energy supplies are concurrent with considerations such as climate change policy and a push toward domestic energy production. Geoscience plays a role in many facets of energy science and policy; hence our students need solid footing on which to navigate through this complex subject. Whether as citizens and consumers or as scientific leaders in the field, today's students will play important roles in the future of energy.
http://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/energy09/index.html

[Rueda Tropical]

Ray, when the the solution to every new plan of Pres. Obama's is to tax "the rich" to benefit those who pay very little, if any, in fed taxes, I can say with certainty that we are NOT all in this "together".
You are right we are not all in this together.

When Carter was president the average pay for a CEO was 250,000. By last year it had reached an average of 25 million. In the same time span the real earnings for a 30 year old male worker actually declined. Was that because an efficient market decided that the CEO's (who ran their companies and the global economy into a ditch) value was worth 100 times more then in the 70's or is it because the CEO's are better at paying off politicians and then running their companies?

With the advent of Greenspan and the Republican 'revolution' we have seen the biggest wealth transfer in history. Workers, savers and retail investors were fleeced by a system rigged by a few at the top. Socialism for the rich.

[93legendti]

Never fear, Obama's Pay Czar hopes to rectify your grievance. The plan is that all salaries, except union bosses', will be regulated.

[Rueda Tropical]

Never fear, Obama's Pay Czar hopes to rectify your grievance. The plan is that all salaries, except union bosses', will be regulated.
You over estimate Obama's abilities. Based on the TARP program I'd say the same guys who were calling the shots when GWB was prez are still calling the shots today.

[1centaur]

When Carter was president the average pay for a CEO was 250,000. By last year it had reached an average of 25 million. In the same time span the real earnings for a 30 year old male worker actually declined. Was that because an efficient market decided that the CEO's (who ran their companies and the global economy into a ditch) value was worth 100 times more then in the 70's or is it because the CEO's are better at paying off politicians and then running their companies?

I have no idea where the pay off politicians idea comes from.

I strongly suspect that the reason for the huge leap in CEO pay (I presume your number is Fortune 500 CEO pay; you don't specify but it's kinda important) is related to stock options and the, IMO, false assertion that CEOs should get a piece of the appreciation of the stock value of the company (compensation consultants came into vogue during this period and were good at putting together these packages of stock options that then became the basis of comparison for the next guy). CEOs of course got that piece of company value appreciation in the form of stock, not so much in the form of cash, then they sold their stock (or not; a lot of bellyaching about massive compensation is based on the value of the stock when granted, which may or may not ever have been realized). Who pays? The stockholders, not the workers (though society may pay if CEOs are overly focused on their stock price rather than their company). Our stock market climbed a lot post Carter (no surprise), so a very small group of people got rich without really doing anything to deserve it. I think the stockholders should be mad at that, not the proletariat, as this is not a wealth transfer from the little guy. I think stockholders (that's mostly institutional investors, BTW, not retail investors) should cap CEO pay, or at least change the compensation structure so it's not related to stock price.

I still like windmills.

[Rueda Tropical]

I have no idea where the pay off politicians idea comes from.

Lobbyists from the Oil, Healthcare and Banking industry have been dictating policy for years. Politicians have been working for the corporate interests that bankroll them through means legal and illegal.


I think the stockholders should be mad at that, not the proletariat, as this is not a wealth transfer from the little guy. I think stockholders (that's mostly institutional investors, BTW, not retail investors) should cap CEO pay, or at least change the compensation structure so it's not related to stock price.

It's not just CEO's and not just the stockmarket. It's an inflationary policy and economic structure that penalizes salaried workers and savers and rewards debt and speculation. Look at the above chart. That wealth transfer did not just happen through the stock market. It also happened through labor arbitrage. Move your job to a low wage country and the top 1% pocket the difference. Restructure American society so it is much less energy efficient with sprawling exurbs, strip malls and MacMansions which has wound up extracting more wealth in an ever rising energy tax levied not by the government but by the oil companies., etc., etc.

The top 1% captured 2/3rds of income growth in the Bush expansion/bubble.


I still like windmills.

So do I :)

[RPS]

I still like windmills.+1 ....... particularly the old fashion type out on the farms.

I rode by two during this morning's windy ride. Neither was spinning. :confused: Maybe tomorrow they'll be pumping water or doing something useful.

[Jason E]

Would it kill us to refer to them as Wind Turbines?

Just Saying.

[Tobias]

Would it kill us to refer to them as Wind Turbines?

Just Saying.OK, but only if you think Don Quixote would have known what a turbine is. ;)

[1centaur]

Lobbyists from the Oil, Healthcare and Banking industry have been dictating policy for years. Politicians have been working for the corporate interests that bankroll them through means legal and illegal.


It's not just CEO's and not just the stockmarket. It's an inflationary policy and economic structure that penalizes salaried workers and savers and rewards debt and speculation. Look at the above chart. That wealth transfer did not just happen through the stock market. It also happened through labor arbitrage. Move your job to a low wage country and the top 1% pocket the difference. Restructure American society so it is much less energy efficient with sprawling exurbs, strip malls and MacMansions which has wound up extracting more wealth in an ever rising energy tax levied not by the government but by the oil companies., etc., etc.

The top 1% captured 2/3rds of income growth in the Bush expansion/bubble.



A lot of that 2/3rds was stock market/investment returns, and as we move to an economy based on intellect the disparity in economic returns should naturally grow. But yes, the American century is over (the inability of the middle class to advance much economically is a clear indication of that), and that rising tide is history. In a free(ish) market, businesses rationally seek lower labor costs wherever they find them. So a lot of the GLOBAL income growth in the Clinton/Bush expansions went to labor overseas, not here. Good for them. Bad for US. Someday there will be no more cheap labor to chase around the globe and things will even out. Not in our lifetime. Adam Smith says good for the collective whole, but some groups are hurt.

Lobbyists have roles to play, some of them actually good (telling the economic truth in the face of emotional arguments), some of them not so good. To the extent that politicians are corrupt, I wonder if economic policy with more central control is going to change that. Looking at history, I would say it never has.

[93legendti]

August 23, 2009


Thumb-area residents to air pros and cons of wind farms

Hearing is set for Monday in Bad Axe

BY KATHLEEN GRAY
FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER

Backed by research showing that Michigan's Thumb is among the breeziest areas in the state suitable for wind farm development, officials will travel to Bad Axe on Monday to hear from residents about the pros and cons of the towers and turbines beginning to dot the farmland of Huron County.

Michigan's Wind Energy Resource Zone Board is overseeing efforts to target places to develop wind farms.

The group's recent report identified four areas -- one in the Thumb and three along the shores of Lake Michigan -- that have the available space and consistent winds needed for renewable energy development.

At the 11 a.m. hearing in Bad Axe, they are expected to hear from Charlie Briolat, who has five turbines on his 480-acre farm in Bingham Township and loves the green technology.

"I don't even hear them when I'm in my house," he said, even though one of the turbines is just 600 feet from his barn. "It's the way we've got to be looking."

He's getting paid by the John Deere Wind Energy Co. which runs the 32 windmills in the Harvest Wind Farm, so Briolat has a vested interest in the technology.

The board will likely get a very different opinion from David Peplinski and his family.

Since the 46 turbines in the Michigan Wind 1 farm went up in Ubly in December, including one 1,300 feet from his home, Peplinski says he hasn't gotten a decent night's sleep.

"It's directly affecting our health," Peplinski said. "It's like having a jet running, sitting at the end of a runway waiting to take off, but it never takes off."

The Peplinskis keep their windows closed and have only spent three days enjoying their backyard this summer.

"We're not in anyway against green energy or wind turbines," Peplinski said. "The issue is our inability to live in our own home."

Members of the board are prepared for any and all comments, said David Bertram, a board member and legislative director for the Michigan Townships Association.

Rules to be drafted

While the board won't make decisions about where windmills will go, the input from the meetings will be used by the Michigan Public Service Commission and local units of government to develop rules on issues like how close windmills can be placed to homes or businesses.

"Our report isn't going to change if wind turbines are going to be put up in the Thumb or anywhere else," Bertram added. "Wind developers have lease agreements all over the Thumb."

Other than windmills at individual businesses, there are five wind farms across the state.

The two largest are in the Thumb, generating electricity for utilities, which use the energy to reach a state-mandated goal of 10% of their electricity coming from renewable sources. The largest farm has 46 turbines.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090823/NEWS01/908230564/1322/Thumb-area-residents-to-air-pros-and-cons-of-wind-farms

[William]

How many of you have air conditioners in your bedroom window? Or a fan?



Just wonderin'





William

[93legendti]

So now we are helping Brazil drill for oil off her coast, even providing billions in credit. Putting aside how the money might be put to better use in America, putting Americans in America to work, what's the logic behind this decision?

Anyone find it odd that we will provide nuclear power (UAE) and help drill for oil (Brazil) for OTHER countries, but we are focusing upon wind and solar?

If drilling and nuclear are so horrible, why help other countries do it?
If wind and solar are so good, why not help other countries go in that direction?

[johnnymossville]

I've been seeing a few of these really small personal windmills out in the countryside around Maryland. I think they could definitely be useful. They are tiny compared to what you see out in on the mountains or in that original pic on this thread.

As far as Nuclear Power. If we really wanted energy independence we'd be building a couple a year for the next 30 years or until some better technology comes along.

[Birddog]

So now we are helping Brazil drill for oil off her coast, even providing billions in credit
At least some of that is a joint operation with Devon, a large indie based in OKC. I believe they discovered the field and it is very promising. So far, it has produced as expected. Anybody who thinks we can just leave oil behind and replace it with alternatives is..... well they are just jousting with windmills. New Yorkers, keep an eye on the possibility of drilling for natural gas in your western regions. The Marcellus Shale formation looks very promising, it might even pay off some of your bills. I expect that Patterson and others will "see the light" with the aid of some sharp eyed lobbyists, environmentalists be damned.

I should point out that I like windmills, we have hundreds here in Oklahoma. I have personally stood at the base of them and FWIW, I heard very little "noise", just a soft swooshing. Some 30 years ago, Boeing built a giant (for the time) experimental 200KW wind turbine in Clayton New Mexico. It was a DOE project. It powered the whole community and it did make a rhythmic noise that was quite easy to hear for up to about 1/2 a mile. I don't remember any complaints though.

Birddog

[RPS]

I should point out that I like windmills, we have hundreds here in Oklahoma. I have personally stood at the base of them and FWIW, I heard very little "noise", just a soft swooshing. Some 30 years ago, Boeing built a giant (for the time) experimental 200KW wind turbine in Clayton New Mexico. It was a DOE project. It powered the whole community and it did make a rhythmic noise that was quite easy to hear for up to about 1/2 a mile. I don't remember any complaints though.

