Solar and Wind Will Not "Save" the Climate

[NickW + 2,714]

27 minutes ago, BuddaonTiger said:

CO2 is not a green house gas.  It is the stuff plants breathe.  I want more CO2.  I want bigger and healthier plants, which will produce more oxygen.  I like oxygen. 

CO2 was proven to be a Greenhouse Gas in the 1860's and has proven to be ever since. You can demonstrate this is a lab. 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

Offshore Wind is the natural new home of offshore oil and gas workers. The skills sets are quite transferrable in many cases.

Hey Jaycee

273 wind jobs advertised on Oil and Gas Job Search. 

https://www.oilandgasjobsearch.com/Oil-and-Gas-Jobs/Search/wind?search_term=wind&FromMainSearchForm=true&GeoPlaceId=0&DistanceMultiplier=0.62137

[NickW + 2,714]

10 minutes ago, BuddaonTiger said:

Boy, all you socialists are the same.  Your argument is so weak you need to attack the character of people instead of their facts.  I call B.S. on your assertion that any new capacity is coming from the private sector.  I know how the govt. works.  It uses companies as fronts and gives them money at the expense of people, who are forced to pay due to taxes.   You are probably being paid by the thieves promoting the inferior power source. 

They built one of these solar plants outside Tonopah, NV.  It is an abomination.  It does not produce enough electricity to power a Christmas Tree.  It cost over 1.2 billion dollars.  It will never recoup the investment, because the life of the solar cells only last about 25 years.  The land it occupies is 3 times larger than a normal power plant.  It has killed thousands of birds as they are incinerated by the mirrors.  The power plant consumes scarce water instead of going to valuable vegetation, wildlife and people. 

I can see the subsidy on my power bill.  There is a tax placed on my bill in order to fund these solar projects.  Also, they charge me more for electricity due to govt. forcing companies to use solar energy.  You may be able to fool people who don't pay attention but your argument falls on deaf ears here.  People pay attention here. 

Big time fail case when you pull in the politics angle. 

Concern about the environment spans the political spectrum. My politics are centre right / right leaning so I am certainly not a Socialist.

[NickW + 2,714]

13 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Sorry coming to this thread late the comment above made me laugh to be honest.

So you are saying the weather patterns of global warming are 'very predicable'? Wow now that's a statement I thought scientists were predicting they would be very unstable not predictable. Changing to wind and solar when the world is about to have its weather patterns turned on their head seems rather risky no?

Only following your logic here, as with most of the renewables lobby it is not well thought out as I repeatedly try to get you to and others here to face upto. Everything will work first time and cost no money seems to be the renwables point of view logical thought and counter argument is frowned upon.

Wind forecasts are so predictable now that the outurn closely matches the initial and final forecasts . Don't believe me - take a look for yourself. 

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=generation/windforcast/out-turn

 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

Good job gas, especially fracked gas has such a low environmental impact in the areas it is exploited.....

 

 

Most people do not fly around in airplanes to look at the land. Animals do just fine around oil drilling sites. The land surrounding these sites returns to normal a few years after the wells are completed. I have traveled throughout the Texas oilfields. The area is just as it was. Sure it will be better once the oil and gas are removed. The population is very sparse and relies on oil companies for its economy. Oil has been a great boon for Texas. The wind turbines are more intrusive visually than oil sites. They are also kill thousands of birds. 

See Problems with Wind Turbines https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zx10GNbo8Oj7kDTxPF1vUZ5u0b8ce07zsEojs9U7u10/edit

Problems with Solar Panels https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTwu4bI13ewq6wHYSBhvwfRptf6NL8u-03vFEnrKscA/edit

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Most people do not fly around in airplanes to look at the land. Animals do just fine around oil drilling sites. The land surrounding these sites returns to normal a few years after the wells are completed. I have traveled throughout the Texas oilfields. The area is just as it was. Sure it will be better once the oil and gas are removed. The population is very sparse and relies on oil companies for its economy. Oil has been a great boon for Texas. The wind turbines are more intrusive visually than oil sites. They are also kill thousands of birds. 

See Problems with Wind Turbines https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zx10GNbo8Oj7kDTxPF1vUZ5u0b8ce07zsEojs9U7u10/edit

Problems with Solar Panels https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gTwu4bI13ewq6wHYSBhvwfRptf6NL8u-03vFEnrKscA/edit

I worked in the Oil and Gas industry across two continents for several years so I am well aware of the impacts of these sites both during operations and as legacy sites. 

The point in bold is a good old anti wind favourite based on data around lattice tower type turbines that have not been used for decades. Kill rates around modern turbines deliberately designed to prevent nesting are very low. 

