Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Wind Farms Are Warming The Earth  
User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2514 times:

New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...rth-researchers-say/#ixzz1tYFSNfrH

I like the idea that is being used in Dubai they show mid article, Wind Power Without the Blades: Big Pics
http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-power-without-the-blades.html

76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

When you're trying to extract energy from somewhere, it's not going to come without side effects. That's true of any form of power generation - solar, hydro, wind, coal, oil, nuclear, you name it. Doesn't mean that some of those methods aren't, on the whole, greener than others.

Quoting starbuk7 (Thread starter):
I like the idea that is being used in Dubai they show mid article,

Looks promising. And is still in development, whereas conventional wind turbines are available now and are well-developed and reliable, so I can't begrudge anyone for using them.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Thread starter):
I like the idea that is being used in Dubai they show mid article,

Dubai could certainly harness solar power. A couple of (very large) solar farms in Abu Dhabi and Dubai and they could power up the entire peninsula.

Wind, however, might be a different story. I don't know how strong the wind blows over the Persian Gulf or the Gulf of Oman to warrant wind farms. Add to that the constant sand storms and your equipment might end up damaged. Still, that new concept is certainly worth exploring.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Thread starter):
New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.
Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
When you're trying to extract energy from somewhere, it's not going to come without side effects. That's true of any form of power generation - solar, hydro, wind, coal, oil, nuclear, you name it. Doesn't mean that some of those methods aren't, on the whole, greener than others.

It's mostly a nonsensical research document that is only seeking to continue the funding of the research itself (the horror of all conservatives). The actual facts are that the wind power temperature "increase" is not truly an increase in global temperatures, there is not a decrease in the amount of heat being lost into space by the earth. The simple effect is from mixing up the heat between the ground and the air above it, they do not have any data of the temperature change in the atmosphere above the windmill. Nor has it taken into account the delta between the "added" heat versus the decrease of added heat from not having to use conventional sources for power generation.

This is as simply a stupid bit of research fluff for the sake of gaining more research dollars as there ever was. Though kudos for them for knowing how to get noticed and raise a furor in the press.

This is an interesting and simple article that touches on what I am saying:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...0/wind-farms-cause-global-warming/
It mentions that there was a recent report that showed that offshore wind farms lowered the temperature by a degree, so I guess the two effects cancel each other out!

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineGBLKD From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2011, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Thread starter):
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com

Great unbiased source there  


User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2428 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
The simple effect is from mixing up the heat between the ground and the air above it,

  

This goes for night temperatures. The effect is smaller during daylight, albeit still measureable, and they don't know for sure why this is. But there is no sign that windfarms actually heat up the atmosphere.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2414 times:

I always find it amusing how certain right-wing idealogues will figure out a way to slam something, anything if it contravenes ideology, including making up facts based on poorly-done "research." If it is "green" or "greenish" then it must be demonstrated to be bad for the environment (leaving aside the inconvenient fact that fossil fuels are far worse).

And so it is no surprise that this comes from Foxnews.

That said, wind turbines DO have environmental effects. There are many advantages listed to the windstalk idea, but I think that the density advantage is probably the biggest one. In fact, there is no way to generate electricity without any environmental effect.

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
This is as simply a stupid bit of research fluff for the sake of gaining more research dollars as there ever was.

Could be that, too. But I think it comes down to pure idoleology at the level of Fox News reporting it. "This Green stuff is LIBERAL! Drill, baby, drill!" The headline is too loaded to interpret it otherwise. A more balanced headline would have read: "Researchers looking into new wind farms with less environmental impact."


User currently offlinestarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2414 times:

[quote=GBLKD,reply=4]Great unbiased source there [/quote
I'm sorry, do you need to read it from some other "unbiased" sources to believe it?
http://news.discovery.com/earth/hot-wind-farms-120429.html
http://news.yahoo.com/wind-farms-mak...ter-getting-cleaner-192406787.html
And there are others..


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19806 posts, RR: 59
Reply 8, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Reply 7):
I'm sorry, do you need to read it from some other "unbiased" sources to believe it?

It has nothing to do with "believing" it. It has to do with presentation. Wind farms are NOT "warming the Earth." They are warming certain local areas at night.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2369 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
If it is "green" or "greenish" then it must be demonstrated to be bad for the environment (leaving aside the inconvenient fact that fossil fuels are far worse).

   Let's remember that wind farms do not emit chemicals and other pollutants into the atmosphere or into adjacent waterways the way fossil fuel plants do, they do not produce hazardous waste the way nuclear plants do, they do not submerge large areas of land and alter ecosystems the way hydro-electric dams do, and they do not render large areas of land unusable for other purposes the way solar farms do. And, of course, fossil fuel and nuclear plants add heat to their local area as well.

So wind power is pretty benign from an environmental standpoint.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
And so it is no surprise that this comes from Foxnews.

I was gonna say this, but I looked for more sources. The difference is what has already been mentioned (it's only a regional effect and not something very drastic).



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2357 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
Could be that, too. But I think it comes down to pure idoleology at the level of Fox News reporting it. "This Green stuff is LIBERAL! Drill, baby, drill!" The headline is too loaded to interpret it otherwise. A more balanced headline would have read: "Researchers looking into new wind farms with less environmental impact."

They are all head lining it the same way because "it sells". It is not just Fox. So it is not "conservatives" that are unfairly bashing "green" technology. The entire report is essentially a sham and as far as I can tell it wasn't commissioned by a "conservative" organization. The fact that news agencies have picked it up shouldn't be surprising.

Personally I am not seeing Fox or anyone else really using this story for bashing green projects or supporting more drilling etc. I think they are just trumpeting it as a research finding and seeing where it leads. Of course it is leading quickly to being proven stupid.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 12, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

I'm starting to burn up.
Who can I sue for this?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2352 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Thread starter):
New research finds that wind farms actually warm up the surface of the land underneath them during the night, a phenomena that could put a damper on efforts to expand wind energy as a green energy solution.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...rth-researchers-say/#ixzz1tYFSNfrH

I like the idea that is being used in Dubai they show mid article, Wind Power Without the Blades: Big Pics
http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-....html

Yep, another good reason to go with nuclear power instead.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 14, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2353 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
Who can I sue for this?

the people driving the sort of car that you love   



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 15, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2342 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 14):
the people driving the sort of car that you love

  
Cute!   

Quoting Mir (Reply 9):
Let's remember that wind farms do not emit chemicals and other pollutants into the atmosphere or into adjacent waterways the way fossil fuel plants do, they do not produce hazardous waste the way nuclear plants do, they do not submerge large areas of land and alter ecosystems the way hydro-electric dams do, and they do not render large areas of land unusable for other purposes the way solar farms do. And, of course, fossil fuel and nuclear plants add heat to their local area as well.