Birddog
Have you heard the difference between jet engines when the plane is taxing and when the pilot hits full throttle for takeoff? The sound level can go up exponentially with power, right? Regarding William’s question about window air conditioners in bedroom windows, I have a small window unit installed inside my van and the difference in sound (i.e. – noise) between low- and high-speed fan settings is quite noticeable. After a while we tune it out and sleep fine but it’s still there. In our case the background noise is by choice in order to stay cool, but the question is when is it OK for others to subject us to noise when we don’t want it. I would have thought noise ordinances/laws are fairly straight forward but it appears not, or maybe some just want to change them because it’s only now that it affects them directly.

IMHO sound/noise is very hard to predict. A long time ago when I was in high school I worked on a farm that was about 20 miles from the Pratt & Whitney plant in West Palm Beach and we could hear them testing engines on a regular basis when the wind was blowing in the right direction. Some times a diesel tractor a mile away couldn’t be heard but a jet engine half way across the county could.

[Birddog]

Have you heard the difference between jet engines when the plane is taxing and when the pilot hits full throttle for takeoff? The sound level can go up exponentially with power, right?
That is not a valid comparison. Modern wind generators are designed to rotate at a fairly low speed to maximize efficiency. High RPM's do not make an efficient generator. Wind turbine blades are designed to turn away from the wind when the wind speed is too high, and here in Oklahoma that is a regular pattern. I won't say they don't make noise, but the wind howling across the prairie makes noise too.

Birddog

[RPS]

That is not a valid comparison. Modern wind generators are designed to rotate at a fairly low speed to maximize efficiency. High RPM's do not make an efficient generator. Wind turbine blades are designed to turn away from the wind when the wind speed is too high, and here in Oklahoma that is a regular pattern. I won't say they don't make noise, but the wind howling across the prairie makes noise too.

Birddog
I was referring more to power than blade speed. As stated before tip speed on these slow-revolving giants is quite high because of their size; but even if held constant for power generation, the relative speed between blade and wind is also very important in creating sound.

The amount of energy available in the wind to power a turbine is not linear with wind speed. The amount of power these turbines extract from the wind at 10 MPH is not even close to what they extract at 30 MPH. Personally I’d like to see data for turbines at different wind speeds, including those that exceed the rated capabilities of the turbines (i.e. – when they put on the brakes to keep it from flying apart).

The attached is just one paper (see page 8) which suggests that the amount of “noise” or sound is highly dependent on wind speed. That a person may not witness the actual problem noise doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. Furthermore, noise is also a function of the direction the turbine is pointing, the terrain, and how many other turbines may be pointing in that direction at that exact time.

If this paper is even close to being right (regarding potential for generating noise and how little noise can affect sleep), I personally wouldn’t dismiss claims outright from individuals that they may be having problems sleeping (particularly in high wind conditions and when located close to many turbines).

http://www.ltu.edu/cm/attach/165D79C3-DD14-41EC-8A7F-CFA2D0C272DE/AddressingWindTurbineNoise.pdf



P.S. -- As I said before – I like windmills. I have nothing whatsoever against them beyond that I don’t like how they look when bunched together to make a farm. OTOH I keep an open mind when it comes to balancing positive and negative reports.

[93legendti]

http://www.startribune.com/local/north/83506647.html

Like a lot of California transplants, 11 newcomers to Minnesota are having a hard time adjusting to our winters.

They are wind turbines, erected last fall by 11 metro and outstate cities. The green-energy machines were expected to be spinning before Christmas, but so far their blades have been largely motionless, apparently paralyzed by frigid weather.

The turbines sit idly in Anoka, North St. Paul, Chaska, Shakopee, Buffalo and six other cities, all members of the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (MMPA). The refurbished, 115-foot towers had operated on a California wind farm, where they didn't have to worry about cold hydraulic fluid turning to gel and oil lubricants getting too sluggish.

Avant Energy of Minneapolis, which operates the turbines for MMPA, says it is bringing in a company that will get the windmills running within two months.

"It is very important we get them up and operating," said Avant president Derick Dahlen. He said the relatively small turbines, bought with federal renewable energy bonds, demonstrate the 11 cities' support for green energy. "When they don't turn, that doesn't satisfy us," Dahlen said.

It also doesn't satisfy many in the cities that put up the turbines, often in highly visible locations.

"We have been getting a lot of phone calls asking why it's not turning," said Dan Geiger, Chaska's electrical director. He said the turbine hasn't moved since it went up in early November near busy Hwy. 212.

"We put a lot of time and energy into getting it installed," Geiger said. "We were hoping it would be spinning by now."

The turbine in North St. Paul, near Hwy. 36, ran briefly "before it got too cold. It hasn't run consistently yet," said City Manager Wally Wysopal. "Anything in the air that has visibility like this turbine, people are expecting it to turn," he said. "It's been a little embarrassing to have it not turning on the windiest of days."

Anoka officials voiced similar concerns.

This week, Avant brought in enXco Services Corp., the California firm that rebuilt the 20-year-old wind turbines and sold them to MMPA, Dahlen said. The firm will get them going and started work this week by checking their mechanical condition in Chaska and Shakopee, he said.

Meeting a mandate

The 160-kilowatt turbines are much shorter than the one- or two-megawatt turbines used on wind farms and will supply 1 percent or less of local power needs. But they will help MMPA meet a state mandate requiring most utilities to provide at least 12 percent of their electricity sales from renewable resources by 2012. That proportion will increase to 25 percent by 2025.

Dahlen said Avant and MMPA have taken over commissioning the 11 wind turbines from contractor Henkels and McCoy Inc., which installed them. Henkels issued a statement saying that it "wasn't consulted regarding operational suitability, including climate compatibility. ... We've properly done our job as contracted and want nothing more than to see the turbines fully operational."

Dahlen said some incorrect information has been circulating about the turbines' cost and the weather conditions needed to run them. Although an Avant official said last summer that the price was about $300,000 per turbine, Dahlen said that with refurbishing, transportation and installation, the total cost is $5 million, or about $417,000 per machine.

Dahlen said information also circulated that the turbines would run only at temperatures above 1 degree Fahrenheit and at wind speeds of at least 15 miles an hour. He said they can run in winds of about 12 miles an hour and, with the right lubricants and hydraulic fluids, are expected to operate down to 15 degrees below zero.

He said that Minnesota has turbines that operate at temperatures well below zero and that MMPA's have basically the same moving parts. A mechanical assessment of the machines could reveal surprises, he said, but he expects that installing proper heating elements, including an electronic control box heater, should remedy the cold weather problems.

The other MMPA member cities are Arlington, Brownton, East Grand Forks, Le Sueur, Olivia and Winthrop.

Wysopal, who chairs the MMPA board of city representatives, said the holdup is "not an issue of whether wind technology works, but getting the bugs worked out."

[Tobias]

This week’s cold blast affecting much of the nation’s population should remind us that any plan to depend on renewable energy sources in order to move towards energy independence must be able to cope with “non-average” events.

As much as I like wind and solar energy myself, I have a hard time seeing how millions of Americans could have stayed warm this last week if a large portion of our power came from these renewables.

[Kirk007]

As much as I like wind and solar energy myself, I have a hard time seeing how millions of Americans could have stayed warm this last week if a large portion of our power came from these renewables.

we'll just have to distribute all those excess blankets the airlines won't need at their $8 a use price. ; )

Our energy conundrum is going to challenge all of us - using more blankets and sweaters in the winter would be a very good thing.

[1centaur]

Our energy conundrum is going to challenge all of us - using more blankets and sweaters in the winter would be a very good thing.

It might be cost effective and good for the planet in the short run, but it's a very bad thing for my pleasure. I've spent weeks feeling cold at home (thick merino base layer and thick wool sweater; thermostat at 70) and cold at the office (which apparently wants to be greener but was insulated like Class A office space from the 70s), taking on and off layers constantly as I move from my near window desk to the interior of the building and thinking how much more I enjoy life when I'm warmer and wearing fewer clothes. Can't wait for unlimited solar/wind/fusion/whatever heating with no guilty associations and super low maintenance costs.

[93legendti]

The same people who thought wind power would work during winter in the midwest, are probably the same people who brought us the latest climate gate scandal:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7177230/New-errors-in-IPCC-climate-change-report.html

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.

However, senior scientists are now expressing concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific ?scrutiny...
.
The IPCC attempted to counter growing criticism by releasing a statement insisting that authors who contribute to its 3,000-page report are required to “critically assess and review the quality and validity of each source” when they use material from unpublished or non-peer-reviewed sources. Drafts of the reports are checked by scientific reviewers before they are subjected to line-by-line approval by the 130 member countries of the IPCC.

Despite these checks, a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors.

The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Yet the diagram on Wavegen’s website contains dramatically different figures for energy potential off Britain and Alaska and in the Bering Sea.

When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Wavegen insisted that the diagram on its website had not been changed. It added that it was not the original source of the data and had simply reproduced it on its website.

The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy.

Experts claim that, had the IPCC checked the citation properly, it would have spotted the discrepancies.

It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students.

One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development.

The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.

Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations.

Such revelations are creating growing public confusion over climate change. A poll by Ipsos on behalf of environmental consultancy firm Euro RSCG revealed that the proportion of the public who believe in the reality of climate change has dropped from 44 per cent to 31per cent in the past year.

The proportion of people who believe that climate change is a bit over-exaggerated rose from 22 per cent to 31per cent.

Climate scientists have expressed frustration with the IPCC’s use of unreliable evidence.

Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, the biggest funder of climate science in the UK, said: “We should only be dealing with peer-reviewed literature. We open ourselves up to trouble if we start getting into hearsay and grey literature. We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that.”


...Another row over the IPCC report emerged last night after Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, from Colorado University’s Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research, claimed its authors deliberately ignored a paper he wrote that contradicted the panel’s claims about the cost of climate-related natural disasters.

A document included a statement from an anonymous IPCC author saying that they believed Dr Pielke had changed his mind on the matter, when he had not

[Kirk007]

The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.

I won't get into this yet debate again - life is too short. BUT, if your suggestion is that salmon and other salmonids are not impacted by rising stream temperatures then you have the universe of fish biologists to refute. On the other hand the causes of increased stream temperature are complex and probably have a lot more to do with our land management practices - grazing, deforestation, sprawl, etc. etc. than greenhouse gas emissions

[Kirk007]

It might be cost effective and good for the planet in the short run, but it's a very bad thing for my pleasure. I've spent weeks feeling cold at home (thick merino base layer and thick wool sweater; thermostat at 70) and cold at the office (which apparently wants to be greener but was insulated like Class A office space from the 70s), taking on and off layers constantly as I move from my near window desk to the interior of the building and thinking how much more I enjoy life when I'm warmer and wearing fewer clothes. Can't wait for unlimited solar/wind/fusion/whatever heating with no guilty associations and super low maintenance costs.