If you are worried about impacts on birds - ban the domestic cat. 

Those links you post are just a Breitbart wankfest. 

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by NickW

[jaycee + 348]

14 minutes ago, NickW said:

Wind forecasts are so predictable now that the outurn closely matches the initial and final forecasts . Don't believe me - take a look for yourself. 

Please tell me the weather patterns of the world as global warming takes hold will they be the same as they are currently, we are constantly told not therefore will all those carefully placed wind turbines and solar panels we have now be in the right place? That is my point maybe I did not make it clear.

Edited February 7, 2019 by jaycee

[BuddaonTiger + 12]

19 minutes ago, NickW said:

CO2 was proven to be a Greenhouse Gas in the 1860's and has proven to be ever since. You can demonstrate this is a lab. 

Ban water!  It is the number 1 green house gas.  Ban the sun!  It is the number 1 warmer of the globe.  Co2 is a gas we all exhale.  It is a pollutant to me, but plants love it and give me oxygen in return.  You don't see it but all this fear mongering about Co2 is just a scheme to loot people for living.   I find it very suspicious that the only solution is to tax(steal) from me so politicians can get rich or didn't you know.  All the politicians pushing this green garbage own or control the exchanges that will force companies to buy credits.

Oh, btw, one volcano gives off more green house gases than man has produced in the entire Industrialized age. 

[BuddaonTiger + 12]

4 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Please tell me the weather patterns of the world as global warming takes hold will they be the same as they are currently, we are constantly told not therefore will all those carefully placed wind turbines and solar panels we have now be in the right place? That is my point maybe I did not make it clear.

JC, they can't reply.  It doesn't fit their script.

[Red + 252]

8 minutes ago, BuddaonTiger said:

My comments are in red, below

Boy, all you socialists are the same.  Irrelevant, aside from not being correct.

Your argument is so weak you need to attack the character of people instead of their facts.  You presented no facts.  I linked to LCOE data which clearly shows that even without subsidies there is a strong case for renewables over fossil fuels.  Only combined cycle gas turbines are nowadays competitive with the right mix of renewables. 

I call B.S. on your assertion that any new capacity is coming from the private sector.   I did not say "any", I said "the majority of new capacity investment is now occurring in renewables."  Again, saying something and then showing it to be accurate elude you.

I know how the govt. works.   The USA is not the WORLD so I don't just look there for global trends. It uses companies as fronts and gives them money at the expense of people, who are forced to pay due to taxes.  Hysteria is not a defensible argument.  You are probably being paid by the thieves promoting the inferior power source.  Guessing is not an argument.

They built one of these solar plants outside Tonopah, NV.  It is an abomination.  It does not produce enough electricity to power a Christmas Tree.  It cost over 1.2 billion dollars.  It will never recoup the investment, because the life of the solar cells only last about 25 years.  The land it occupies is 3 times larger than a normal power plant.  It has killed thousands of birds as they are incinerated by the mirrors.  The power plant consumes scarce water instead of going to valuable vegetation, wildlife and people.  I hope you understand that one example, which exaggerates your preferences, is wholly irrelevant to what is happening in the rest of the world.

I can see the subsidy on my power bill.  There is a tax placed on my bill in order to fund these solar projects.  Also, they charge me more for electricity due to govt. forcing companies to use solar energy.  You may be able to fool people who don't pay attention but your argument falls on deaf ears here.  People pay attention here. I am sure some people are competent.  However, you seem to think that your sheltered ideas and microcosm of existence represents what is happening globally.

[BuddaonTiger + 12]

14 minutes ago, NickW said:

I worked in the Oil and Gas industry across two continents for several years so I am well aware of the impacts of these sites both during operations and as legacy sites. 

The point in bold is a good old anti wind favourite based on data around lattice tower type turbines that have not been used for decades. Kill rates around modern turbines deliberately designed to prevent nesting are very low. 

If you are worried about impacts on birds - ban the domestic cat. 

 

Ahhh, I see.  You got fired and are pissed off.   Now you spend your unemployment time on a website trying to promote an inferior supplier of energy.

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, jaycee said:

Please tell me the weather patterns of the world as global warming takes hold will they be the same as they are currently, we are constantly told not therefore will all those carefully placed wind turbines and solar panels we have now be in the right place?

Of course they may change but the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west so that should reassure you about the siting of solar panels

. A warmer world is likely to be windier world. 