So wind power is pretty benign from an environmental standpoint.

They just kill thousands of cute little birds.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinegarpd From UK - Scotland, joined Aug 2005, 2664 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2330 times:

Research most likely paid for by one or more Oil Sheikhs.


arpdesign.wordpress.com
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 17, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2328 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
They just kill thousands of cute little birds.

Less than oil, coal or gas plants. Of course, those do it slowly over time, which isn't quite as good for propaganda purposes.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 18, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2324 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
They just kill thousands of cute little birds.

You'd better tell the manufacturers of these other items to stop their deadly business... and then tell cat owners to put Mr. Whiskers down:

Man-made structure/technology - Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats - Hundreds of millions
Power lines - 130 million -- 174 million
Windows (residential and commercial) - 100 million -- 1 billion
Pesticides - 70 million
Automobiles - 60 million -- 80 million
Lighted communication towers - 40 million -- 50 million

As for wind turbines, the figure is 10,000 -- 40,000.

source: http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...cience/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm

[Edited 2012-04-30 14:30:18]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 19, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 18):

So can Exxon get their $150 million back for those birds they accidentally killed way back in 1989?



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 20, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
So can Exxon get their $150 million back for those birds they accidentally killed way back in 1989?

You know, if the question was better or perhaps even included a little bit of background info, I might just be tempted to answer it.  



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2305 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
They just kill thousands of cute little birds.

Which research has found, decreases enormously within a year or so as they learn to avoid the wind farms on their migration paths.  

Of course can you trust the research?     

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39898 posts, RR: 74
Reply 22, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2291 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 20):
You know, if the question was better or perhaps even included a little bit of background info, I might just be tempted to answer it.

Well, can Exxon get their $150 million back for those birds they accidentally killed way back in 1989?

Quoting tugger (Reply 21):
Which research has found, decreases enormously within a year or so as they learn to avoid the wind farms on their migration paths.

Kinda like how our White House found out that after wasting $535 million or our tax dollars on a soon to be doomed solar panel company, within a year or so as they learn to avoid such a stunt again?

    



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 23, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2270 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 22):
Well, can Exxon get their $150 million back for those birds they accidentally killed way back in 1989?

Oh well... it might have been interesting.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2270 times:

We put up with negative side-effects from traditional sources of energy for years and years. Nuclear is dangerous and there's an incident every few decades. Coal is dirty and its CO2 emissions will damage the climate.

We need to get used to the idea that renewable energy sources also have their downsides. Wind engines will alter landscapes and kill birds, biofuels will require huge plantations and raise food prices, hydropower will alter rivers and destroy habitats. Decentralized energy production will require vast new power lines for which lots of trees have to be cut down.

What I'm saying is: there's no free lunch. No energy source is perfect. If we're serious about moving to renewable energies, we better be prepared to deal with its downsides as well. Certain irresponsible environmentalists made us believe that renewables are an all-perfect solution - they're not. Still, realistically they're the only way to go.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2345 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 24):
Nuclear is dangerous and there's an incident every few decades. Coal is dirty and its CO2 emissions will damage the climate.

Nuclear is not dangerous, regardless of what anyone thinks. Anyone who claims nuclear is dangerous is a sworn to God   . Far more people have died from fossil fuels as well as dam collapses. The Banqiao Dam collapse has killed more than all nuclear incidents combined.

[Edited 2012-04-30 15:24:54]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 26, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 25):
Nuclear is not dangerous, regardless of what anyone thinks. Anyone who claims nuclear is dangerous is a sworn to God    .

I hate to interrupt your message from God, but could you perhaps enlighten us as to when the Almighty declared nuclear to be safe?



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 27, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2313 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 25):
Nuclear is not dangerous

Nuclear is not dangerous, but the question of what to do with the waste is, and continues to be, problematic. And that stuff is dangerous.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2306 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
I hate to interrupt your message from God, but could you perhaps enlighten us as to when the Almighty declared nuclear to be safe?

Because more have died by fossil fuels as well as dam collapses, which all anti-nuclear activists seem to ignore. More people die from fossil fuels every year than from nuclear power plants, and those deaths keep on adding up. The Banqiao Dam disaster itself killed more than Chernobyl and Fukushima combined, and if you add all other dam disasters, deaths from nuclear power don't even come close.

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
Nuclear is not dangerous, but the question of what to do with the waste is, and continues to be, problematic. And that stuff is dangerous.

That is simple, reprocess it. Most of the plutonium in nuclear waste is Plutonium-240, rather than Plutonium-239. Plutonium-240 is unsuitable for nuclear weapons.

[Edited 2012-04-30 15:42:57]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 29, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2294 times:

Quoting Rara (Reply 24):
its CO2 emissions will damage the climate.




Exactly how does CO2 "damage" the climate?

Quoting aloges (Reply 18):
As for wind turbines, the figure is 10,000 -- 40,000




Yes a sacrifice of this kind is okay as long as we can better the cause of global warming. I bet those birds would rather have more CO2.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 19):
So can Exxon get their $150 million back for those birds they accidentally killed way back in 1989?



Yep we longer have to worry about a few birds dieing from an oil spill. If 10K to 40K a year are okay for the turbines a few thousand in an oil spill is nothing?

Quoting garpd (Reply 16):
Research most likely paid for by one or more Oil Sheikhs.



Any links on that?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1239 posts, RR: 1
Reply 30, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2288 times:

Meanwhile, the Coal Lobby warns that Wind Farms may blow Earth off orbit.

www.theonion.com/video/in-the-know-c...warns-wind-farms-may-blow-e,20876/   



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 31, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2287 times:

Windmills vs. Birds
About 70 golden eagles are killed every year by turbines at California's Altamont Pass, reports the LA Times..



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2284 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 32):
Windmills vs. Birds
About 70 golden eagles are killed every year by turbines at California's Altamont Pass, reports the LA Times..

And?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 33, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 30):
Yes a sacrifice of this kind is okay as long as we can better the cause of global warming. I bet those birds would rather have more CO2.

It's funny how you ignore all the other numbers from that source.   



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2264 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 25):

Nuclear is not dangerous, regardless of what anyone thinks. Anyone who claims nuclear is dangerous is a sworn to God . Far more people have died from fossil fuels as well as dam collapses. The Banqiao Dam collapse has killed more than all nuclear incidents combined.

Like you, I believe fossil fuels to be a much greater danger than nuclear power. That doesn't make nuclear power "safe", however. Accidents are rare, but they do happen, and then they're pretty severe.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 30):

Exactly how does CO2 "damage" the climate?