Hear that. I've concluded that cold wet dark climates are simply bad for me in general, and it gets worse every year. My merino base layers have moved from cycling specific to every day attire.

I understand better every day the draw of Sun City Arizona and all retirement centric locales in Florida; although I still don't get the eat dinner at 4:30 thing.

[93legendti]

The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.

I won't get into this yet debate again - life is too short. BUT, if your suggestion is that salmon and other salmonids are not impacted by rising stream temperatures then you have the universe of fish biologists to refute. On the other hand the causes of increased stream temperature are complex and probably have a lot more to do with our land management practices - grazing, deforestation, sprawl, etc. etc. than greenhouse gas emissions
I think the article dealt with more than salmon:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.

More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.

They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.

However, senior scientists are now expressing concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific scrutiny...

Another row over the IPCC report emerged last night after Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, from Colorado University’s Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research, claimed its authors deliberately ignored a paper he wrote that contradicted the panel’s claims about the cost of climate-related natural disasters.

A document included a statement from an anonymous IPCC author saying that they believed Dr Pielke had changed his mind on the matter, when he had not.

There is no "settled 'science'" on climate change. Nothing has been settled. What has been released to the public is NOT "science" -it's propoganda.

The movement has been exposed with repeated examples of deliberate misrepresentations to fit the agenda of those who seek to turn off the lights.

[Joellogicman]

Hear that. I've concluded that cold wet dark climates are simply bad for me in general, and it gets worse every year. My merino base layers have moved from cycling specific to every day attire.

begun to be appreciated is that most of our housing and commercial building stock was not designed to be energy efficient. Google some of the building programs in West Germany and other northern European nations (where there is cold, damp and gloom galore). There are homes in Germany being built without a central furnace. Yet they stay comfortably in the 70s throughout the winter.

I understand better every day the draw of Sun City Arizona and all retirement centric locales in Florida; although I still don't get the eat dinner at 4:30 thing.

Yeah, but Mid-Spring to Mid-Fall stink. The people eat dinner early because there is nothing to do there. When going out to dinner is the highlight of the day, you keep moving the time up.

[RPS]

I understand better every day the draw of Sun City Arizona and all retirement centric locales in Florida; although I still don't get the eat dinner at 4:30 thing.
Some older retirees sleep in and then get by on two meals a day. Brunch followed by an early dinner so their food has time to digest. ;)

It’s effective in cutting back on calories and saves a little too.

[Kirk007]

I think the article dealt with more than salmon:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.

More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.

They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.

However, senior scientists are now expressing concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific scrutiny...

Another row over the IPCC report emerged last night after Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, from Colorado University’s Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research, claimed its authors deliberately ignored a paper he wrote that contradicted the panel’s claims about the cost of climate-related natural disasters.

A document included a statement from an anonymous IPCC author saying that they believed Dr Pielke had changed his mind on the matter, when he had not.

There is no "settled 'science'" on climate change. Nothing has been settled. What has been released to the public is NOT "science" -it's propoganda.

The movement has been exposed with repeated examples of deliberate misrepresentations to fit the agenda of those who seek to turn off the lights.

not going there Adam. To quote an old David Mason song, "it's just you and me and we just disagree." nuff said. I'm out of the climate change debacle on this forum.

[Tobias]

If I got cold at 70F I would put on a little extra body fat. :rolleyes:

[Ray]

If I got cold at 70F I would put on a little extra body fat. :rolleyes:
I had the same reaction. I'm into creature comforts to be sure, but I keep the thermostat in the mid to upper 60s in the winter and that seems warm to me. I wear reasonably warm clothes, but I'd never consider not wearing warm clothes in the winter anyway. I go outdoors a lot and wouldn't want to have to add much more than a coat every time I do.

-Ray

[1centaur]

I do have low body fat, but I'm a cyclist and I work at it.

[93legendti]

Each furnace's thermostat temp is relative to itself, not actual.

When we replaced 2 of our furnaces last year, I asked my HVAC guy why 1 of the new 95% eff furnaces had to be set to 72 and the other at 70 to get the same perceived temps as the old furnaces at 69. He said the number had no real life correlation and each thermostat is different. We have a 3rd furnace, a 90% eff. furnace, and at 68 it gives the same warmth as the the newer ones do at 72 and 70. (Comparing our 2009 and 2008 bills, we saved $500 compared to the year before-even thou the new furnaces were "set" higher.)

Don't get hung up on thermostat temps.

[RPS]

I do have low body fat, but I'm a cyclist and I work at it.
And it's better than being heavy and having to run the air conditioner at 70 or 72 degrees in summer. I know quite a few overweight people who don't ever seem to get comfortable in summer no matter how cold they run the AC.

BTW, we run our heat at 70 F during the day and 64 at night, and that is about as warm as I'd want to heat because the air feels too dry. Just shows that as individuals we have different needs, preferences, and living conditions. :beer:

[RPS]

Each furnace's thermostat temp is relative to itself, not actual.
.........snipped.......
Don't get hung up on thermostat temps.
Agree we shouldn’t get hung up on this, but since we don’t feel temperature directly it’s also possible the systems may be different enough that they make you feel differently even though the temperature at the thermostat is the same. As you say, ultimately the important thing is how you feel. If accuracy is important a calibrated thermometer will do.

[93legendti]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.

A - Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
...The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other...

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just...

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well...

[93legendti]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo780.html

Retraction: Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change
Mark Siddall, Thomas F. Stocker & Peter U. Clark


IntroductionNature Geoscience 2, 571–575 (2009); published online: 26 July 2009; retracted online: 21 February 2010.

This Letter presented projections of future sea-level rise based on simulations of the past 22,000 years of sea-level history using a simple, empirical model linking sea-level rise to global mean-temperature anomalies. One of the main conclusions of the Letter was that the model results supported the projections of sea-level rise during the twenty-first century that are reported in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, we have since found that our projections were affected by two oversights in our model approach. First, we tested the sensitivity of our results to the length of the time step used in the integration of the model for the period of deglaciation, which we found to be robust. However, we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries. Second, we did not include the effect of the uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions since the Medieval Climate Anomaly in our uncertainty estimates for the twenty-first-century projections. This led to an inconsistency between the twentieth-century simulation used to test the predictive capability of the model and the twenty-first-century simulation, owing to a provisional allowance for warming since the Little Ice Age in the twentieth-century simulations. Thus we no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900. Both our simulations of the last deglaciation, and the result that the equilibrium response of sea-level change to temperature is non-linear over the last deglaciation, are robust to the length of the time step used, and are still valid.

We thank S. Rahmstorf and M. Vermeer for bringing these issues to our attention.

It isn't "science" and it isn't "settled".

[Kirk007]

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo780.html

Retraction: Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change
Mark Siddall, Thomas F. Stocker & Peter U. Clark


IntroductionNature Geoscience 2, 571–575 (2009); published online: 26 July 2009; retracted online: 21 February 2010.

This Letter presented projections of future sea-level rise based on simulations of the past 22,000 years of sea-level history using a simple, empirical model linking sea-level rise to global mean-temperature anomalies. One of the main conclusions of the Letter was that the model results supported the projections of sea-level rise during the twenty-first century that are reported in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Unfortunately, we have since found that our projections were affected by two oversights in our model approach. First, we tested the sensitivity of our results to the length of the time step used in the integration of the model for the period of deglaciation, which we found to be robust. However, we overlooked that the simulations of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries are sensitive to this time step, which led to an overestimation of the sea-level response to warming in the simulations for these centuries. Second, we did not include the effect of the uncertainty in the temperature reconstructions since the Medieval Climate Anomaly in our uncertainty estimates for the twenty-first-century projections. This led to an inconsistency between the twentieth-century simulation used to test the predictive capability of the model and the twenty-first-century simulation, owing to a provisional allowance for warming since the Little Ice Age in the twentieth-century simulations. Thus we no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900. Both our simulations of the last deglaciation, and the result that the equilibrium response of sea-level change to temperature is non-linear over the last deglaciation, are robust to the length of the time step used, and are still valid.

We thank S. Rahmstorf and M. Vermeer for bringing these issues to our attention.

It isn't "science" and it isn't "settled".

Sorry Adam, but this comment reflects that you misapprehend what the scientific process entails. It is a continuous process. Hypotheses get tested; they get refined; scientists learn, reflect, modify. Of course it isn't settled in the terms you use the phrase.

This doesn't mean that climate change isn't occuring nor that we don't have a s**t load of work to do to mitigate and adapt. It doesn't change the empirical evidence that South Pacific Islanders, Alaskan natives and folks in India are experiencing as their land disappears underneath their feet.

But in fact, while I would want to read the entire piece, if the point is that sea level rise will be less than or slower than predicted then that is a very good thing for which we can all be thankful. It's not like folks that take this stuff seriously want these projected results (and don't give me the AL Gore getting rich BS).

[93legendti]

I understand science better than Al Gore.
I understand science enough to know global warming isn't settled. Phil Jones agrees:

N - When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well...

I understand that science is based upon facts, more so than:
college term papers;
pamphlets from advocacy groups;
hidden data;
exaggrated claims;
misreprented temps and data;
pictures of polar bears;
destruction of data;
deliberate hiding of facts that don't fit the agenda of the propagandist...

I understand that the wild claims put forth by the "science is settled" crowd, don't stand up to scrutiny.

The global warming movement has nothing to do with science. That's why Tom Friedman wants to call it global weirding.

[Tobias]

I'll sleep better tonight knowing that low-lying coastal areas won't be under water during my lifetime. :beer:

[Kirk007]

I understand that the wild claims put forth by the "science is settled" crowd, don't stand up to scrutiny.

The global warming movement has nothing to do with science. That's why Tom Friedman wants to call it global weirding.

So call me when you've read all the data etc. considered by the IPCC to date then we can chat.

Tobias, yep we're not the ones that need to worry. I'd be careful of any low elevation coastal investments that you want to make for any future generations though - there could be an erosion of your equity over the long run ; )

[RPS]

Tobias, yep we're not the ones that need to worry. I'd be careful of any low elevation coastal investments that you want to make for any future generations though - there could be an erosion of your equity over the long run ; )
My parents' house sits about 10 feet above sea level in South Florida, and joking around with them one day I told them it could end up under water before long. They gave me a funny look like saying -- we are in our 80s, that's not a top concern for us.

