GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Paul-S + 8]

On 5/6/2023 at 12:56 AM, specinho said:

Pump storage - do you mean when the water is low, water will be pumped from the reservoir into the dam and vice versa? Hence, zero usage of water? 

You might have missed a few highlighted events.....

1. Soil erosion upstream causing heavy sedimentation at dams and a lot of troubles in maintenance and sustaining them... 

2. Unexpected draught causing dams to be underutilized or low in productivity

3. Unexpected down pour that caused dams to be in a status of near to burst... Released of water caused severe flood with heavy damage down stream...

The design around the dams is probably problematic... Which led to "coal plants might not be just a back up plan"... 

 

Unexpected drought and unexpected downpour...caused by climate change from using oil and gas.

[specinho + 439]

6 hours ago, Paul-S said:

Unexpected drought and unexpected downpour...caused by climate change from using oil and gas.

Not at all...

Wrote a book few years ago with an aim to clarify confusing explanation, simplify contradicting and complicated popular theories. Handed it to scientific committee of Germany for review by chance and hope to have a joint publication in  one of their effort. Can not be sure if the book has reached the right hands. They ignore me for long ... 

In there, i summarized the formation of draught, flash flood, soil erosion, microclimate ( localized) change etc. Drew a chart and presented in a very small forum. The key culprit is probably not oil and gas, but development. 

Burning of oil and gas needs oxygen. This affects ozone layer, increase intensity of sun radiation reaching earth, melting of ice, etc. But, the impact might be able to be mediated easily.

Development, on the other hand, might involve some irreversible or harder to change factors.

Until we are in a consensus that it is time we stop chasing the crowd, stop flowing with popular  academic, scientific and/ or media beliefs, we can have a clearer mind to decide what is, not what is told... 

 

[notsonice + 1,062]

4 hours ago, specinho said:

Not at all...

Wrote a book few years ago with an aim to clarify confusing explanation, simplify contradicting and complicated popular theories. Handed it to scientific committee of Germany for review by chance and hope to have a joint publication in  one of their effort. Can not be sure if the book has reached the right hands. They ignore me for long ... 

In there, i summarized the formation of draught, flash flood, soil erosion, microclimate ( localized) change etc. Drew a chart and presented in a very small forum. The key culprit is probably not oil and gas, but development. 

Burning of oil and gas needs oxygen. This affects ozone layer, increase intensity of sun radiation reaching earth, melting of ice, etc. But, the impact might be able to be mediated easily.

Development, on the other hand, might involve some irreversible or harder to change factors.

Until we are in a consensus that it is time we stop chasing the crowd, stop flowing with popular  academic, scientific and/ or media beliefs, we can have a clearer mind to decide what is, not what is told... 

 

They ignore me?????

When you submit worthless BS babble you will be ignored.....

same as your posts here

 

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

35 minutes ago, notsonice said:

They ignore me?????

When you submit worthless BS babble you will be ignored.....

same as your posts here

 

You seem to ignore the best authorities.

The EIA, a branch of the Biden & Co. group, has predicted a 34% increase in oil demand through 2050. That tells you that the average American car owner will not be willing to sacrifice the family auto to satisfy a wild and poorly supported theory about climate change.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Demand-In-Transport-Sector-May-Drop-By-Up-To-50-By-2050.html

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

12 hours ago, Paul-S said:

Unexpected drought and unexpected downpour...caused by climate change from using oil and gas.

If you actually believe that, suggest reading some damned data history.  Stop spouting lazy BS.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/6/2023 at 3:53 AM, Ron Wagner said:

Rob, do you know of any wind turbines that can handle high winds without having to shut down? It would be great if any of them can be produced at a good price.

 

around 50-55 mph

 

Most of what you would call large-scale wind turbines typically start turning in winds of seven to nine miles per hour. Their top speeds are around 50-55 mph, which is their upper safety limit. Large-scale wind turbines normally have a braking system that kicks in around 55 mph to prevent damage to the blades.Aug 16, 2021

 

How Wind Turbines Could Be Used in NC

PBS North Carolina

https://www.pbsnc.org › blogs › science › how-m

As those wind speeds are extremely rare better to design turbines around optimal wind speeds 7-10m/s (16-22mph) and build in protective systems to deal with occasional very high wind speeds (blade feathering and braking). 

[Paul-S + 8]

9 hours ago, specinho said:

Not at all...