Anyway unlike conventional power plant solar and wind is quite modular so can be moved accordingly. Indeed even now there is quite a healthy second hand market in turbines. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Breitbart is actually the most important site for those who want to know what is going on in politics. You obviously overlook most of the material in my topics for good reason. It is strange that though I am OK  with wind and solar that advocates are not happy with that. Natural gas is just a better choice until wind and solar can bring down their expense. I have plenty of wind turbines where I live and am not fond about seeing them proliferate especially since I know that I will be paying more for energy than I could be with natural gas. The same is true of the aging coal and nuclear plants in my area. Illinois has an abundance of natural gas that it could be using. Our natural gas comes largely from other states. 

[BuddaonTiger + 12]

1 minute ago, Red said:

Boy, all you socialists are the same.  Irrelevant, aside from not being correct.

Your argument is so weak you need to attack the character of people instead of their facts.  You presented no facts.  I linked to LCOE data which clearly shows that even without subsidies there is a strong case for renewables over fossil fuels.  Only combined cycle gas turbines are nowadays competitive with the right mix of renewables. 

I call B.S. on your assertion that any new capacity is coming from the private sector.   I did not say "any", I said "the majority of new capacity investment is now occurring in renewables."  Again, saying something and then showing it to be accurate elude you.

I know how the govt. works.   The USA is not the WORLD so I don't just look there for global trends. It uses companies as fronts and gives them money at the expense of people, who are forced to pay due to taxes.  Hysteria is not a defensible argument.  You are probably being paid by the thieves promoting the inferior power source.  Guessing is not an argument.

They built one of these solar plants outside Tonopah, NV.  It is an abomination.  It does not produce enough electricity to power a Christmas Tree.  It cost over 1.2 billion dollars.  It will never recoup the investment, because the life of the solar cells only last about 25 years.  The land it occupies is 3 times larger than a normal power plant.  It has killed thousands of birds as they are incinerated by the mirrors.  The power plant consumes scarce water instead of going to valuable vegetation, wildlife and people.  I hope you understand that one example, which exaggerates your preferences, is wholly irrelevant to what is happening in the rest of the world.

I can see the subsidy on my power bill.  There is a tax placed on my bill in order to fund these solar projects.  Also, they charge me more for electricity due to govt. forcing companies to use solar energy.  You may be able to fool people who don't pay attention but your argument falls on deaf ears here.  People pay attention here. I am sure some people are competent.  However, you seem to think that your sheltered ideas and microcosm of existence represents what is happening globally.

You can show all the graphs from rent seekers like the Lazar group.  I do know all this green energy stuff is being subsidized.   I gave you real life examples. 

If you are not a socialist, then why are pushing a socialists agenda? 

[NickW + 2,714]

4 minutes ago, BuddaonTiger said:

Ban water!  It is the number 1 green house gas.  Ban the sun!  It is the number 1 warmer of the globe.  Co2 is a gas we all exhale.  It is a pollutant to me, but plants love it and give me oxygen in return.  You don't see it but all this fear mongering about Co2 is just a scheme to loot people for living.   I find it very suspicious that the only solution is to tax(steal) from me so politicians can get rich or didn't you know.  All the politicians pushing this green garbage own or control the exchanges that will force companies to buy credits.

Oh, btw, one volcano gives off more green house gases than man has produced in the entire Industrialized age. 

You don't have a clue. I assume you dropped 'Fisiks' aged 12? 

Volcanic emissions across the globe equate to approximately 250 mt of CO2 per year. That is what the UK produces in about 6 months. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Breitbart is actually the most important site for those who want to know what is going on in politics. You obviously overlook most of the material in my topics for good reason. It is strange that though I am OK  with wind and solar that advocates are not happy with that. Natural gas is just a better choice until wind and solar can bring down their expense. I have plenty of wind turbines where I live and am not fond about seeing them proliferate especially since I know that I will be paying more for energy than I could be with natural gas. The same is true of the aging coal and nuclear plants in my area. Illinois has an abundance of natural gas that it could be using. Our natural gas comes largely from other states. 

I have seen the picture of the turbine on fire plenty of times. Wow - a turbine goes wrong out of the 100,000's deployed. 

Or the abandoned wind farm (One of Jans favourites) which is more an indicator of poor local planning which failed to get a removal clause. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, BuddaonTiger said:

You can show all the graphs from rent seekers like the Lazar group.  I do know all this green energy stuff is being subsidized.   I gave you real life examples. 

If you are not a socialist, then why are pushing a socialists agenda? 

Its not a 'socialist' Agenda. Plenty of people on the right wing of politics, usually the ones with some degree of scientific training or understanding recognise global warming and other environmental threats as being issues for mankind. 

 

[BuddaonTiger + 12]

2 minutes ago, NickW said:

You don't have a clue. I assume you dropped 'Fisiks' aged 12? 