[whforrest]

Up here in nor cal we have a huge wind turbine farm, I have heard that many of the extreme environmentalist are opposed to such forms of eneregy. Some concerns are centered around bird fatalities. If u walk around u will see thousands of dead birds.

[Louis]

So call me when you've read all the data etc. considered by the IPCC to date then we can chat.

Consensus be dammed, I say.

Adam, believe what you want to believe - life's much easier that way. ;)

[93legendti]

So call me when you've read all the data etc. considered by the IPCC to date then we can chat.

Tobias, yep we're not the ones that need to worry. I'd be careful of any low elevation coastal investments that you want to make for any future generations though - there could be an erosion of your equity over the long run ; )
"Data"?!?! What "data"? The IPCC doesn't use "data".

You can read propaganda submitted as conclusions.
Between destroyed info, sloppy work, mistakes, lies, distortions, study/report after study/report with unsupported claims and FOI requests that were ignored, they won't let anyone read "data".

They just want you to believe the debate is over; the science is settled. Who needs data or facts. :rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_hacking_incident

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report is supposed to be the world’s most authoritative scientific account of the scale of global warming.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including:

The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.

Claims based on information in press releases and newsletters.

New examples of statements based on student dissertations, two of which were unpublished.
More claims which were based on reports produced by environmental pressure groups.
They are the latest in a series of damaging revelations about the IPCC’s most recent report, published in 2007.

Last month, the panel was forced to issue a humiliating retraction after it emerged statements about the melting of Himalayan glaciers were inaccurate.

Last weekend, this paper revealed that the panel had based claims about disappearing mountain ice on anecdotal evidence in a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.

And on Friday, it emerged that the IPCC’s panel had wrongly reported that more than half of the Netherlands was below sea level because it had failed to check information supplied by a Dutch government agency.

Researchers insist the errors are minor and do not impact on the overall conclusions about climate change.

However, senior scientists are now expressing concern at the way the IPCC compiles its reports and have hit out at the panel’s use of so-called “grey literature” — evidence from sources that have not been subjected to scientific scrutiny...
.
...Despite these checks, a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power has been found to contain numerous errors.

The source of information for the diagram was cited as the website of UK-based wave-energy company Wavegen. Yet the diagram on Wavegen’s website contains dramatically different figures for energy potential off Britain and Alaska and in the Bering Sea.

When contacted by The Sunday Telegraph, Wavegen insisted that the diagram on its website had not been changed. It added that it was not the original source of the data and had simply reproduced it on its website.

The diagram is widely cited in other literature as having come from a paper on wave energy produced by the Institute of Mechanical Engineering in 1991 along with data from the European Directory of Renewable Energy.

Experts claim that, had the IPCC checked the citation properly, it would have spotted the discrepancies.

It can also be revealed that claims made by the IPCC about the effects of global warming, and suggestions about ways it could be avoided, were partly based on information from ten dissertations by Masters students.
One unpublished dissertation was used to support the claim that sea-level rise could impact on people living in the Nile delta and other African coastal areas, although the main focus of the thesis, by a student at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, appears to have been the impact of computer software on environmental development.

The IPCC also made use of a report by US conservation group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures. The panel has already come under fire for using information in reports by conservation charity the WWF.

Estimates of carbon-dioxide emissions from nuclear power stations and claims that suggested they were cheaper than coal or gas power stations were also taken from the website of the World Nuclear Association, rather than using independent scientific calculations.

Such revelations are creating growing public confusion over climate change. A poll by Ipsos on behalf of environmental consultancy firm Euro RSCG revealed that the proportion of the public who believe in the reality of climate change has dropped from 44 per cent to 31per cent in the past year.

The proportion of people who believe that climate change is a bit over-exaggerated rose from 22 per cent to 31per cent.

Climate scientists have expressed frustration with the IPCC’s use of unreliable evidence.

Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, the biggest funder of climate science in the UK, said: “We should only be dealing with peer-reviewed literature. We open ourselves up to trouble if we start getting into hearsay and grey literature. We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that.”

...Another row over the IPCC report emerged last night after Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, from Colorado University’s Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research, claimed its authors deliberately ignored a paper he wrote that contradicted the panel’s claims about the cost of climate-related natural disasters.

A document included a statement from an anonymous IPCC author saying that they believed Dr Pielke had changed his mind on the matter, when he had not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...nge-report.html

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=93legendti]


Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, the biggest funder of climate science in the UK, said: ... We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, ....”

Dang I hate it when my own reference contradicts the very point I'm trying to make, don't you?

[93legendti]

[QUOTE=93legendti]


Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, the biggest funder of climate science in the UK, said: ... We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that.”

Dang I hate it when my own reference contradicts the very point I'm trying to make, don't you?
Only when it really happens.

It's not only "concerning" to " stray" from the self proclaimed, sufficient, peer review material, it's illogical and unsupportable.

Assuming this liar is NOW the truth, why all the lies, fabrications, use of anecdotal accounts, deliberate distortions, destruction of records, reliance on college dissertations, wildlife pamphlets, fraud and ignoring FOI requests?

Why not just put forth this "peer reviewed" material and leave the fraud at home?

Because it's more lies, by a movement built on lies.

If the "peer review" material existed and was sufficient, they wouldn't risk using the made up "data".

Nice try.

[Kirk007]

curious - do you hold the deniers to the same standard that you assert here? And if the search is for the truth why not "consider" all information from all comers, which appears to be the problem you have with the IPCC?

Unresponded to information requests, please. Trust me that never happened under the Bush Admin or from industry, never. And yes I do have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya

[93legendti]

You are changing the subject.
Is that because you agree this "sufficient peer review material" argument is laughable?
If not, proffer a logical reason one needs to supplement sufficient "trustworthy" material with mounds of fabricated material.
Suggest a reason why the "sufficient" material precludes examination, debate or discussion.

The issue is the fraud by those claiming their science is settled.

As I pointed above, the liberal arguing style, when faced with bad facts, is to bring up Pres. Bush or Iraq.

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=Kirk007]


Because it's more lies, by a movement built on lies.


What I sincerely don't get is the outrage over the concept of climate change. Don't like Al? I can get that. Don't like big government? get that too. Fear of change in lifestyle? OK, few folks like their cheese moved. But the level of anger, hatred, zealotry and rage of many deniers (not attributing to anyone here but when you read comments on other blogs etc., man it is ugly) and their pied pipers on the networks and talk radio - these emotions, to me, cannot be explained by any of the above.

Is it really that hard to believe that the impacts of billions of homo sapiens could cause a change in our climate? Is it a religious thing? And if its a religious thing can someone explain it to me cause it seems like the faiths that most Americans profess a belief in the sacredness of all life including the unborn, which is exactly those that the believers are also concerned about - the future generations that will be most impacted if believers' scientific projections are accurate.

Sure there's lots of zealotry on the believers side but best I can tell, the vast majority of believers are zealots out of concern for the future of life on earth and very few are getting rich by playing a susceptible, gullible public (indeed the polling shows the public sure ain't buying it so not much of a $$$ scheme).

I'm serious here - I'd like to understand the rage.

[Ray]

[QUOTE=93legendti]
I'm serious here - I'd like to understand the rage.
Life's waaaay too short man. There are MANY things I've long since accepted I'll never understand. The origins of the universe, the meaning of life, whether there's a god, how to hit a major league curveball, all far more interesting to me than trying to figure out what pisses off the most well-off people in the world, very likely the HISTORY of the world. And I count myself among the pissed off, btw, just for different reasons than the climate changer deniers. But I'm sure its probably the same underlying condition, just different sounding symptoms! Trying to understand Adam's rage is likely a lifetime occupation for Adam. I'm not gonna spend my time on it. He's a nice guy when he talks bikes.

-Ray

[1centaur]

I won't get into the AGW argument, but I'll try to explain the anger in terms the left should understand:

Anybody angry that "Bush lied to take us to war in Iraq?" Putting aside whether the pretext was largely correct or largely believed and so not a lie, it is widely perceived and repeated on the left that Bush used half-truths, emotional bullying, pandering to fools and more to get the snowball rolling down the hill to war (for oil, some still say). That feeling makes the left very angry, because they hate war and they hate liars and they hate Republicans and they want our tax money used for something else.

AGW skeptics feel much the same about this science debate. Where Bush said "aint it obvious?" so do climate scientists. Anti-war types actually had LESS evidence against the presence of WMD than skeptics have against must-act-now AGW yet were very sure of their naysaying position because of who was making the argument, not background CIA contacts. Skeptics look at the arguers, many arrogant academics with an anti-capitalism world view, and non-Americans with an anti-American worldview, and they instinctively guess that there's more here than pure science. As the examples of manipulation roll in, they say "see?" just as anti Iraq war types did as each day passed without WMD being found. Pure science was touted, and extremely tainted human bias was found. To change our lifestyles to fit the precepts of tree huggers and wood stove (so to speak) types requires more than assertions from overwhelmingly liberal speakers. AGW is plausible, but so were WMD. The anger is based on long held political divisions and fed by who's on one side of the argument vs. another.

[jblande]

Among the unnerving aspects of your response, I'll pick one:

As one of the 'arrogant' scientists, who is also quite interested in the history and philosophy of science, 'pure science' is not a term comfortably used by good scientists. Only politicians require such hyperbole. Science is full of approximations and probabilities. Good arguments for x or y are not the same thing as 'pure science'. The latter, at least in my view, belongs to the late nineteenth century. If you are actually curious on why this is my view, read Loraine Daston and Peter Galison.

[William]

Reminds me of a Zoology course I had in college. There was a young woman who would constantly interject and challenge the instructors time lines on fossil records and carbon dating etc. She was coming from a very religious perspective and was of the belief that the world was only a few thousand years old. That’s all well and good, if that’s what you believe I have no issue with it. At first it was interesting, but she couldn’t drop it and soon it became annoying and disrupting. Basically the other 99% of the class started suggesting she shut the eff up. The instructor finally called her on it and said he’d be happy to debate her in office hours but not in the class because it was obvious that no common ground or mutual understanding could be achieved.

Point being that in every aspect of life there is the Bell curve. In matters of belief you have those to the left, and those to the right fringes. Not too much of what the other side does or says is going to convince the other to change their minds. You tend to hear more of the right and left views in the news because they tend to rile up the other side which makes for more sensational news. The problem is that neither side is really willing or able to objectively debate, constructively argue, and come to a consensus. They are too rooted in their beliefs and have vilified the other side too much to agree on much of anything.