Nice try.   Since you're the a.net special science correspondent, I'm sure you can explain it for all our viewers.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2262 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 29):
That is simple, reprocess it. Most of the plutonium in nuclear waste is Plutonium-240, rather than Plutonium-239. Plutonium-240 is unsuitable for nuclear weapons.

First of all, reprocessing is expensive, and nuclear power is an expensive proposition in the first place (mostly because of all of the things you need to do to make it safe - nuclear power is inherently dangerous, and it's only through engineering that it can be made safe). Then you still have to deal with the other materials that you can't use again but are still dangerous. And you have to figure out a way to get the spent fuel from the power plants to the reprocessing facility - the spent fuel is a security concern, and to have it in transit over long distances isn't ideal.

All in all, reprocessing is nice, but I'm not convinced it's the panacea that some make it out to be.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 36, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2252 times:

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=770

Quoting tugger (Reply 33):
About 70 golden eagles are killed every year by turbines at California's Altamont Pass, reports the LA Times..

And?




At the large wind farm of Altamont Pass, California, 116 golden eagles (GE) have been reported to be killed by turbine blades yearly. This was established by a comprehensive study realized by Dr Smallwood in 2004 (1). Extrapolating to the 25 years of existence of the wind farm, this would represent a toll of about 2,900 golden eagles. Adding to this the mortality at other wind farms in the Western United States

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=755

Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year

On 12 January 2012, at the First Scientific Congress on Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, the Spanish Society of Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) made public its estimate that, yearly, Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18 million birds and bats (1). The average per turbine comes down to 333 – 1,000 deaths annually, which is a far cry from the 2 – 4 birds claimed by the American wind industry, or the 400,000 birds a year estimated by the American Bird Conservancy for the whole United States, which has about twice as many turbines as Spain.

http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=770

Quoting Rara (Reply 35):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 30):

Exactly how does CO2 "damage" the climate?

Nice try. Since you're the a.net special science correspondent, I'm sure you can explain it for all our viewers



Seeing how you are a resident a.net High Priest of the religion of global warming I would think it would be easy for you to explain how CO2 damages the climate.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
It's funny how you ignore all the other numbers from that source.



So your argument is that because it is currently killing less than these other objects then that makes it okay?   What about when the numbers of these machines double and triple will you then still be okay with the rate following. I am sure all of these birds love your logic. The environmental left will sacrifice anything at the altar of global warming. Anything can and will be tossed under the bus to get those evil oil and coal companies.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2243 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 36):
nuclear power is inherently dangerous, and it's only through engineering that it can be made safe).

Can't the exact same thing be said for flying (basically if you stop flying in an uncontrolled manner, if anything goes wrong, you can plummet to your death)? Or any number of other things?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 37):
So your argument is that because it is currently killing less than these other objects then that makes it okay?

I would have to say: Yes.

And why would that not be supportable? It has nothing to do with "anything is sacrificed for the green agenda", it has to do with the fact that it just isn't that bad in the grand scheme of things.

I don't think you are against the deaths and are just trying to make some kind of argument for arguments sake. Things die. Lots of technological things kill lots of living creatures.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2239 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
It's funny how you ignore all the other numbers from that source




I just noticed that the numbers in the source where provided by a wind-farm lobby front group.       Loving those tax payer provided subsidies.

http://www.awea.org/



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 39, posted (2 years 5 months 4 days ago) and read 2229 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
I'm starting to burn up.
Who can I sue for this?

The Thai government. It's their fault they're located in the tropics.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
They just kill thousands of cute little birds.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 37):
t the large wind farm of Altamont Pass, California, 116 golden eagles (GE) have been reported to be killed by turbine blades yearly.
....
Spanish wind farms kill 6 to 18 million birds & bats a year.

Hmm...I happened to come across this...




"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 40, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2199 times:

Quoting starbuk7 (Thread starter):
I like the idea that is being used in Dubai they show mid article, Wind Power Without the Blades: Big Pics
http://news.discovery.com/tech/wind-....html

Now that is an interesting bit of technology I could get behind. Like windmills, it will still only supply a fraction of our needs, but is a hell of lot simpler - no friction loss, the actual equipment is on the ground making for easy maintenance, a tornado could go through one of these farms with minimal damage, probably (generating a crapload of power on the way.)

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
Looks promising. And is still in development, whereas conventional wind turbines are available now and are well-developed and reliable, so I can't begrudge anyone for using them.

I can imagine people saying the same thing 100 odd years ago - why bother with these electric locomotives, steam power works great.

Do you realize that most of these windmills actually use power when the wind is not blowing? They use electricity to keep the fans turning in order to not flatten the bearings or something like that.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21654 posts, RR: 55
Reply 41, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 38):
Can't the exact same thing be said for flying (basically if you stop flying in an uncontrolled manner, if anything goes wrong, you can plummet to your death)?

Yes. Which is why there is a lot of safety regulation in the aviation industry. And it does drive up cost. Certain things are inherently risky - that doesn't mean they shouldn't be done, but one has to be realistic about the cost of doing it properly.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41):
I can imagine people saying the same thing 100 odd years ago - why bother with these electric locomotives, steam power works great.

I'm not saying don't develop electric locomotives, I'm saying don't stop buying steam locomotives just because electric locomotives are in development and might show up a couple of years down the line (or might show up more than a few years down the line).

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 42, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2177 times:

Often times it appears that some here against the development of technology, though I am sure no one really is. I don't see it as "going after" any industry or that the coal and oil industry are evil. We are simply seeing ongoing development of various methods to harness various forms of energy. If the other or older forms of energy production can't keep up then new forms will replace them. If the new methods of energy production can't keep up then the old will continue for as long as they are financially viable and other forms will continue to be developed to produce energy. With this type of process wind energy and windmills will continue to develop and attempt to improve their production and reduce impacts to their surrounding environment.

To me that is not a bad thing.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 39):
Loving those tax payer provided subsidies.

If you are going to go after tax subsidies or breaks then don't as most all industries have had subsidies or tax breaks over their lifetimes to develop their technology. Sometimes it is federal and sometimes it is grants and sometimes it is from the local community that will benefit from it being there. What is happening now is no different and is normal. The USA is not providing significant sums or breaks for new technology development. It is pretty much the same as it always has been.

Again, to me that is not a bad thing.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41):
a tornado could go through one of these farms with minimal damage, probably

Truthfully, I doubt the damage would be minimal as the towers would be smacking into each other with the wind going in all sorts of random directions. I would think this will cause a lot of damage to the "pole".

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 41):
Do you realize that most of these windmills actually use power when the wind is not blowing? They use electricity to keep the fans turning in order to not flatten the bearings or something like that.