Volcanic emissions across the globe equate to approximately 250 mt of CO2 per year. That is what the UK produces in about 6 months. 

One, it is not physics.  It is geology and biology.  I am not talking about Co2, I am talking about all the green house gases.  There are at least 19 better green house gases. 

[Red + 252]

34 minutes ago, jaycee said:

My comments are in red, below.

Sorry coming to this thread late the comment above made me laugh to be honest.

So you are saying the weather patterns of global warming are 'very predicable'? No.  Is that your "guess"?

Wow now that's a statement I thought scientists were predicting they would be very unstable not predictable. No, Is that another guess?

Changing to wind and solar when the world is about to have its weather patterns turned on their head seems rather risky no? First, wind and solar investment has been occurring for a good while now and globally the energy mix in in "transition".  Second, increased warming will add energy to the surface winds and therefore continue to benefit wind farms.  Finally, the sun will keep shining, so it seems your question was based on ignorance.

Only following your logic here, as with most of the renewables lobby it is not well thought out as I repeatedly try to get you to and others here to face upto.  We live in a world which is market driven.  What aspect of that do you not understand? Everything will work first time and cost no money seems to be the renwables point of view logical thought and counter argument is frowned upon.  ?? Whaaaaaaaaat? There are clearly people who, like you, continue to make nonsense claims because they are devoid of facts.  And that's separate from not putting together a logical sense.

[NickW + 2,714]

32 minutes ago, BuddaonTiger said:

Ahhh, I see.  You got fired and are pissed off.   Now you spend your unemployment time on a website trying to promote an inferior supplier of energy.

Nope I work in the Rail Industry. Moderately lower salary, 9-5 hours,  far more stable and a nice big pension. 

To add - happily living at home with my wife and son rather than ethanol pickling my liver in some spunkbucket bar in Thailand like many of the Oily people I use to work with......

 

Edited February 7, 2019 by NickW

[BuddaonTiger + 12]

1 minute ago, NickW said:

Its not a 'socialist' Agenda. Plenty of people on the right wing of politics, usually the ones with some degree of scientific training or understanding recognise global warming and other environmental threats as being issues for mankind. 

 

Anyone, who wants govt. to interfere in society and economy, is a socialists.  The right and left paradigm is an artificial construct, in order to keep people fighting and distracted.  There is only 2 sides and they are tyranny or Liberty.  You've already chosen tyranny.

[Red + 252]

1 minute ago, BuddaonTiger said:

One, it is not physics.  It is geology and biology.  I am not talking about Co2, I am talking about all the green house gases.  There are at least 19 better green house gases. 

Global warming occurs through principles of physics.  It's that simple.

[jaycee + 348]

12 minutes ago, NickW said:

Of course they may change but the sun will still rise in the east and set in the west so that should reassure you about the siting of solar panels

. A warmer world is likely to be windier world. 

Anyway unlike conventional power plant solar and wind is quite modular so can be moved accordingly. Indeed even now there is quite a healthy second hand market in turbines. 

Regardless of where the sun rises and sets there is cloud cover, rain etc which will all be different in a globally warmed world.

Out global warming scientists tell us those winds will actually be hurricane force they tell us that every year during hurricane season how global warming is making them more frequent and stronger, wind turbines are not very good in hurricanes i suggest and you will be doing a lot of renewing of them after.

You dont need to move conventional power stations though as they have their fuel taken to them.Regards moving renewables thats all very well but what about if the country you live in cannot get enough power from renewable due to the changed global weather patterns making their use limited? 

You cannot say weather patterns are predicable in the future you are flogging a dead horse here as I said renewables promoters do not take into account reality, and in this case the reality is one they are proposing!

Edited February 7, 2019 by jaycee

[NickW + 2,714]

2 minutes ago, BuddaonTiger said:

One, it is not physics.  It is geology and biology.  I am not talking about Co2, I am talking about all the green house gases.  There are at least 19 better green house gases. 

Yes but its through a basic understanding of 'Fisiks' that you gain an empirical appreciation of the radiative forcing effect of CO2.

I'm well aware there are other gases  higher up the radiative forcing index, which should be addressed as well but CO2 is the biggie as far as volumes go. 

You evidently know nothing about Geology (as per previous comment)

You know nothing about biology either because raising CO2 only works if you have adequate levels of other nutrients and water. This is why this trick works well in commerical Greenhouses but not so well in the global environment. 

[BuddaonTiger + 12]

3 minutes ago, Red said:

Global warming occurs through principles of physics.  It's that simple.

Global warming occurs through the principles of voodoo physics.<fixed it for you>