The majority of people are in the middle and more likely to consider and weigh the points of either side in deciding on issues. The best thing to do is look at points from both sides and the middle. Consider their history and past actions. If you can consider others viewpoints without being threatened by them, you’ll stand a much better chance of making an informed choice on issues.

$.02


William

[93legendti]

[QUOTE=Kirk007]
Life's waaaay too short man. There are MANY things I've long since accepted I'll never understand. The origins of the universe, the meaning of life, whether there's a god, how to hit a major league curveball, all far more interesting to me than trying to figure out what pisses off the most well-off people in the world, very likely the HISTORY of the world. And I count myself among the pissed off, btw, just for different reasons than the climate changer deniers. But I'm sure its probably the same underlying condition, just different sounding symptoms! Trying to understand Adam's rage is likely a lifetime occupation for Adam. I'm not gonna spend my time on it. He's a nice guy when he talks bikes.

-Ray
It isn't. I voted Democrat up until 2000. I believed everything on the Dem platform up until ~1998.

iirc, Kirk went to law school. A lawsuit to declare Global Warming "a fact beyond dispute and based upon settled science" would not survive a motion for summary judgment/disposition.



From the article Kirk liked:
Climate scientists have expressed frustration with the IPCC’s use of unreliable evidence.
Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, the biggest funder of climate science in the UK, said: “We should only be dealing with peer-reviewed literature. We open ourselves up to trouble if we start getting into hearsay and grey literature. We have enough research that has been peer-reviewed to provide evidence for climate change, so it is concerning that the IPCC has strayed from that.”

The ends do not justify the means.
The prosecutor of the Duke "Rape" defendants lost his license.
The prosecutor of Sen. Ted Stevens was either sanctioned or lost his license.
Dan Rather lost his job because he used obviously false documents to support a story. His excuse was, "the story was correct, who cares if the documents were concocted?".

We do. All of us.

Does Kirk REALLY think that because he believes in GW that the repeated, deliberate transgressions of CRU and IPCC, etc. ON THE MERITS are meaningless?

There is a reason that the polls have gone south on GW.

If you want to remake America because of GW, most Americans will not take the GW proponents' word for it. Prove it. Properly. Drop the nonsense. Come clean. Clean house. Despite what GW'Ers believe, that's what people in the middle think.

If you can't prove it, it's not worth remaking America.

Now, assuming the i's are dotted and t's crossed...please tell me how we pay for it.

FWIW, I don't have rage. Contempt maybe. Mostly, I laugh when I hear "it's a fact, the science is settled, there can be no debate." I think it's funny the lengths people will got to to avoid honest debate.

[fiamme red]

I voted Democrat up until 2000. I believed everything on the Dem platform up until ~1998.And now you believe everything on the Republican platform.

In other words, you've never been a critical or independent thinker.

[nahtnoj]

[QUOTE=Ray]


If you want to remake America because of GW, most Americans will not take the GW proponents' word for it. Prove it. Properly. Drop the nonsense. Come clean. Clean house. Despite what GW'Ers believe, that's what people in the middle think.



So you want 100% irrefutable evidence before you think it is worth taking action? Sorry, but that is not a reasonable position, and it is the reason this discussion goes nowhere.

I look at CC mitigation like I look at insurance. I don't have total certainty that I won't get hit by a bus this afternoon. So I buy life insurance. Someone might hit my car. My house might get struck by lighting.

Mitigating CC would cost 0.8% of GDP annually. This comes from the pinko commie one-world leftists at McKinsey. 0.8% is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of adaptation.

[Kirk007]

Does Kirk REALLY think that because he believes in GW that the repeated, deliberate transgressions of CRU and IPCC, etc. ON THE MERITS are meaningless?

There is a reason that the polls have gone south on GW.

If you want to remake America because of GW, most Americans will not take the GW proponents' word for it. Prove it. Properly. Drop the nonsense. Come clean. Clean house. Despite what GW'Ers believe, that's what people in the middle think.

If you can't prove it, it's not worth remaking America.

.[/QUOTE]

Putting aside your characterization of the process, no of course inconsistent or inaccurate data, if relied upon, undermines the validity of a conclusion. But there are some big ifs there. Do we know what weight if any was given to these data points? Does the totality of "flawed" data outweigh or undermine the conclusions. Everything I've seen says no.

The polls haven't gone south. Belief in climate change has polled for years in the low 40% in America (although a lot depends on how the question is asked). This is no surprise given the persistent media efforts to undermine the theory and the media's penchant for elevating anyone who opposes the theory, regardless of credentials or proof to equal footing with career scientists so that there is an opportunity to give each side its story. When the debate is framed as between two equally informed views, and one view requires change, is it surprising where the polling is?

The problem with your prove it assertion Adam is what is the standard. In a court of law, civil action, it would be more probable than not - 51% I'm guessing that a civil jury would find this to be the case if as you posed the issue was put on trial.

It is a very different standard in the scientific community, which is what makes this "settled science" claim so easily attacked. Before I went to law school I did medical research (biologist first, lawyer second). Acceptable results for our work was to demonstrate, on a repeated basis, results that meet a statistical standard of greater than 95% probability. If your test results (in my case the efficacy of various antibiotics at crossing the blood brain barrier and treating brain abscess) did not meet this statistical standard, and could not be repeated (and multiple times), then your work was not valid and would not be published (and then your grant is not renewed and your job in jeopardy - oh academia...but that's another story). And even if you meet this standard, the world changes. New information, new techniques, new insights continually refine out analysis as scientists.

So, which standard do we use to base policy decisions about something as complex and novel (as in not well understood) as climate change? 51 percent? 95 percent (which seems to be what you are advocating for)? (is there anything 95% of Americans agree on? NO, so your standard leads to permanent gridlock and nonaction). And how do you factor in the risk of being wrong? Science has another logical approach: the precautionary principle. Like triage - be conservative in your actions until you have a better understanding of the consequences.

In this case, most of the actions that would mitigate and allow adaptation for change are ones that would be good for America in the long run anyway; which reflects the fact that climate change is a symptom of our current way of life not a stand alone phenomena. Energy independence - clean, nonpolluting energy and industry - the health benefits and reduction in tensions between US and middle east and the implications for national security are worth it alone to wean ourselves off fossil fuels (and while you may point out that many enviros won't consider nucs in this process, not all of us are close minded to this possibility; although whether it can be done cost efficiently is a major hurdle as I understand it). More efficient buildings, better designed transportation grid - all of these things would improve the way of life for most Americans. But its the ones who see their cash cows getting gored that are pouring millions if not billions of dollars into the campaign to assure us that climate change is a hoax and all is well. You talk about following the money when you talk about Al Gore. Good idea but follow it both ways and see where it leads.

Finally, what if the believers are right Adam and we as a nation and world doing nothing, as is the current case, or too little too late (the most likely best case) and that path dooms your and my grandchildren (assuming we should be so lucky? to have them) to a life of scarcity(at best) because we debated endlessly whether climate change was real. What does that cost? Or do we not care because it them and not us that will pay that price?

[93legendti]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_R._Karl

Karl's views as head of the American Meteorological Society [2] fuel criticism about objective judgment in climate science. [3]. Major concern of Karl's executive editorial role during the synthesis of the CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences” [4] has led to the resignation of one lead co-author, who claims "The process that produced the report was highly political, with the editor (Thomas R. Karl) taking the lead in suppressing my (Roger A. Pielke, Sr.) perspectives." [5].

[93legendti]

Ah yes, more efficient buildings. This month, I have to pay $2500 for a heat recovery pump, because the "green construction" used for our additions left the air in our home very stale. I wonder what the electricity costs will be to run that full time for the next 30 years.

No one had peanut allergies when I went to school-you see it all the time now-2 kids out 13 in my daughter's class. And in ~10 per grade in her school (out of 500 kids, k-8).

Last year it cost me $2750 to get rid of the mold that developed only in our new addition's attic-"efficient" homes don't breath properly..I wish I had known that ahead of time.

Oh, and I had to add "combustion venting" because the new standards lead to higher chances of gas explosions.

[RPS]

What's with all the copies outside of a normal forum "COPY" box? :confused:

I know it can happen if editing someone else's post too quickly, but this thread seems to have more than its share.

[93legendti]

Putting aside your characterization of the process, no of course inconsistent or inaccurate data, if relied upon, undermines the validity of a conclusion. But there are some big ifs there. Do we know what weight if any was given to these data points? Does the totality of "flawed" data outweigh or undermine the conclusions. Everything I've seen says no.

The polls haven't gone south. Belief in climate change has polled for years in the low 40% in America (although a lot depends on how the question is asked). This is no surprise given the persistent media efforts to undermine the theory and the media's penchant for elevating anyone who opposes the theory, regardless of credentials or proof to equal footing with career scientists so that there is an opportunity to give each side its story. When the debate is framed as between two equally informed views, and one view requires change, is it surprising where the polling is?

The problem with your prove it assertion Adam is what is the standard. In a court of law, civil action, it would be more probable than not - 51% I'm guessing that a civil jury would find this to be the case if as you posed the issue was put on trial.

It is a very different standard in the scientific community, which is what makes this "settled science" claim so easily attacked. Before I went to law school I did medical research (biologist first, lawyer second). Acceptable results for our work was to demonstrate, on a repeated basis, results that meet a statistical standard of greater than 95% probability. If your test results (in my case the efficacy of various antibiotics at crossing the blood brain barrier and treating brain abscess) did not meet this statistical standard, and could not be repeated (and multiple times), then your work was not valid and would not be published (and then your grant is not renewed and your job in jeopardy - oh academia...but that's another story). And even if you meet this standard, the world changes. New information, new techniques, new insights continually refine out analysis as scientists.

So, which standard do we use to base policy decisions about something as complex and novel (as in not well understood) as climate change? 51 percent? 95 percent (which seems to be what you are advocating for)? (is there anything 95% of Americans agree on? NO, so your standard leads to permanent gridlock and nonaction). And how do you factor in the risk of being wrong? Science has another logical approach: the precautionary principle. Like triage - be conservative in your actions until you have a better understanding of the consequences.

In this case, most of the actions that would mitigate and allow adaptation for change are ones that would be good for America in the long run anyway; which reflects the fact that climate change is a symptom of our current way of life not a stand alone phenomena. Energy independence - clean, nonpolluting energy and industry - the health benefits and reduction in tensions between US and middle east and the implications for national security are worth it alone to wean ourselves off fossil fuels (and while you may point out that many enviros won't consider nucs in this process, not all of us are close minded to this possibility; although whether it can be done cost efficiently is a major hurdle as I understand it). More efficient buildings, better designed transportation grid - all of these things would improve the way of life for most Americans. But its the ones who see their cash cows getting gored that are pouring millions if not billions of dollars into the campaign to assure us that climate change is a hoax and all is well. You talk about following the money when you talk about Al Gore. Good idea but follow it both ways and see where it leads.