I would assume then that any power production source that uses bearings would need to do the same? Doesn't every form of power generation consume some amount of energy when it isn't producing?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 43, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 37):
So your argument is that because it is currently killing less than these other objects then that makes it okay?

Compared to the millions of animals killed needlessly by oil spills (and industrial pollution in general), the fishing industry, plastic waste and so on, yes, I do believe that a couple thousand birds killed by wind farms are a small price to pay.

Since we're on the topic of animal welfare, is all the meat you buy ethically correct? Surely you're not eating meat from animals that have suffered all their lives if you have this big a problem with birds that are killed instantaneously by wind farms.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 44, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2018 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 31):
70 golden eagles are killed every year by turbines at California's Altamont Pass

Ask them how many of them (as well as other eagles, hawks, falcons and owls) are electrocuted on transmission lines and poles each year.

Correct answer: More than 1.000.

Than there are glass windows, automobiles, pesticides, land development projects, communication towers, tailings ponds ...



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 36):
Seeing how you are a resident a.net High Priest of the religion of global warming I would think it would be easy for you to explain how CO2 damages the climate.

You must confuse me with somebody else.   As I've surely mentioned before, global warming interests me very little. I'm not a climatologist, so I don't believe I can add much substance to the topic. My interest lies in the way people handle the issue, how they position themselves, how they integrate it into their world-views... I find that very worthwhile to look at.



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 46, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1974 times:

Big Solar threatens existence of rare desert tortoise

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51206

Another one that will soon be sacrificed in the name of global warming and the development of technology. Keep those subsidies flowing.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1575 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1965 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting windy95 (Reply 46):

So what is your suggestion for power geeration that is more environmentally friendly? Or are you simply happy to let the lights go out?

Fred


User currently offlineAirPacific747 From Denmark, joined May 2008, 2412 posts, RR: 24
Reply 48, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1958 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 36):
At the large wind farm of Altamont Pass, California, 116 golden eagles (GE) have been reported to be killed by turbine blades yearly. This was established by a comprehensive study realized by Dr Smallwood in 2004 (1). Extrapolating to the 25 years of existence of the wind farm, this would represent a toll of about 2,900 golden eagles. Adding to this the mortality at other wind farms in the Western United States

As if you give a flying f*** about birds that get killed.. you just don't like the liberals and their agenda and now you're using birds as an excuse against wind turbines.. lame.

I guess you have nothing against cars even though thousands of animals (and humans) get killed every year by car.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 49, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1954 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 46):
Another one that will soon be sacrificed in the name of global warming and the development of technology. Keep those subsidies flowing.

Nonsense. The lawsuit is apparently pending, as per your article, so what may or may not be built where is completely undecided. The proposed solution sounds simple:

Quote:
The green groups want the company to relocate from its seven-mile campus to a less sensitive desert area.

Since you're apparently concerned with the preservation of habitats for wild animals, I would like to draw your attention to the devastation left behind in Canada by the oil industry:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...adian-oil-sands/essick-photography
That's a lot more damage than putting up solar panels will ever cause.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 50, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1943 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 47):
So what is your suggestion for power geeration that is more environmentally friendly?

Solar and wind are and will be a niche source of power, at least within European context. Had it not been for the insane subsidies no one would seriously consider them.
I wonder how truly "more environmentally friendly" are those made in China solar panels manufactured under god knows what HSE conditions, shipped half way accross the globe only to face a nightmare how to dispose them properly 10-15 years later when their service life expires.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 47):
Or are you simply happy to let the lights go out?

That's what the ecotards seem to be quite happy with.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 51, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1938 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 3):
It's mostly a nonsensical research document that is only seeking to continue the funding of the research itself (the horror of all conservatives).

Yes, there is plenty of oil company money available for "research" like that.


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 52, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
Solar and wind are and will be a niche source of power, at least within European context.

Oil was a niche source and will become one when the reserves run out.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
Had it not been for the insane subsidies no one would seriously consider them.

Are you saying we should remain complacent and not develop alternative sources?

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
I wonder how truly "more environmentally friendly" are those made in China solar panels manufactured under god knows what HSE conditions, shipped half way accross the globe

There's an easy solution to that: buy from companies in countries with decent labour, safety and environmental regulations on your own continent.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
only to face a nightmare how to dispose them properly

It is possible to recycle them, just as it is possible to recycle millions of batteries, phones, TV sets and computers. The sad fact that some "recyclers" ship such waste to the so-called Third World and have it broken up in desolate conditions does not disprove the possibility of professional recycling.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
10-15 years later when their service life expires.

Where did you get that idea?

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
That's what the ecotards seem to be quite happy with.

If you can't disprove them, insult them?

[Edited 2012-05-01 06:17:51]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1918 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 52):
Oil was a niche source and will become one when the reserves run out.

Friend, unfortunately: That won't happen until at least 2112 if not 2212.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 46):
Another one that will soon be sacrificed in the name of global warming and the development of technology. Keep those subsidies flowing.

I can keep this up all day...

Quoting Flighty (Reply 53):
Quoting aloges (Reply 52):
Oil was a niche source and will become one when the reserves run out.

Friend, unfortunately: That won't happen until at least 2112 if not 2212.

Ah, but it will, as you said.

[Edited 2012-05-01 06:39:50]


"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 55, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1896 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 53):
Friend, unfortunately: That won't happen until at least 2112 if not 2212.

I find it incredibly hard to predict. With oil prices rising and falling the way they do and with the environmental and (socio)political impacts of oil exploration, we should already be using alternatives to oil more than we do.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently onlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 56, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1880 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 52):
Are you saying we should remain complacent and not develop alternative sources?

No. I am saying that we should stop fooling ourselves that solar or wind will ever be the main source to generate baseload.
I would say invest in nuclear as well.

Quoting aloges (Reply 52):
There's an easy solution to that: buy from companies in countries with decent labour, safety and environmental regulations on your own continent.

If it was that easy we would not be flooded with Chinese made consumer goods the way we are. I certainly do bother to check where whatever I am buying is made, but unfortunately too many others worry only about price or don't care and legislation is not exactly helpful in this regard either. E.g. I am loyal for that very reason to Nokia, but unfortunately recently they have been shutting down plants in Europe like crazy and moving production to China and it seems only a matter of time before even high end models are made there.

Quoting aloges (Reply 52):
If you can't disprove them, insult them?

Solar and wind will require a complete rerouting and decentralization of grids and transborder capacity, sooner or later. Watch the same environmentalists who rally against those ugly fossil and nuclear power plants obstruct construction of new power lines as well. If that's not retarded then I don't know what is.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 47):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 46):
So what is your suggestion for power geeration that is more environmentally friendly? Or are you simply happy to let the lights go out?

