Another example is when people say we are having more tornados in Canada,...when the fact is,...no such thing.
FAST
President Is Dead Wrong About Climate Change: Nobel Prize Winning Scientist
- Thread starter Big Sleazy
- Start date
FAST
I've got to get back to you on this. Surely the ocean is different than a test tube. Can they predict the thermal expansion of coastal waters with a +1 degree change in overall ocean temperature, all else being equal?Absolutely can. Some studies I've seen say that it can account for far more rise in seal level than melting ice.
Also is something you can experiment with yourself if you get hold of a narrow graduated cylinder.
I have a buddy who's an electrical engineer. He says windmills are inefficient and will never be a long term, alternative energy source.I agree with some of your thinking but not for your reasons.
For example, I think it probably makes good sense to phase out our use of coal. But that's not because I"m worried about man-made global warming.
I would say that I would prefer to see decisions made on the basis of evidence and thoughtful analysis, rather than fear-mongering.
We must wait for Dorothy and Toto to disappear before we can say that I guess.Another example is when people say we are having more tornados in Canada,...when the fact is,...no such thing.
FAST
Windmills themselves are not inefficient, it is just that wind energy is very diffuse like solar power is, so you need huge wind farms just like huge solar farms to get tangible amounts of energy out of them.I have a buddy who's an electrical engineer. He says windmills are inefficient and will never be a long term, alternative energy source.
Oil and coal is very dense in energy, millions of years of diffuse solar energy is accumulated in fossil fuels hence their great energy density.
A 60 liter tank of gas in a small car can get you maybe 600km, a human being is basically powered by solar energy through the food we eat, imagine if you had to walk 600 km that might take you 2 months, now imagine you had to push 2000lbs worth of rolling metal while you walked 600km, that might take a year.
Yeah, but at least I would get into the best of shape and lose weight.Windmills themselves are not inefficient, it is just that wind energy is very diffuse like solar power is, so you need huge wind farms just like huge solar farms to get tangible amounts of energy out of them.
Oil and coal is very dense in energy, millions of years of diffuse solar energy is accumulated in fossil fuels hence their great energy density.
A 60 liter tank of gas in a small car can get you maybe 600km, a human being is basically powered by solar energy through the food we eat, imagine if you had to walk 600 km that might take you 2 months, now imagine you had to push 2000lbs worth of rolling metal while you walked 600km, that might take a year.
(Thank you for your answer btw).
Water is water. Sea water in a test tube is the exact same as sea water in the ocean. Only change is the magnitude.I've got to get back to you on this. Surely the ocean is different than a test tube. Can they predict the thermal expansion of coastal waters with a +1 degree change in overall ocean temperature, all else being equal?
Actually it is one of the easier things to predict. Density (and therefore volume) is dependent on temperature. Higher temperature means lower density means higher volume. For pure water, there is an equation for it. For salt water you have to include a modifier for the exact composition but the data is out there.
Measurements I've seen say that ice melt accounts for 1.2 mm/yr while thermal expansion 1.6 mm/yr.
Wow. I thought ice melt was the biggest factor. Never thought about thermal expansion. Probably can google my specific question.Actually it is one of the easier things to predict. Density is dependent and temperature. Higher temperature means lower density means higher volume. For pure water, there is an equation for it. For salt water you have to include a modifier for the exact composition but the data is out there.
Measurements I've seen say that ice melt accounts for 1.2 mm/yr while thermal expansion 1.6 mm/yr.
They're reasonably efficient in the right ranges. The issue is they only work well for a certain range of wind speeds and finding locations with those consistent wind speeds is a challenge. As long as the maintenance costs can be kept reasonably low, they are a net positive.I have a buddy who's an electrical engineer. He says windmills are inefficient and will never be a long term, alternative energy source.
Okay but they would never be a primary renewable energy source?They're reasonably efficient in the right ranges. The issue is they only work well for a certain range of wind speeds and finding locations with those consistent wind speeds is a challenge. As long as the maintenance costs can be kept reasonably low, they are a net positive.
For conventional gas/coal power plants it costs roughly 1 million dollars for every megawatt of capacity, an equivalent wind turbine is roughly the same price. The difference is that 1 megawatt of power from oil/gas is actually 1 megawatt that you can use 24/7 more or less, I have no idea about how wind performs in our neck of the woods, but I would be surprised if on average you could get a quarter of the designed output out of them simply because wind comes and goes like the wind. Even though wind is free, in terms of overall ROI a conventional generator is much much better even when considering that coal and oil costs money.Okay but they would never be a primary renewable energy source?
For conventional gas/coal power plants it costs roughly 1 million dollars for every megawatt of capacity, an equivalent wind turbine is roughly the same price. The difference is that 1 megawatt of power from oil/gas is actually 1 megawatt that you can use 24/7 more or less, I have no idea about how wind performs in our neck of the woods, but I would be surprised if on average you could get a quarter of the designed output out of them simply because wind comes and goes like the wind. Even though wind is free, in terms of overall ROI a conventional generator is much much better even when considering that coal and oil costs money.
So assuming you have enough wind, the cost of extracting a given amount of energy is equivalent to the cost of deriving the same power from fossil fuels, BUT the problem is the availability of a constant or uniform wind to produce the same energy?
The cost I quoted is for building a power plant, those are ballpark numbers that get thrown around when I was in the energy sector in 2004.
If somehow, some way we could get wind to be constant, I would put a wind turbine in my backyard. Not because of global warming but because I care about tangible pollution in my neck of the woods; lead, arsenic, etc...