Finally, what if the believers are right Adam and we as a nation and world doing nothing, as is the current case, or too little too late (the most likely best case) and that path dooms your and my grandchildren (assuming we should be so lucky? to have them) to a life of scarcity(at best) because we debated endlessly whether climate change was real. What does that cost? Or do we not care because it them and not us that will pay that price?
I see you are chaging the subject again.


What if you're wrong. Phil Jones says the issue isn't settled.

China and India aren't on board.

We can't pay for it.

GW'ers can't prove it.

Actually, we are doing something. The President rightly proposed new nuke power plants. Curious that the environmentalists are furious about Obama's decision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas
Natural gas is clean- why not use more it? We have plenty. Obama is for it. How do the environmentalists feel?

Please let's not talk about gridlock. Sen. Kennedy wouldn't allow windfarms in his favorite vacation spot and the Sierra Club tries to block solar farms in the desert.

[Louis]

I'm so happy to see that this discussion is heading to a resolution.

[Kirk007]

I see you are chaging the subject again.

I see you aren't responding to my points again.


What if you're wrong. Phil Jones says the issue isn't settled.

See discussion in last post re settled. If I'm wrong we improve the country and the oil and gas and coal industries make a few less billions.

China and India aren't on board.

just watch - China is moving much faster, particularly on technology development than we are.

We can't pay for it.

what are the net costs Adam? I never see the denialists look at more than one side of the economic equation.

GW'ers can't prove it.

I think we can at the more probable than not level. So do most credible scientists and even most governments.

Actually, we are doing something. The President rightly proposed new nuke power plants. Curious that the environmentalists are furious about Obama's decision.

Some are, some aren't. Are all conservatives the same flavor on every issue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shale_gas
Natural gas is clean- why not use more it? We have plenty. Obama is for it. How do the environmentalists feel?

A transition fuel. Could be much better if the industry was more responsible. A major source of methane gas emissions particularly at production because the industry doesn't want to pay the cost of capturing these emissions. Methane is a much more potent GHG than the others. We, my firm, is pushing, through litigation, BLM and industry to quantify these emissions and control them. Many enviro groups are embracing natural gas without qualification due in my view to the chicken little complex that infects many environmentalists.

Please let's not talk about gridlock. Sen. Kennedy wouldn't allow windfarms in his favorite vacation spot and the Sierra Club tries to block solar farms in the desert.

Kennedy was wrong to oppose them on viewshed grounds. Solar farms in the Mohave and elsewhere are a more complex issue than your comment reflects. While well intentioned scientists and engineers are still trying to get a handle on it, one seemingly credible estimate is that 100 square miles of utility scale renewables would provide most of America's energy needs. That is not a lot of ground in an area as vast as the West. This allows some flexibility in siting - we can put these things in productive areas that also have minimal impact on other environmental values. Although the huge issue to crack, particularly with solar, is water. They need a lot of it and as we say in the West, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.

Bottom line, we don't need to plunk utility scale renewables down in wilderness quality lands or in national parks or in the middle of an endangered species habitat. The rub comes when folks own private lands in wilderness inholdings or other areas that are surrounded by public lands that have high ecosystem values and they insist on trying to develop projects in these areas because they want to make a buck even if it costs all Americans by destroying or negatively impacting our shared national resources. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this - we call it "right from the start" and we are actively working with responsible developers to do it right.

But everything we as a nation are doing on energy and climate change is a drop in the ocean compared to the magnitude of the threat.

[Kirk007]

I'm so happy to see that this discussion is heading to a resolution.

It's good practice for an upcoming environmental conference and an excellent way to avoid focusing on a pesky and boring deliverable ; )

[Louis]

an excellent way to avoid focusing on a pesky and boring deliverable ; )

I know the feeling.

[William]

Wave generators
http://64.202.120.86/upload/image/new-news/2008/march/energy-from-sea-tide/pelamis-wave-power1.jpg

Tidal generators
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/SeaGen_installed.jpg

Wind farms
http://www.nationaleminentdomain.com/windfarm.jpg

Solar farms
http://www.pvresources.com/images/top50/largepics/sgs_pic01.jpg

Hydro-electric
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/hydroelec/hydro.jpg

Nuclear power
http://papundits.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/ph_three_mile_island500.jpg

Coal power plant
http://legalplanet.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/coal-fired-power-plant.jpg

Natural gas power plant
http://www.ecn.nl/fileadmin/ecn/corp/Nieuwsbrief_NL/2006/Illustraties/Siemens_03.jpg

Geothermal Power
http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/gw/geothermal_plant.jpg

[Kirk007]

I won't get into the AGW argument, but I'll try to explain the anger in terms the left should understand

A good and insightful analogy thanks. But I think it would be more valid if the "inconsistencies" that Adam is talking about were if fact repudiations or flaws in the major underlying data and studies that climate change is premised on. In that case even I would be outraged, but more importantly greatly relieved.

I think it is a bit easier to document the presence or absence of WMDs than it is to prove the presence or absence of climate change, so the basis for the levels of "outrage" in your analogy are to me far different.

[93legendti]

Kennedy was wrong to oppose them on viewshed grounds. Solar farms in the Mohave and elsewhere are a more complex issue than your comment reflects. While well intentioned scientists and engineers are still trying to get a handle on it, one seemingly credible estimate is that 100 square miles of utility scale renewables would provide most of America's energy needs. That is not a lot of ground in an area as vast as the West. This allows some flexibility in siting - we can put these things in productive areas that also have minimal impact on other environmental values. Although the huge issue to crack, particularly with solar, is water. They need a lot of it and as we say in the West, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.

Bottom line, we don't need to plunk utility scale renewables down in wilderness quality lands or in national parks or in the middle of an endangered species habitat. The rub comes when folks own private lands in wilderness inholdings or other areas that are surrounded by public lands that have high ecosystem values and they insist on trying to develop projects in these areas because they want to make a buck even if it costs all Americans by destroying or negatively impacting our shared national resources. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this - we call it "right from the start" and we are actively working with responsible developers to do it right.

But everything we as a nation are doing on energy and climate change is a drop in the ocean compared to the magnitude of the threat.

You forgot India.

Tax and cap will kill 2 million more jobs, cost each household $2,000/year and increase the deficit. We can't afford it.

You can't put up wind or solar farms due to liberal objections and you want to put the onus on GW skeptics?

Every nuke reactor is met with years of litigation from environmental groups.

Anything we do is a drop in the bucket compared to China and India.

Back to the threat-the magnitude as defined by hearsay, grey literature, college dissertations, fraud, manipulated "data", destroyed docs, exaggerations and lies?

Threats aren't determined by size alone. You're forgetting probability. It all comes back to the veracity of the GW movement. Right now, it's at rock bottom.

[gdw]

CSPAN is currently showing our illustrious elected officials grilling the administrator of the EPA about the 2011 budget. The main focus of the discussion seems to be global warming.

[AndrewS]

Apparently, my home state of WI only has 3% of its land that have constant and strong enough winds to make it worthwhile to put up the towers.

I read recently that Germany exceeded its projected solar power capacity by quite a bit. When the government first proposed producing X percent via solar, there was much scoffing. But now they're past that.

I think that all "green" energy sources on earth require too much upkeep. I'd like to see us go to space based solar, which recently became "cheap" enough to do compared to current energy prices. That would be a good step in altering our economy toward something not based on the '50s.

[1centaur]

A good and insightful analogy thanks. But I think it would be more valid if the "inconsistencies" that Adam is talking about were if fact repudiations or flaws in the major underlying data and studies that climate change is premised on. In that case even I would be outraged, but more importantly greatly relieved.

I think it is a bit easier to document the presence or absence of WMDs than it is to prove the presence or absence of climate change, so the basis for the levels of "outrage" in your analogy are to me far different.

At the time of the WMD case, all the spook organizations of the West said there was credible evidence of WMD - including statements by Hussein's own generals to that effect (which were lies to protect their lives). Hussein was printing money, ignoring UN sanctions, and our analysis showed WMD to be present or in development. In intelligence/geopolitical analysis terms it does not get too much better than that, and of course, the downside to ignoring it was huge, increasing the analogy.

The left, without access to the data, declared that there were no WMD even though left-leaning politicians on appropriate committees with access to the data were signing off on the concept. Obama was among those who leapt to the no-WMD conclusion. This was worldview, not analysis. The anger that you see on AGW is also not analysis, and you continually frustrate yourself by ignoring that fact. WMD proponents had all the data on their side, they thought, and the naysayers poo-poo'd the data based on who assembled it. The naysayers assumed the proponents were making stuff up to justify something else. And they were mad.

That is the exact thing that is happening here. Most people are NEVER going to understand or follow the science closely, but they judge the character of the people delivering the message based on existing attributes. The science behind global warming SEEMS to come down to temps going up, gasses going up, unprecedented patterns > conclusion > extrapolation > change our present lives for the worse (even you talked in terms of "symptom of our lifestyle," a characterization that would offend many people who've worked a life time to get that lifestyle). Faced with a negative outcome RIGHT NOW, you're going to get skepticism because this is no free/low cost option (it's a lot worse than a few billion less in profits to an energy industry). Thus people grasp at evidence of temperature data manipulation, look for alternative explanations, wonder why the models fail to predict current circumstances and get the confirmation bias they seek. They are angry at being pushed to do something massive by people insulting their intelligence, superciliously declaring the science settled because 2,000 scientists have looked at the same data sets and said "me too, now where's my grant/tenure?" been disgusted at being called deniers by people playing the Holocaust angle, etc. It's not surprising they are mad, it's surprising the proponents have been so tone deaf on such an important topic. Get spokespeople who don't act like Al Gore, get people who were skeptics and have been persuaded and are sympathetic middle-of-the-road types, not self-satisfied, drippingly smug pontificating A-holes. Let the skeptics come to their own realization with evidence and reason that does not start from exasperated conclusion or from mouths that always speak predictably from the left. That type of spokesperson can lay out pros and cons and lead to conclusive pros (let's say) and would happily do so in front of an audience of academic skeptics, of which there are many. America can reach rational conclusions if the argument is laid out right, but they'll punish liars and browbeaters 'til NYC is under 3 feet of water.