We have plenty of nuclear,oil, coal and natural gas to be the bridge until a viable, reliable source is found to replace them. Funny how people complain about an oil well with the footprint of a house in ANWR but have no problem with making massive path's of inefficient solar panels.

Quoting Rara (Reply 45):
My interest lies in the way people handle the issue, how they position themselves, how they integrate it into their world-views

And you handle the issue by using the word "damages" when it comes to CO2 and the environment. Which tells me that global warming concerns you more than a little.

Quoting tugger (Reply 42):
Often times it appears that some here against the development of technology, though I am sure no one really is. I don't see it as "going after" any industry or that the coal and oil industry are evil. We are simply seeing ongoing development of various methods to harness various forms of energy

I do not think the government should be picking winners and losers and should let society and the market do that. And by Obama subsidising solar and wind and denigrating big oil and coal and using the EPA ro attack them they are in fact "going after" them for their ideological reasons. And they are picking winners and losers with someone else's money. We should be looking for less costly and more efficient energy when compared to carbon based fuels. Wind and solar and ethanol are not those and the only reason they are surviving is because of governments using other peoples money to keep them alive. We the people pay the higher taxes and the higher cost of energy for this.

Quoting tugger (Reply 42):
If you are going to go after tax subsidies or breaks then don't as most all industries have had subsidies or tax breaks over their lifetimes to develop their technology.

All subsidies and tax breaks should be eliminated for citizens and corporations alike.

Quoting tugger (Reply 42):
If the other or older forms of energy production can't keep up then new forms will replace them.

Without subsidies the new forms could never keep up.

Quoting aloges (Reply 43):
Compared to the millions of animals killed needlessly by oil spills (and industrial pollution in general), the fishing industry, plastic waste and so on, yes, I do believe that a couple thousand birds killed by wind farms are a small price to pay.

I am sure the birds agree with you on this one.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 48):
As if you give a flying f*** about birds that get killed.. you just don't like the liberals and their agenda and now you're using birds as an excuse against wind turbines.. lame.

Yes iIdo give a "flying F*** about the birds that get killed. You have no clue as to what I care about or what causes I support. At least you admit that Wind turbines are an agenda for the liberals.

Quoting AirPacific747 (Reply 48):
I guess you have nothing against cars even though thousands of animals (and humans) get killed every year by car.

Yes I do. Every animal or human killed in this way is a waste. Saying that it already happens so it is okay to do it some more or in another way is what is lame.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 44):
Than there are glass windows, automobiles, pesticides, land development projects, communication towers, tailings ponds ...

Yes and it is all a waste. Does not mean we should invent more ways or try to justify it by adding to the slaughter.

Quoting aloges (Reply 43):
Since we're on the topic of animal welfare, is all the meat you buy ethically correct? Surely you're not eating meat from animals that have suffered all their lives if you have this big a problem with birds that are killed instantaneously by wind farms.

As a matter of fact I do. Cost's more but worth it.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 54):
I can keep this up all day...

Hate to break it to you but a majority of oil and gas pipelines are under ground and effect nothing. The area in which the keystone pipeline would travel already has thousands of miles of pipeline underground. But now this one is a problem? Stopping it has nothing to do with the local environment but everything to do with ideology.

People seem to assume that because you do not buy into the religion of global warming or that CO2 is bad that you are not an environmentalist or environmentally friendly.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 58, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1853 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 56):
No. I am saying that we should stop fooling ourselves that solar or wind will ever be the main source to generate baseload.

Why would we even want a single main source? We don't have one today, in fact I can't think of a worse idea than making one source of electricity our main. I've lived through blackouts and rationing as a result of such policies in Brazil, they had focussed on hydroelectricity. So what we need is more efficiency and, in the long term, a mix of sustainable sources. Most of those are renewable and solar and wind can certainly be important parts of that mix.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 56):
If it was that easy we would not be flooded with Chinese made consumer goods the way we are.

Solar panels are not consumer goods, they are investments. China is of course a force to be reckoned with, but ultimately the decision for or against a product made there lies with the purchaser.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 56):
Solar and wind will require a complete rerouting and decentralization of grids and transborder capacity, sooner or later.

Not complete, but certainly major... anyway, the infrastructure will of course have to be updated and adapted just as it has been numerous times.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 56):
Watch the same environmentalists who rally against those ugly fossil and nuclear power plants obstruct construction of new power lines as well. If that's not retarded then I don't know what is.

There's one such protest against a planned 380KV line near the town where I grew up. Their catchphrase is "Into the ground!" because they don't want the extra-high pylons and cables, but understand the need for additional network capacity. Compromise is possible.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
I am sure the birds agree with you on this one.

Do you use petroleum products? If yes, your attempts at painting proponents of wind energy as hypocrites are themselves hypocrisy. The same goes for the electricity you use unless none of it is transmitted to you via overhead power lines.

Someone has already said that there is no way to generate and transmit electricity without any impact on the environment. However, renewable sourcs of energy have less of an impact than fossil fuels, so the trade-off is better.

[Edited 2012-05-01 07:37:21]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3775 posts, RR: 11
Reply 59, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1840 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 2):
Dubai could certainly harness solar power. A couple of (very large) solar farms in Abu Dhabi and Dubai and they could power up the entire peninsula.

I've also wondered why countries of the world with such a constant exposure to strong sunlight prefer to invest in Wind rather than Solar energy. With all the fund middle eastern countries have, they could develop solar fields in the desert, which would bother no one and wouldn't take up valuable real estate. It would produce vast amounts of energy during daylight which could be spent powering the grid, desalinating water and production of hydrogen. They could pioneer the technology and export it or invest in poverty stricken nations in Africa whose sun exposure could finally be converted into a financial resource...

Quoting starbuk7 (Thread starter):
I like the idea that is being used in Dubai they show mid article, Wind Power Without the Blades: Big Pics

My own theory is that wind farms disturb the air flow to an extent that local wind patterns are affected downstream, thereby affecting energy transfers between the ground and the atmosphere.
I think Wind Stalks or any other sort of wind harnessing device would produce the same effect.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 60, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1835 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Hate to break it to you but a majority of oil and gas pipelines are under ground

Source, please?

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
and effect nothing.

Several thousand gallons of crude oil released into the ground affect nothing? You'd have to be pretty naïve to believe that... or totally oblivious to ecology and the source of large amounts of drinking water.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
the religion of global warming

Climate change is a fact, so whether or not you believe it to be a religion is irrelevant to the phenomenon itself.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 59):
I've also wondered why countries of the world with such a constant exposure to strong sunlight prefer to invest in Wind rather than Solar energy.