Wrote a book few years ago with an aim to clarify confusing explanation, simplify contradicting and complicated popular theories. Handed it to scientific committee of Germany for review by chance and hope to have a joint publication in  one of their effort. Can not be sure if the book has reached the right hands. They ignore me for long ... 

In there, i summarized the formation of draught, flash flood, soil erosion, microclimate ( localized) change etc. Drew a chart and presented in a very small forum. The key culprit is probably not oil and gas, but development. 

Burning of oil and gas needs oxygen. This affects ozone layer, increase intensity of sun radiation reaching earth, melting of ice, etc. But, the impact might be able to be mediated easily.

Development, on the other hand, might involve some irreversible or harder to change factors.

Until we are in a consensus that it is time we stop chasing the crowd, stop flowing with popular  academic, scientific and/ or media beliefs, we can have a clearer mind to decide what is, not what is told... 

 

I guess that we have a consensus, and it IS the crowd. That's the definition of a consensus. If you still think you know more than all the scientists, write a white paper, submit it to peer review and if it's published it's time to listen to you.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

5 hours ago, Paul-S said:

I guess that we have a consensus, and it IS the crowd. That's the definition of a consensus. If you still think you know more than all the scientists, write a white paper, submit it to peer review and if it's published it's time to listen to you.

The "consensus" is always in a state of flux as new studies become available.

Science is never static.

[Ecocharger + 1,374]

EVs not a practical long-term option for human transportation. Supplies of essential inputs will be choked,

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tesla-To-Recall-Over-11-Million-EVs-In-China.html

“As we look ahead a few years, a fundamental choke point in the advancement of electric vehicles is the availability of battery grade lithium,” CEO Elon Musk said."

Edited May 12, 2023 by Ecocharger

[Rob Plant + 2,601]

Looks like coal has had its day in the sun!

How Permanent Is The Coal Industry’s Bounce Back?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/How-Permanent-Is-The-Coal-Industrys-Bounce-Back.html

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

On 5/11/2023 at 6:26 AM, notsonice said:

They ignore me?????

When you submit worthless BS babble you will be ignored.....

same as your posts here

 

And the band plays on...

 

[notsonice + 1,062]

$74 Brent today....ouch where is the demand ?????? Fake 2023 demand collapsing??????

over a third of the year is over and the great oil year of 2023 is turning out to be a Giant Bust

EV's are rocking the oil world....Enjoy

[notsonice + 1,062]

7 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

EVs not a practical long-term option for human transportation. Supplies of essential inputs will be choked,

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Tesla-To-Recall-Over-11-Million-EVs-In-China.html

“As we look ahead a few years, a fundamental choke point in the advancement of electric vehicles is the availability of battery grade lithium,” CEO Elon Musk said."

your link says 11 Million Tesla EVs.....

Tesla-To-Recall-Over-11-Million-EVs

looks like EVs are booming

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 5/11/2023 at 9:14 AM, NickW said:

As those wind speeds are extremely rare better to design turbines around optimal wind speeds 7-10m/s (16-22mph) and build in protective systems to deal with occasional very high wind speeds (blade feathering and braking). 

No, high wind speeds are not extremely rare. They should be harnessed, as should slightly lower wind speeds. Solar panels should also focus more on infrared light use since so many areas are cloudy. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Bidens-Clean-Energy-Expansion-Is-Facing-Local-Resistance.html I have promoted placing wind turbines and solar panels in places that do not oppose them vigorously. People on this site choose to minimize the issue as if it is not real. Why not face it realistically? Sweeten the pot or move on to another location. 

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 5/10/2023 at 3:30 AM, Rob Plant said:

Most pumped storage are from naturally occurring lakes, not dams

I think you are wrong. There are very few naturally occurring lakes that have substantial dams compared to flooded areas such as those in the Tennessee Valley Authority or in large canyons of the West. I would say that Niagara falls, which drains the Great Lakes, is a big exception to the rule. 

[TailingsPond + 460]

21 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

People on this site choose to minimize the issue as if it is not real. Why not face it realistically?

People on this site minimize oil pollution* issues constantly.   Why don't they face them realistically?

* Note oil pollution is real even if you do not believe in climate change.  Visual and/or noise "pollution" is chump change compared to benzene etc.  You can leave the wind turbine area or close your eyes; you can't un-consume carcinogens.