[Kirk007]

A It's not surprising they are mad, it's surprising the proponents have been so tone deaf on such an important topic. Get spokespeople who don't act like Al Gore, get people who were skeptics and have been persuaded and are sympathetic middle-of-the-road types, not self-satisfied, drippingly smug pontificating A-holes. Let the skeptics come to their own realization with evidence and reason that does not start from exasperated conclusion or from mouths that always speak predictably from the left. That type of spokesperson can lay out pros and cons and lead to conclusive pros (let's say) and would happily do so in front of an audience of academic skeptics, of which there are many. America can reach rational conclusions if the argument is laid out right, but they'll punish liars and browbeaters 'til NYC is under 3 feet of water.

The left is hardly a self enlightened group but I continue to break with your view of the reasonableness of middle America let alone the right that matches the left blow by blow with shrillness, bringing the discussion to a stalemate.

And as smart as your right spokesperson suggestion is, its not an easy task. Here an excerpt from the Congressional testimony of Jim Rogers, CEO Duke Energy:

"Some have questioned how, as the third largest consumer of coal, I could be so outspoken on the need to address climate change through legislation. At this point, I view the science as having resolved two important questions: The earth is warming and human activities are contributing. The scientific debate has now moved to questions of timing and ultimate impact. In any event, it is my judgment that we need to act now to begin reducing our carbon footprint."

Rogers is charming, articulate, a long time industry business guy. He speaks and writes about this stuff a lot. I've seen him speak in person and have spoken with him one on one. He is opinionated and forceful but nowhere near being a self pontificating A hole. I think he is as close to I've seen as a powerful "middle of the road, former skeptic" that you could find. As a result of his positions, he takes flack from all sides. And I don't see the discussion changing until we are underwater.

[SamIAm]

So, one of my more mundane responsibilities is to approve trip requests for my staff. The report I get from the travel agency includes:

Airfare
Hotel
Car
CO2 Emissions

I kid you not, I just got one for 486 lbs. My year to date figure is already staggering and we aren't even through February.

I wonder what the point of it is, do they really expect me to deny a trip request based on this factor? Does it make someone somewhere feel like they are doing something good?

I think I will approve the 486 lbs, but encourage him to try to bring it in under 450, maybe by breathing less.

[RPS]

Does it make someone somewhere feel like they are doing something good?

More likely the point is to make you feel bad, or guilty.

[RPS]

The left is hardly a self enlightened group but I continue to break with your view of the reasonableness of middle America let alone the right that matches the left blow by blow with shrillness, bringing the discussion to a stalemate.

In my humble opinion the “reasonable” expectations of Middle America is that whatever we do has to be affordable. If we try to diminish global warming by replacing coal electrical generating plants with solar, wind, tidal, or whatever, it has to first be affordable. Middle America doesn’t want to be forced into a situation where they have to choose between power and food. And in reality, it’s more like the average American doesn’t want to have to choose between higher-cost power and giving up eating out or going to the movies. Sadly, my guess is that many Americans don’t care about the environment beyond their personal reach much at all.

Having said that, do you recall about 2 years ago a few outspoken environmentalist (some would say extremist) who declared on this very forum that it would be OK with them if we sent “human” living standards in the US back a couple of hundred years if it meant helping the environment? When extremist make those kinds of remarks it causes a lot of damage; and much of it irreversible.

I want to save the planet as much as the next “average” guy and likely a lot more, but we all have to be smarter about reaching scientific consensus. Having hidden agendas behind the scenes is a deal breaker for most Americans. That some environmentalists don’t understand those negative sentiments is puzzling to me. It may not be rational fear, but is real. When average guys know that environmentalists ultimately want to separate them from their cars they become instant skeptics.

[Kirk007]

Does it make someone somewhere feel like they are doing something good?

Some folks choose and I imagine some companies/ngos even have policies to buy carbon offsets (which seems like a scam to me) but I'd guess this is it. Maybe Al Gore is a client and requested it so he can keep track...

[BdaGhisallo]

To plagiarize Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit fame, I'll believe AGW is a crisis when the folks who say it is start acting as if it is!

And I am thinking primarily of Al Gore, the UN, and all the lefty elites who lecture the peasants about the evils of Global Warming, nay Climate Change, as they jet from conference to conference in their private jets.

If it is now climate change that we are worried about, and if we accept that the Earth has been both warmer and colder than it is now, how have we determined that the current level of global temps is the correct one? It's kind of like the question of species extinction for me. Species have been going extinct since the Earth was born. It's nature at work. What determined that the current collection of species extent right now is the correct one that we need to preserve at all costs?

[Kirk007]

I
Having said that, do you recall about 2 years ago a few outspoken environmentalist (some would say extremist) who declared on this very forum that it would be OK with them if we sent “human” living standards in the US back a couple of hundred years if it meant helping the environment? When extremist make those kinds of remarks it causes a lot of damage; and much of it irreversible.

I don't and I searched for this but didn't find it - where's Adam and his search skills when you need them! But I take your word for it, and hope it wasn't me - don't think so - searched my own posts - but I know there are folks out there that earnestly believe that. Sure its radical and turns others off, but it truly goes both ways in this debate. Many of the posts here simply make me believe that we will never get it together in time to make a difference, which is pretty demoralizing for a parent.

The only reason I still post to these threads is that they keep coming back to life with comments that I think are every bit as extreme and irrational as the send human living standards back 200 years, and at times I'm bored and need to exercise the part of the brain that engages in rhetorical give and take, even if it is only at the low level allowed by the nature of the forum and time constraints. And indeed the forum atmosphere allows a certain degree of latitude in arguments that more serious venues do not permit.

That said, my search disclosed that these threads have been going on since at least June of 2006 with the very same arguments being made all these years. Probably time for me to implement an ignore policy.

[RPS]

I don't and I searched for this but didn't find it - Summarizing from memory (which I know I shouldn’t), there were some who feared that implementing too many environmental regulations and programs would destroy the economy, and that in the long run we would all suffer. They predicted higher costs, loss of jobs, etc…. The counter argument was that hurting the economic well being for some people would be OK if it saved the environment. I’m guessing the person writing the statement did not really think economic Armageddon could occur.

That was “about” two years ago and most likely before the economy hit a wall. Today, suggesting any such action takes on a completely different meaning. Additional real pain seems a lot more plausible presently.

[Kirk007]

This was forwarded to me today:

Published on The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com)

Frank Luntz On How To Pass A Climate Bill
Jesse Zwick January 21, 2010 | 4:55 pm

For a long time, GOP pollster Frank Luntz was mainly known as the guy who wrote a 2002 memo advising the Bush administration to "make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate [about global warming]." So it was a little surprising to see him this morning at the National Press Club, teaming up with the Environmental Defense Fund on a new set of poll findings about climate legislation. Even Luntz couldn't help joking about it: "When [EDF president] Fred asked me to do this with him, I asked, 'Do you know who I am?' "



In any case, Luntz's findings themselves are notable—mainly because they show that, despite all the gloom among Democrats, there appears to be broad bipartisan support for climate legislation. At least as long as it's not couched in terms of climate change. After a series of studies conducted last November and December, Luntz concluded that most people do believe climate change is real, but aren't necessarily going to support sweeping legislation on that premise alone. "You're fighting the wrong battle," he told the assembled group of advocates. People want to hear about "energy dependence on the Middle East" and "creating jobs that can't be shipped overseas" rather than "melting glaciers or polar bears." Some other findings:

--“Cleaner, safer, healthier” is a more effective phrase than “sustainability.” Sustainability is about maintaining the present, while politicians have to be for something new and better in order to win support.

--Even more specific, enviros tend to focus on “clean” while Americans want to focus on “health.”

--Stop saying “green jobs.” Say “American jobs.”

--“Carbon neutral” conjures up “Hollywood types flying across the country and buying carbon offsets.” “Accountability for polluters,” on the other hand, conjures up good governance.

Luntz insists that Americans would support a cap on carbon emissions—80 percent of Dems, but also 43 percent of Republicans he surveyed are either definitely or pretty sure climate change is a problem that's caused in part by humans. But he doesn't believe cap-and-trade can pass as long as "it’s called ‘cap-and-trade,’ and all the messaging that’s been used against it. The title has become so demonized that they’ve got to come up with a new name.” Okay, but is that really all that's standing in the way? John Kerry already refuses to use the phrase "cap-and-trade" (he prefers the term "pollution-reduction bill"), and his climate bill's still facing an uncertain fate. Clearly there's more than shoddy messaging at play.

(flickr photo credit: oc evee)

[Tobias]

I find this logic incredibly naive. No wonder Americans hate politicians.

For them to think most of us are that stupid is insulting. Changing the name of a stupid idea may work on a few but it won't go unnoticed by the majority; particularly after it's been pointed out to them by those smart enough to see the BS. :crap:

[1centaur]

I doubt that a CEO of a major corporation (a fat cat) will get much street cred from either side. The natural instinct is that he saw the political writing on the wall and is trying to position his company to be less damaged by it, using smooth and confident tones of course. We've seen that sort of behavior by so many Fortune 500 companies at this point it's difficult to imagine anything else. If he's as good as you think, he needs to travel the network circuit 10 weeks a year engaging on the issue with everyone from Beck and O'Reilly to Oprah and Regis, including the Wall Street Journal and the most ardent well known skeptics. Testifying in front of his transactional counterparts is not proof enough of the depth of is conviction.

I think the movement itself needs a person with gift of gab who can say this is what I thought, this is why I changed my mind, here are the arguments against, here is why they're wrong. I also think the message needs to stress what can and can't be done by human actions that are easy, and human actions that are difficult/expensive. Americans know that if business pays, they pay - it's all one bill, so what's the tab and what's the effect? Is it worth it? Are minor measures worth it, or can only major efforts across the globe have a real effect on modeled temperatures? Driving a Prius makes some people feel virtuous, but would 10 million Prius drivers make a meaningful dent in AGW within the context of an industrializing Asia? If we put all our money into that 100-sq. mile solar farm, or $20 billion into PV research, could we leap far ahead of what today's run-of-the-mill carbon footprint fretting gets us? US military will be using algae-based fuel next year in surprisingly large quantities - might technology be a better savior than self-sacrifice? Americans would embrace a man-on-the-moon approach with a lower threshold of evidence than a self-sacrifice approach.

To me, these are first day questions/issues, but I don't see them in the mainstream, I see round and round the bush on temperature data, settled science and finger pointing. Start pointing out low cost options (i.e., those that don't cost much to do but have big effect) and more people will do them because heck, why not? I do believe in American common sense, but I don't believe in arguing science directly with them nor in trust me pronouncements. Emotional persuasion is the key, but informed by intellect and fair play. You may think that's happened, but it's not in the lingua franca IMO.