In many cases, it's for a lack of funding. But the idea is certainly being pursued: www.desertec.org/en/

[Edited 2012-05-01 07:47:23]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 2093 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1802 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):

And you handle the issue by using the word "damages" when it comes to CO2 and the environment. Which tells me that global warming concerns you more than a little.

It concerns me as much as the next man, which in the great scheme of things is very little. The fact that the use of the word "damaging" seems to be quite an event for you probably says more about your attitudes about global warming than mine..



Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 62, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1753 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Hate to break it to you but a majority of oil and gas pipelines are under ground and effect nothing.

Yeah, because pipes were already underground when Earth was created. In fact, I think I remember seeing in Genesis the verse that created the oil pipelines:

"And God said: let there be spherical tubes under the soil that can transport hydrocarbons (which henceforth will be called oil) and that the creatures can use it for their needs. Let it pour out on certain places and be transformed (henceforth known as refinery) to their pleasure. And it was so..."



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 63, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1737 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 62):
"And God said: let there be spherical tubes under the soil that can transport hydrocarbons (which henceforth will be called oil) and that the creatures can use it for their needs. Let it pour out on certain places and be transformed (henceforth known as refinery) to their pleasure. And it was so..."

You are now eligible to be governor of: (Kansas, Wyoming, Texas).


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2738 posts, RR: 8
Reply 64, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1731 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 60):
Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):Hate to break it to you but a majority of oil and gas pipelines are under ground
Source, please?
http://www.pipeline101.com/overview/crude-pl.html
http://www.centreforenergy.com/FactsStats/MapsNorthAmerica/
http://www.rextagstrategies.com/downloads
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-oil-pipeline-vast-network-energy/
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natur...publications/ngpipeline/index.html
http://images.pennnet.com/mapsearch/all_pipe.jpg



Look at Oklahoma where they have environmental issues with the Keystone. The area is already saturated with pipeline for Oil, gas and natural gas.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 65, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 64):
http://www.pipeline101.com/overview/crude-pl.html

Thanks. The relevant bit is rather short, but I don't mind.

Quote:
Many people are familiar with the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). It is the most photographed pipeline as it, unlike most pipelines, has significant portions of the system above ground.

A rough overview of the percentage would have been nice, though.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 64):
http://www.centreforenergy.com/FactsStats/MapsNorthAmerica/

OK, so now I know that the pipelines belong to various companies.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 64):
http://www.rextagstrategies.com/downloads

That requires my name and e-mail before I can download anything... I'd rather not give either away.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 64):
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-oil-pipeline-vast-network-energy/

"The page you are looking for has either moved or is no longer available, but you may be interested in the content below."

Quoting windy95 (Reply 64):
http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natur...publications/ngpipeline/index.html

"This Virtual Directory does not allow contents to be listed."

Quoting windy95 (Reply 64):
http://images.pennnet.com/mapsearch/all_pipe.jpg

So there were lots of pieplines and operators in the US in March 2002... good to know, but not unexpected.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 64):


Look at Oklahoma where they have environmental issues with the Keystone. The area is already saturated with pipeline for Oil, gas and natural gas.

I don't know which arguments are used for and against the Keystone pipeline, so I won't comment.


Aaanyway, I do believe that the larger part of the American pipeline system is underground - even if the sources you posted don't have a lot to say on that. But the fact remains that a leak on one of those will have an effect on the environment, as did the construction.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 66, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1649 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Does not mean we should invent more ways or try to justify it by adding to the slaughter.

If they kill less than other technologies they are going to replace ...
The fact remains that wind, hydro and solar energy pose a smaller risk to the environment than fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
religion of global warming

Evidence is so overwhelming that it needs a religion to ignore the facts.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6558 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (2 years 5 months 3 days ago) and read 1615 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 66):
The fact remains that wind, hydro and solar energy pose a smaller risk to the environment than fossil fuels and nuclear energy.

Hydro poses a much LARGER (by a factor of a googolplex) risk to the environment than nuclear, since it harsly alters ecosystems. Unfortunately, all environmentalists ignore that fact and continue to promote hydro power.

[Edited 2012-05-01 16:47:50]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8707 posts, RR: 43
Reply 68, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1554 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 67):
Hydro poses a much LARGER (by a factor of a googolplex) risk to the environment than nuclear, since it harsly alters ecosystems.

It doesn't have to and the ecosystems affected by large dams vary widely - so it's best to pick one with relatively little biodiversity. By the way, the waste heat from many conventional power stations does heat rivers, sometimes with catastrophic results... and then we have the long-term consequences of billions of tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere.

In any case, altering an ecosystem is still less of an impact than turning it into an uninhabitable wasteland for quite possibly the entire future of mankind.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 69, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 46):
Big Solar threatens existence of rare desert tortoise

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=51206

Another one that will soon be sacrificed in the name of global warming and the development of technology. Keep those subsidies flowing.

Did you read the report on this situation? The project does not adversely affect the desert tortoise:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medial....15458.File.dat/CalicoROD-App2.pdf
Bring on the   !

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
Had it not been for the insane subsidies no one would seriously consider them.
I wonder how truly "more environmentally friendly" are those made in China solar panels manufactured under god knows what HSE conditions, shipped half way accross the globe only to face a nightmare how to dispose them properly 10-15 years later when their service life expires.

Speak to China about it then. We don't have control of the extreme subsidizing they are doing of their energy technology sectors. The subsidies offered in the USA are not out of the ordinary nor more than has been done since the time of Edison. From his time on the government and public services have invested in and "subsidized"the growth and development of electricity generation and distribution.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
I do not think the government should be picking winners and losers and should let society and the market do that. And by Obama subsidising solar and wind and denigrating big oil and coal and using the EPA ro attack them they are in fact "going after" them for their ideological reasons. And they are picking winners and losers with someone else's money. We should be looking for less costly and more efficient energy when compared to carbon based fuels. Wind and solar and ethanol are not those and the only reason they are surviving is because of governments using other peoples money to keep them alive. We the people pay the higher taxes and the higher cost of energy for this.

Put simply: This is not true. You are coloring your perception of what is occurring. "Obama" is not doing much beyond using the bully pulpit and the power to shape the national discussion, the government is the one "doing", via legislation and regulations and budget policy. Also it is not just the USA but every country seeking or with and advanced technology economic sector that is doing this.

And this does not create by itself a situation of picking winners or losers in technology either. The technology has to support itself on its own merits in the run or it fades. There may be support for certain ones that have found favor within the halls of the legislature but that does not make "winners". Look at nuclear energy, it had enormous governmental support but has not succeed for various other reasons from public action and fear. And at one time fusion research was heavily subsidized/supported. And what about "clean coal"?
Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
All subsidies and tax breaks should be eliminated for citizens and corporations alike.