Edited May 13, 2023 by TailingsPond

[turbguy + 1,391]

4 minutes ago, TailingsPond said:

People on this site minimize oil pollution issues constantly.   Why don't they face them realistically?

Easy answer...$.

[TailingsPond + 460]

33 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

Solar panels should also focus more on infrared light use since so many areas are cloudy. 

Not scientifically feasible.  The photon must have enough energy to overcome the Work Function part of the photoelectric effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_function

[TailingsPond + 460]

21 minutes ago, Ron Wagner said:

I think you are wrong. There are very few naturally occurring lakes that have substantial dams compared to flooded areas such as those in the Tennessee Valley Authority or in large canyons of the West. I would say that Niagara falls, which drains the Great Lakes, is a big exception to the rule. 

I agree with this.  For most pumped storage to work you need a large hydroelectric generating station aka a dam. 

Exceptions exist when a city is near mountain. Pump to what is essentially a giant water tower.

Edited May 13, 2023 by TailingsPond

[specinho + 439]

On 5/11/2023 at 9:26 PM, notsonice said:

They ignore me?????

When you submit worthless BS babble you will be ignored.....

same as your posts here

 

When you accuse an explanation as WORTHLESS BS, you must have something better and deemed by yourself more worthy to be known. 

Therefore, if you can clarify  better, in two sentences, the way i have done, please do so as a second reference.

Afterall, all of us here are somehow related, involved or interested in the topic... 

 

[specinho + 439]

On 5/12/2023 at 2:29 AM, Paul-S said:

I guess that we have a consensus, and it IS the crowd. That's the definition of a consensus. If you still think you know more than all the scientists, write a white paper, submit it to peer review and if it's published it's time to listen to you.

Not at all...

Con- sensus = same sense or agree with...

It does not need to be the crowd. Crowd, often  represents the majority, i.e. > 98% who are not doing a thing useful/ effective to change or help, including most academicians, scientists, public and media.

Same understanding will just need to be with a few effective action takers. This few, i.e. < 0.001% of crowd, will then lead the way for the rest of the less known crowd to copy. 😏

Do not mistaken all paper published will certainly be well read and quoted. Imagine the copying crowd of similar research throughout the world. The general aim of research nowaday is usually to prove its repeatability, with the same species/ condition, or different. One person copies, it's plagiarism. Many people copy, it is called research, right? '-'

One university would have 100 or more students per batch. Multiply that by

a) how many universities per country,

b) how many countries per world,

c) how many batches per period defined,

d) how many paper required to be published per year as a standard measure of progress and good use of fund ( so, you have to divide one tiny bit of finding into quartered, one eighth, one tenth or so inductive outcomes, so that you can meet the target every year, to proof your productivity, right?) etc....

You could get few hundred thousands, if not millions.......per year or so... It would not be surprising if most of those are found to be Garbage write ups or slightly useful ... Try to find one unknown paper in millions of paper.... Right? 

Do not over estimate their credential and your luck to find it. Time has change. So is attitude towards science.

The enthusiasm for research out of curiosity is an rare entity nowadays. This is in comparison with the starting point when pioneers and elders are in them. 

Therefore, just a few effective and influential action takers with me would make great changes in time... 

[notsonice + 1,062]

1 hour ago, specinho said:

When you accuse an explanation as WORTHLESS BS, you must have something better and deemed by yourself more worthy to be known. 

Therefore, if you can clarify  better, in two sentences, the way i have done, please do so as a second reference.

Afterall, all of us here are somehow related, involved or interested in the topic... 

 

WORTHLESS BS....You are the King of it....

as you stated before you are ignored on your writings........for good reason

Worthless BS

[Boat + 1,315]

On 5/11/2023 at 9:04 AM, Ecocharger said:

You seem to ignore the best authorities.

The EIA, a branch of the Biden & Co. group, has predicted a 34% increase in oil demand through 2050. That tells you that the average American car owner will not be willing to sacrifice the family auto to satisfy a wild and poorly supported theory about climate change.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Oil-Demand-In-Transport-Sector-May-Drop-By-Up-To-50-By-2050.html

The EIA is an arm of the oil industry and always has been. This is why predictions for the future always predict a rosy FF future and totally underestimate the future of renewables. Republicans, Saudi, Russian and many other enemies of renewables are not chart readers. Never have been. Fortunately many of the biggest companies in the world care about self preservation. Something FF proponanuts are willing to sacrifice. 😎

[Ron Wagner + 642]

https://news.yahoo.com/problematic-wind-turbines-stump-experts-154600692.html

 

Odessa American, Texas

Problematic wind turbines stump experts

70

 

Bob Campbell, Odessa American, Texas

Sat, May 13, 2023 at 10:46 AM CDT

 

 

May 13—Presenting a dilemma that's yet to be solved, the big whop, whop, whopping that wind turbines do is cutting wind farms' electrical generation by as much as 30 percent.