Our lives are parameterized and quantified with predictability, wind and solar energy does not fit in with our state of mind. Imagine if you had to call your boss tomorrow and tell him that you can not make it into work because the wind farm is not producing enough energy to charge your Tesla to drive to work, you would be canned. Imagine if you are a hospital and you have to shut all your machines down because the wind is not blowing hard enough, the hospital would get sued out of existence.
In europe I can see how wind and solar sorta fits in, they are much more relaxed about things and society does not revolve around looking for the first opportunity to sue someone for a big payday.
To me the typical modern north american AWG supporter is the guy who constantly complains that there is not enough green energy, he is the same asshat who is the first to cry about high energy prices, and he is the same asshat who will complain that his coffee is not hot enough because starbucks is trying to use less energy.
If somehow, some way we could get wind to be constant, I would put a wind turbine in my backyard. Not because of global warming but because I care about tangible pollution in my neck of the woods; lead, arsenic, etc...
Our lives are parameterized and quantified with predictability, wind and solar energy does not fit in with our state of mind. Imagine if you had to call your boss tomorrow and tell him that you can not make it into work because the wind farm is not producing enough energy to charge your Tesla to drive to work, you would be canned. Imagine if you are a hospital and you have to shut all your machines down because the wind is not blowing hard enough, the hospital would get sued out of existence.
In europe I can see how wind and solar sorta fits in, they are much more relaxed about things and society does not revolve around looking for the first opportunity to sue someone for a big payday.
To me the typical modern north american AWG supporter is the guy who constantly complains that there is not enough green energy, he is the same asshat who is the first to cry about high energy prices, and he is the same asshat who will complain that his coffee is not hot enough because starbucks is trying to use less energy.
That is a stupid video typical non thought out BS of AGW supporters.IMO, best video on the topic yet.
Under "false" and "yes" that needs a sad face in there. Just take one aspect, food production; planting seeds is done with machinery that runs on oil, fertilizers are made from petro chemicals, spraying pesticides takes a plane powered by oil, harvesting crop takes machinery that runs on oil, transporting the food to the grocery store takes oil, customers who buy the food need oil to go back and forth to the supermarket. Any taxation on oil will have a multiplier effect on food prices. For you and me in a 1st world nation, it is cool, most of us would still be able to eat as we do. But what about those who live in less affluent nations, those who get by living a hand to mouth existence, where are they represented in that chart? Starvation certainly deserves a sad face, of course because the guy in the video will not starve no matter how high the carbon tax is and that is all that matters to him.
Totally Ignorant BS.
Typical AGW supporter is like Al Gore - do as I say not as I do.
We know windmills to not be an efficient source of mass energy. The European countries know that all too well. And if AGW alarmists were so concerned about climate change they wouldn't be dismissive of hydro electric or nuclear power. The issue is that the movement has been hijacked in part by radical environmentalism and they are against those sources of energy. It's hypocritical bullshit.
We know windmills to not be an efficient source of mass energy. The European countries know that all too well. And if AGW alarmists were so concerned about climate change they wouldn't be dismissive of hydro electric or nuclear power. The issue is that the movement has been hijacked in part by radical environmentalism and they are against those sources of energy. It's hypocritical bullshit.
What do you mean by primary? They make sense in some locations. Niagara falls (which IMO is pretty ideal renewable generation) makes a lot of sense but of course not an option for all locations.Okay but they would never be a primary renewable energy source?
If it makes sense in some areas, then it makes sense to use it there.
Primary as in a main or first or preferred energy source that can replace conventional energy sources.What do you mean by primary? They make sense in some locations. Niagara falls (which IMO is pretty ideal renewable generation) makes a lot of sense but of course not an option for all locations.
If it makes sense in some areas, then it makes sense to use it there.
In those areas where a windmill is ideal, do they actually replace conventional sources of electricity?
I agree but did they ever solve the long-term storage problems associated with spent nuclear fuel?Typical AGW supporter is like Al Gore - do as I say not as I do.
We know windmills to not be an efficient source of mass energy. The European countries know that all too well. And if AGW alarmists were so concerned about climate change they wouldn't be dismissive of hydro electric or nuclear power. The issue is that the movement has been hijacked in part by radical environmentalism and they are against those sources of energy. It's hypocritical bullshit.
Canadians build very good nuclear reactors but our mismanagement of hydro is another issue.
Don't think anyone is saying windmills will be the most used source. And electricity works as a grid. That generated by wind, hydro, nuclear, all go on the same grid. I don't thgink there are any large jurisdictions that solely use wind.Primary as in a main or first or preferred energy source that can replace conventional energy sources.
In those areas where a windmill is ideal, do they actually replace conventional sources of electricity?
That said, it is a completely viable option in some areas. Don't know why you wouldn't use it as a part of your generation capacity.
Haven't heard much protest about hydro. Some people relocated for creation of reservoirs complain and others worry about effect on things such as fish migration but there are solutions for that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladderTypical AGW supporter is like Al Gore - do as I say not as I do.
We know windmills to not be an efficient source of mass energy. The European countries know that all too well. And if AGW alarmists were so concerned about climate change they wouldn't be dismissive of hydro electric or nuclear power. The issue is that the movement has been hijacked in part by radical environmentalism and they are against those sources of energy. It's hypocritical bullshit.
And of course nuclear has some risks. It also has some huge advantages if done right.