Fair enough. I can support that, though it will take many, many years to eliminate them so as not to ruin the financial markets and industries that surround and are supported by them.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Without subsidies the new forms could never keep up.

Not necessarily true, it definitely skews the market and begs to be gamed by those that navigate the policies and laws created. That is really the biggest problem with them.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Yes iIdo give a "flying F*** about the birds that get killed. You have no clue as to what I care about or what causes I support.

Do you care about fish too getting killed?

Quote:
Power plants kill fish in staggering numbers. Every year, power plants withdraw more than 70 trillion gallons of water from U.S. oceans, rivers, lakes and reservoirs killing billions of adult and juvenile fish and shellfish, larvae, eggs and other organisms.
http://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-polluters/power-plants/
Just curious if the plight of all these poor fish gets your ire up as it does for the thousands of birds killed by the wind farms.....

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
At least you admit that Wind turbines are an agenda for the liberals.

Wait, you think that he has some commanding knowledge of any groups "agenda"? Or you think there is some master list somewhere with the word "wind turbines" on it? That is silly. Just like it is silly for anyone claiming to know what all other conservatives deem as important. There is no one Agenda for either group, the groups are simply to broad and expansive.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Hate to break it to you but a majority of oil and gas pipelines are under ground and effect nothing. The area in which the keystone pipeline would travel already has thousands of miles of pipeline underground. But now this one is a problem? Stopping it has nothing to do with the local environment but everything to do with ideology.

To my knowledge the issue is with specific sections of its routing. It really wouldn't normally be a huge issue but it has become some kind of political rallying cry and tool. All that has to be done is new routing needs to be determined for some contested but that would cost money for the company due to delays, new surveys, permits, and needing to buy or negotiate new land-use rights. So they decided to do what many companies do and utilize politics and politicians to force their original path though and hopefully save the cost. And in turn its opponents did the same and now it has come to this. You state that you are against politicians picking winners, why are you for it in this case? Just let the market do its job and the pipeline will get built and with a route that the market (including the landowners) determines.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 50):
ecotard

I wouldn't be so hard on yourself.... Really just call yourself environmentally or ecologically insensitive    (and yes, of course I know what you were trying to say but really, idiotic language deserves an idiotic response.)  
.
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 67):
Hydro poses a much LARGER (by a factor of a googolplex) risk to the environment than nuclear, since it harsly alters ecosystems. Unfortunately, all environmentalists ignore that fact and continue to promote hydro power.

To me it depends if it is a spawning river and if appropriate safe guards are put in place to allow the river to function mostly normally. I know the many things that are not good about them but most of the issues can be handled if systems are properly designed and they create multiple other benefits for the environment both for humans and nature. No form of energy generation is perfect and free from all impacts to the environment.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinezkojq From New Zealand, joined Sep 2011, 1239 posts, RR: 1
Reply 70, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1489 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 44):
Than there are glass windows, automobiles, pesticides, land development projects, communication towers, tailings ponds ...

Don't forget the odd collision with the fuselage of an Airbus/Boeing or with the fan-blades of a CFM56.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 59):
It would produce vast amounts of energy during daylight which could be spent powering the grid, desalinating water and production of hydrogen. They could pioneer the technology and export it or invest in poverty stricken nations in Africa whose sun exposure could finally be converted into a financial resource...

Agreed, however I suspect that each time the wind blows (parts of the UAE occasionally have massive sandstorms) they would be covered in sand and thus reduce the amount of power generated.  



Air New Zealand; first to fly the Boeing 787-9. ZK-NZE, NZ103 AKL-SYD, 2014/08/09. I was 83rd to board.
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7958 posts, RR: 12
Reply 71, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1430 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 67):
Hydro poses a much LARGER (by a factor of a googolplex) risk to the environment than nuclear, since it harsly alters ecosystems.

As others have said: It depends. Norway can cover 104% of its electricity consumption by hydro power, yet you won't see any environmental damage that would come remotely close to that of Dounreay, La Hague or Sellafield - let alone Fukushima or Tchernobyl. I think it is similar with Switzerland.



I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3775 posts, RR: 11
Reply 72, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1401 times:

Quoting zkojq (Reply 70):
they would be covered in sand and thus reduce the amount of power generated.

How hard can it be to install an automatic wiper system on a solar panel? Or just hire a couple of guys with large brooms...
 



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3613 posts, RR: 29
Reply 73, posted (2 years 5 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 56):

No. I am saying that we should stop fooling ourselves that solar or wind will ever be the main source to generate baseload.

The technology is already under development: Plants that create methane gas out of co-2 and electricity generated by wind energy. Its still at its infancy, but the technology is there. Those gas driven power plants can be used extremely flexible and is very efficient.


User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1311 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 8):
It has nothing to do with "believing" it. It has to do with presentation. Wind farms are NOT "warming the Earth." They are warming certain local areas at night.

Looks like we finally agree on something, Doc ! All of this stuff about wind farms "warming the earth" is just so much horse puckey ! I'll tell you something else; as I mentioned in another thread, I go right past 3 very large wind farms every time I go to John's house in northern Ill; I frequently stop and take pictures of the big wind turbines, and on a few occasions I have even hiked out among them and made a "dead bird study", and have even taken a thermometer with me and measured the temperature under the things; so far, I have yet to see a dead bird ! Also, I have talked with several land owners who have leased plots on their farm land to the wind farm people, all the while still growing crops quite close to the turbines, and they tell me the same thing...........very few if any birds are harmed by the blades, much less killed; hell, it would be like having a collision with a giant "hour hand" of a clock, they move so slowly.

I'm convinced that if someone were to come up with a way to produce power by waving a "magic wand", you can be certain that there will be people who will raise hell about it !

Quoting tugger (Reply 11):
Personally I am not seeing Fox or anyone else really using this story for bashing green projects or supporting more drilling etc. I think they are just trumpeting it as a research finding and seeing where it leads. Of course it is leading quickly to being proven stupid.

I think this is probably one of the truest statements on this whole thread !



[quote=Superfly,reply=15]They just kill thousands of cute little birds.

Larry..........I LOVE birds ! Hell, I even carry a scoop shovel in my car, so every time I see turkey vultures eating a "road kill" carcass, I scoop it up and throw it far enough from the roadway so that the vultures can "enjoy their meal" in safety.
I also would be willing to bet that no vulture has EVER been "whacked" by the blades on a wind turbine; (vultures are extremely cautious birds ! )

[quote=aloges,reply=18]As for wind turbines, the figure is 10,000 -- 40,000.
Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Hate to break it to you but a majority of oil and gas pipelines are under ground and effect nothing. The area in which the keystone pipeline would travel already has thousands of miles of pipeline underground. But now this one is a problem? Stopping it has nothing to do with the local environment but everything to do with ideology.