Permian Basin International Oil Show President Larry Richards and Waco economist Ray Perryman say the importance wind has achieved in the renewable energy world gives finding a solution increasing importance.

"The percentage of U.S. electric power produced from wind energy eclipsed 10 percent last year, making wind power the No. 1 renewable power source and finally exceeding all those dams built in the 1940s and 1950s producing hydroelectric power," Richards said. "Texas leads the way with roughly 17 percent of the state's power now generated from wind turbines.

"But as wind power comes to scale, the inherent technical and engineering challenges begin to loom larger, limiting its reliability and efficiency. Studies have found that up to 30 percent of the power generation of a station can be lost due to the effects of wind turbulence and atmospheric fluid dynamics. Many stations simply don't produce anywhere near the anticipated output.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

"We've learned some wind dynamics can actually strip energy from the turbine and much of the incredibly complicated math required to solve the problem just doesn't exist today."

Richards said the nation's requirements necessitate the aggressive pursuit of all forms of energy.

"Just as nothing in life worth having comes without sacrifice, no one source or technology comes without costs," he said. "Wind power has its environmental impacts from the massive blades that fill landfills and never decompose to the strip mining often used to source the vast amounts of copper and other metals used in the turbines.

"A single wind turbine often contains up to 335 tons of steel, 4.7 tons of copper, three tons of aluminum and 700-plus pounds of rare earth minerals. Anyone who has ever been on a ranch that's installed them knows the impact on flora and fauna while that huge infrastructure and road network is being built out.

"I believe wind power is an important element of our energy independence, but to think it comes without major negative environmental impacts is simply naive and untrue."

Richards said he has spent much of his career developing technologies and processes to help extract and produce oil and natural gas "in a way that shows good stewardship of the environment and the natural resources we've been given.

"The majority of our electricity in the U.S. is produced from natural gas and I believe that will remain true for many, many decades," he said. "It's reliable, transportable, storable and by far the cleanest hydrocarbon-based energy source. We've proved it can be produced cost effectively with minimal emissions.

Richards said the pursuit of all energy sources, including wind power and natural gas, "requires us to constantly evolve in our pursuit to produce them in a way that is sustainable and environmentally conscious.

"The payoff is extraordinary," he said. "The daily access to low-cost energy has lifted millions from poverty and given all Americans a standard of living that our ancestors could not have dreamed of."

Noting that dealing with the turbulence problem entails the very complicated field of computational fluid dynamics, Perryman said, "The large wind turbines that are now coming into wide use generate wakes that extend well into the atmospheric boundary layer or basically the portion of the atmosphere that feels and reacts to turbulence on earth,

"Consequently, the wakes from some terminals can impact and degrade the output of other terminals behind them," he said. "Fluid dynamics largely deal with the flow of liquids and gases, but the underlying mathematics are useful in this context as well. The measurements get a bit complicated, but the problems are solvable."

Perryman said that where there is a market incentive, a solution can almost always be found.

"In the case of wind power there is a clear market incentive both from selling power and from the current slate of green incentives encouraging additional investment," he said. "Moreover, the world is going to need to all types of energy going forward, which will further enhance incentives."

Perryman said turbulence issues "are generally solvable with the proper engineering studies to determine optimal spacing.

"There are likely situations with existing farms where the installed base is positioned in such a way that the amount of power generated is lessened by turbulence," he said. "This issue only began to surface and get attention as the turbines grew in size. It is certainly something that could be designed around even with large turbines in the future. Their wakes are nowhere close to the levels that can't be mediated with existing laws of physics and some innovative designs.

"The wind power industry has been around for a while and is quite well established. The incentives to address this issue are in place and I am sure that solutions will be forthcoming. In fact, turbines may become even larger. That makes for some challenging mathematics, physics and engineering, but that rarely prevents progress where profits are involved."