Finally, kirk007, I hope you don't use the ignore key because I learn from you and appreciate your approach to the topic. I hope you also don't ignore 93LTi because his copy-and-paste skills are not only impressive but most often well considered and thus an appropriate hurdle for you to overcome if you're trying to stay sharp. That they are unrelenting and often long should not detract from their content, which to me does not seem angry but instead determined and thoughtful. Would that more people be willing and able to engage the issues so clearly.

I do get that these threads can be wearing on the main protagonists, and nobody will be surprised if any of us chooses not to respond to a given point, nor will we assume acquiescence therefrom.

BTW - think a lot of that Luntz stuff is correct, though not cap and trade by another name.

[93legendti]

Summarizing from memory (which I know I shouldn’t), there were some who feared that implementing too many environmental regulations and programs would destroy the economy, and that in the long run we would all suffer. They predicted higher costs, loss of jobs, etc…. The counter argument was that hurting the economic well being for some people would be OK if it saved the environment. I’m guessing the person writing the statement did not really think economic Armageddon could occur.

That was “about” two years ago and most likely before the economy hit a wall. Today, suggesting any such action takes on a completely different meaning. Additional real pain seems a lot more plausible presently.
I seem to recall the post you speak of as well. Here's one that is close, but not the one that made me shudder, iirc:

I haven't seen the movie. It is the first time I hear of it. I'll just say, though, that for the last few years I have been advising the thesis of a young man who graduates this year from Harvard (his major is environmental policy), and from what I have learned so far from been exposed to him and others in the field, it is hard to exaggerate the poor environmental health of the planet.

As a matter of fact, the world is in such poor shape that in time men will have to transform the very foundations of the prevailing economic and political system in order to save the planet and ourselves. A system based in short-term self-interest where businneses are fueled by yearly bottom-lines, and politicians by elections every four years, will have to give way to a longer term sense of direction. Hey, that's what the guys with the pointy heads are saying; please don't shoot the messenger, atmo. There migtht be light at the end of the tunnel after all, iirc.

" Then the sands will roll
Out of a carpet of gold
For your weary toes to be touchin'
And the ship's wise men
Will remind you once again
That the whole wide world is watchin' " (B. Dylan, When the Ships Come In)

[Kirk007]

this one makes me shudder too, but for different reasons I suspect ...

[1centaur]

Hate to drag back this thread, but this story is right on point about confirmation bias and goes to the heart of why the AGW debate has stalled (regardless of which side one takes):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124008307&ft=1&f=1007&sc=YahooNews

Off topic, but this story makes me think politicians should focus on shaping worldview rather than debate issues; the more difficult the issue, the more worldview wins. Complexity is tough for large groups to deal with and the world is only getting more complex.

[Ray]

Off topic, but this story makes me think politicians should focus on shaping worldview rather than debate issues; the more difficult the issue, the more worldview wins. Complexity is tough for large groups to deal with and the world is only getting more complex.
I agree that shaping world view is a key task of a good politician, but you still have to deal with legislation on issues that are inherently complex (regardless of how simplistic the worldview can be made to sound). And the devil, as they say, is in the details, so they'd better be prepared to debate the tough issues too. The rest is up to us. If we're gonna let an overly simplistic world view dictate overly simplistic legislation because that's all our puny little brains can absorb, we get the government we deserve. For a democracy to work, you gotta have both.

Not that I'm optimistic.

-Ray

[RPS]

......this story is right on point about confirmation bias.....
In that case environmentalist should push the issue more in summer when we are all hot as hell and are more receptive to the idea. Pushing global warming in the middle of winter -- not to mention one of the coldest in decades -- is a little less effective. ;)

[Ray]

In that case environmentalist should push the issue more in summer when we are all hot as hell and are more receptive to the idea. Pushing global warming in the middle of winter -- not to mention one of the coldest in decades -- is a little less effective. ;)
Reminds me of the old joke, politically INcorrect, about the three national representatives discussing their space programs. The first two were talking about the subtleties of their missions to the moon and which would better overcome the technical challenges. The third, from a nation not know for its intellectual prowess, proudly boasted that his country was bypassing the moon and going to the sun. 'But your astronauts will burn up and die before they even get close' warned the other two. To which he replied "nahhh, we got that covered, we're going at night".

-Ray

[Tobias]

I agree that shaping world view is a key task of a good politician, but you still have to deal with legislation on issues that are inherently complex (regardless of how simplistic the worldview can be made to sound). And the devil, as they say, is in the details, so they'd better be prepared to debate the tough issues too. The rest is up to us. If we're gonna let an overly simplistic world view dictate overly simplistic legislation because that's all our puny little brains can absorb, we get the government we deserve. For a democracy to work, you gotta have both.

Not that I'm optimistic.

-Ray
Ray, I agree that the devil is in the details, but when details can be over simplified to a common denominator as in the sarcastic joke below I received this morning, government wisdom and integrity are put under fire. And the same applies to environmentalist or any other group with special interests. The part of the article 1centaur referenced that I like best is the one about the messenger. We know Al Gore would exaggerate if necessary to make a point, right? It’s no different than cyclist on this forum exaggerating about equipment all the time. We do have a built-in bias that other groups don’t buy into as we do.
Oilfield Math:

Think of it this way:

A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year.

A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year.

So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year.

They claim 700,000 vehicles so that's 224 million gallons saved per year.

That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption.

More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars. So, the government paid $3 Billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million.

We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved.

I'm pretty sure they will do a great job with our health care, though.
Of course, they forgot that the savings are every year, but that's not the point, is it? People see what they want to see. In my case I see a government getting involved in an area they don't belong. Whether the cost was justified or not, whether it helps clean the environment or not, or whether it takes 10 years to pay back the investment is not important to me. The bigger issue of it not being government's role dominates.

[1centaur]

Hey, these things should be available to solve global warming about when all the new nukes will be up and running:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20100225/tc_pcworld/10questionsaboutthebloomenergyserver

[William]

There is an interesting article in the latest edition of National Geographic concerning very small nuclear reactors = Mini nukes. These could be used for remote towns, or linked up with other minis to power cities.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/big-idea/08/mini-nukes

Makers of such Nukes...

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/
http://www.nuscalepower.com/index.php
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/nuclearenergy/english/




William

[RPS]

Hey, these things should be available to solve global warming about when all the new nukes will be up and running:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20100225/tc_pcworld/10questionsaboutthebloomenergyserver
Our paper indicated the cost of each server at about $700,000 to $800,000 for 100 KW. Compared to a typical gas-fueled engine/generator that’s really expensive. Costs have to come way down first unless their efficiency is incredibly high. And even at 100 percent I'm not sure they would be affordable.

Of concern is that if heat dissipation is indeed a serious issue as stated in item #7 then it suggests low efficiency. Of the energy in the natural gas some ends up converted to electricity and the rest is rejected as waste heat. If heat rejected is more than a typical power plant or engine then it’s a bad sign. Personally I doubt that’s the case since most fuel cells are relatively efficient.

We’d also have to expect that if more energy and cost efficient than present power plants fueled by natural gas that utilities would install them along side existing generators. Obviously there is an advantage to having them located at our homes so rejected heat can be used to heat water and/or the house, but the complexity and maintenance of many sites is normally a problem for these types of power ventures.

[93legendti]

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/01/three-scientist.html

The German magazine Der Spiegel has an op-ed today by climate researchers Richard Tol, Roger Pielke, and Hans von Storch criticizing a range of procedures at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and its head, Rajendra Pachauri. The three have criticized the body in the past, but this call for reform, which will be published in English tomorrow (here), is probably their most strident yet.

"Without deep-reaching institutional reform, the IPCC and climate science as a whole are threatened with more than bad press. They risk their credibility and the acceptance of the people," write the researchers. The authors criticize Pachauri for what they call his political pronouncements—calling for carbon dioxide levels of no more than 350 parts per million, for example, or recommending that people eat less meat—as well as his handling of the leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia.

The latest debate over a mistake in projections that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 is "not an isolated case," the authors write, and while mistakes are unavoidable, Pachauri has failed to implement a system that would catch and correct them.

There's no erratum policy, no stated conflicts-of-interest policy, and no transparent vetting of participants, they say. "Climate politics is important. The IPCC is also important. This importance requires a reform—before the reputation of climate science is irreparably damaged." Should Pachauri step down? "It's not really about him. It's an institutional failing," Pielke told ScienceInsider.

To come soon: an exclusive interview with Pachauri.

[whforrest]

Global cooling will be the end of us.....oh yeah that was 40 years ago. This whole thing is wrong. If u understand how much money could be made by buying and selling carbon credits you would understand why so many people are on the bandwagon. If cap and trade passes gore will become the next billionaire worldwide. We don't know enough yet to start making radical changes. The climate models have yet to prove anything other than the climate changes like it always has.

This is my informed opinion, so please don't get too Scotty sensitive about my post.

Happy cycling, bill

[93legendti]

...A group of Democratic senators is urging the Obama administration to suspend an economic stimulus program aimed at financing renewable energy, complaining that money is going to projects that are creating jobs in foreign countries.

Four senators wrote to Treasury Sec. Geithner to request a moratorium on the Recovery Act program. They asked that the moratorium remain in place until they can pass legislation mandating stimulus aid flow only to projects which preserve and create U.S. jobs."A critical Recovery Act priority is investment in the domestic renewable and clean energy industry, not investment in foreign manufacturers," the senators wrote in the letter, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. The lawmakers cited a report by the Investigative Reporting Workshop which found that a majority of the program's grants went to foreign-owned companies, and that a majority of the turbines purchased with the money were built by foreign manufacturers...

Last fall, a joint venture was announced involving China's Shenyang Power Group, Cielo Wind Power LP of Austin, Texas, and a private equity firm, U.S. Renewable Energy Group, to build a $1.5 billion Texas wind energy project. Because the wind turbines are to be manufactured in China, Schumer wrote to Energy Secretary Steven Chu last November urging him to reject federal funding for the project...

[William]

How many MW's were they looking to produce per turbine? The majority of large wind turbine mfr's producing 1.5 MW and up are off-shore.

http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byP/wRP/lwindturbine/byB/mfg/byN/byName.shtml

Did they pair up with the Chinese company because of cost, or desired MW production?

Just askin'




William

[fiamme red]

How many MW's were they looking to produce per turbine? The majority of large wind turbine mfr's producing 1.5 MW and up are off-shore.

http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/byP/wRP/lwindturbine/byB/mfg/byN/byName.shtml

Did they pair up with the Chinese company because of cost, or desired MW production?

Just askin'William, will you please stop bringing this thread back on-topic? ;)

[William]

William, will you please stop bringing this thread back on-topic? ;)

Silly me! :crap:



William ;) :)