There's even more to it than ideology, Windy; I just read a report in a business magazine a week or so ago about why the WH is so "set against the Keystone Pipeline; it seems that Obama's "good buddy", Warren Buffet, ( no relation to Jimmy, BTW ), company, Berkshire Hathaway, owns controlling interest in a big railroad, ( I don't recall just now which one, but it's the one that would haul all of the petroleum products away from the big production area up in Canada, and they don't need to be competing with some pipeline for the business. ( Maybe Obama thinks Warren will "support him" if he is able to nix the pipeline from being built ? ) ( I'm sure there wouldn't be anything "going on" "under the table" ? )

Quoting aloges (Reply 68):
By the way, the waste heat from many conventional power stations does heat rivers, sometimes with catastrophic results... and then we have the long-term consequences of billions of tons of CO2 released into the



aloges..........in the not so distant past, that has been a big factor; as I mentioned in another current thread, I had a conversation with the plant manager of Duke Energy's big Cuyuga Power Plant on the Wabash River, near where I live; we discussed the water temp of the cooling water discharge into the river; in the past, (and before Duke owned the Cuyuga Station ), they released the hot water right out of the heat exchangers, into the river; now it goes into a big cooling lagoon, and they closely monitor the temperature before it enters the river; he told me that on average, it's never released until it's within 10 or so degrees of the ambient temp of the river; it's still enough to have a positive effect on aquatic life such as insect larvae and minnows, which in turn attracts lots of fish, and the abundance of fish supports a sizable bald eagle population. They have an "open house" every February, and we always go to watch the eagles and to photograph them. Duke Energy even has a "full time" supervisor who over-sees all of their "wildlife" friendly efforts.


Lastly.......Someone above mentioned something about "conservatives always oppose any and all green energy" projects; I can assure you, I'm living proof that's a load of horse manure ! I think those big wind turbines are a fabulous idea, and certainly no one has ever accused me of being a liberal !

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5629 posts, RR: 8
Reply 75, posted (2 years 5 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1244 times:

Quoting geezer (Reply 74):
There's even more to it than ideology, Windy; I just read a report in a business magazine a week or so ago about why the WH

Yeah.... that theory is pretty much horsepucky too. The only allowance I give to it is that yes, railroad's do profit from the business of moving oil. But as a factor AT ALL in this.... uh no, I don't give any credence to that. (Unless Republican's expect to give credence to the idea that we went to war in Iraq to help Halliburton and that administrations oil buddy's. Both theory's are stupid. Beyond stupid, and for anyone to parrot it is just silly.)


The funny thing is people keep blaming it on "lib'ruhls" but most of the push back is coming from distinctly non-lib'ruhl (but very "land rights") Nebraska and the routing the pipeline is proposing there: http://www.kearneyhub.com/news/local...0-92df-11e1-94e1-001a4bcf887a.html

Basically they want a different routing and Keystone wanted to avoid the added costs if possible so they went to the politicians to butter them up and force it through. The question I still ask people here is: If they object to politicians getting involved and "picking winners" why do they support the maneuvering the Republican's have been doing as well? This thing was purely local and about land rights and routing and would have been resolved locally, but it got blown up into some kind of national talking point. And that's dumb.


Tugg

[Edited 2012-05-03 09:11:18]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinegeezer From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1479 posts, RR: 2
Reply 76, posted (2 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1126 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 57):
Hate to break it to you but a majority of oil and gas pipelines are under ground and effect nothing. The area in which the keystone pipeline would travel already has thousands of miles of pipeline underground. But now this one is a problem? Stopping it has nothing to do with the local environment but everything to do with ideology.

You're absolutely right about "most" pipe line being underground; (except for the Alaska Pipeline), which HAD to be built above ground, for reasons I don't have time to get into just now.

But I will point out, the mere fact that most of them are underground, doesn't always mean that they are "safe".
About 26 miles north of Brazil, Indiana, driving north on Hyw 59, you will drive over a "pipeline corridor" which has a few dozen pipelines in it, some that are no longer being used, and most, (including the newest one, which is only about 4 or 5 yrs old now)

About 2 or 3 yrs ago, this newest pipeline to be built, (which was transporting natural gas) "developed" a "small leak"; the presence of the leak was suddenly "announced" by the biggest explosion and fire anyone in western Indiana had ever heard or seen ! We live (thankfully) about 12 miles south of where it blew up, (creating a crater that damn near as big as the one in Arizona where the meteorite landed, (a few yrs back)

What does this tell me ? Never live in a house closer than 12 miles from a gas pipeline, for starters.......

Quoting tugger (Reply 75):
Yeah.... that theory is pretty much horsepucky too. The only allowance I give to it is that yes, railroad's do profit from the business of moving oil. But as a factor AT ALL in this.... uh no, I don't give any credence to that. (Unless Republican's expect to give credence to the idea that we went to war in Iraq to help Halliburton and that administrations oil buddy's. Both theory's are stupid. Beyond stupid, and for anyone to parrot it is just silly.)

Tugg;

So you don't think good old "honest" Warren Buffet would do anything like that ? Who knows ? I always used to think Warren was a pretty "sharp guy", until he started "kowtowling around" with Obummer, now I'm beginning to think he might be "nuts" !

BTW........I'll agree, there may well be some truth to your idea about the big flap over "where to dig this big ditch" ? But then again, I don't recall ANY pipeline (or electrical transmission line) ever being built half way across the U.S., that DIDN'T create a lot of "squabbling" about where to put it. ( It's all explained by the so-called "NIMBY" principle don't you see ? )

Charley



Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Biggest Danger For The Earth posted Fri Aug 15 2008 10:53:12 by Airboeing
Some Really Do Still Think The Earth Is Flat! posted Mon Aug 4 2008 13:03:29 by GDB
Weightlessness In From The Earth To The Moon: How? posted Mon Jul 14 2008 21:46:42 by KAUST
Bagpipes Are Destroying The World! posted Mon Dec 3 2007 10:35:50 by Bagpiper
What Are/were The Biggest Day-after-tksgvng Items? posted Fri Nov 23 2007 14:05:24 by Allstarflyer
Jesus Is Back On The Earth, And He Is In Florida posted Mon Feb 19 2007 23:51:36 by Rammstein
Where Are All The Manning Haters At? posted Sun Jan 14 2007 06:10:19 by MSYtristar
Harry Reid, Where Are All The Threads? posted Thu Oct 19 2006 05:42:36 by GuitrThree
My Opinion On Why Films Are In The Tank posted Mon May 8 2006 04:46:12 by Blazingcessna
Americans Are Littering The World? posted Sat Feb 4 2006 15:13:19 by Airbuzz