another kick at the climate change cat ... 34

[rb1957]

i think the problems with burning fossil fuels are that we're returning carbon to the atmosphere at an unnatural rate, and that there was a very long interval between when the carbon was deposited from the atmosphere and when it's getting returned to it.

the second problem is meant to say that bio-fuels, which take from and return to the atmosphere over a short timescale, probably won't have the same effect on the global climate as compared to fossil fuels. Though, of course, once we start doing this on a global scale and derive meaningfull amounts of energy this way then there'll be unforeseen side effects.

i think it's reasonable to say that the global climate is changing; and that this would be happening even without mankind's contributions.

i think it's reasonable to say that atmospheric CO2 levels change with climate. i think the record shows that previously (say before the 20th century) that CO2 increased sometime after the global temperature increased.

i think it's reasonable to say that the amount of carbon we putting into the atmosphere has the potential to affect global climate. this is i think too wishy-washy "for the masses" so we're being told carbon is changing the climate ... maybe a simple message but one that has divided those wanting more explanation.

once you say that then i think it's reasonable to ask is this a bad thing, ie do we want to change ? We have to acknowledge that energy is the means to developing our economies. adding hydro, geo-thermal, wind and solar power aren't bad things ... there's a cost and a benefit associated. clearly there are some places that can really benefit for these (because of sustained sunlight or wind or water resources or etc). becoming more efficient in our energy consumption is clearly a good thing, though i suspect that won't gain us significant relief. i worry that developing economies are progressing along the same energy path that the developed countries have used, and that maybe there are "better" choices today.

we can't (won't) stop burning fossil fuels, we need the cheap energy. we can be a little smarter and make power stations more efficient but essentially we're dependent on fossil fuels. we're reluctant to persue the nuclear option, though i wish more research money was being directed at fusion power which i see as the only truly long term option.

it is IMHO nonsense to talk about reducing CO2 production to 1990 (or 2000 or whatever) levels principally because developing economies (China in particular, and probably India as well) are going to be burning more and more fossil fuels. carbon sequestration is also IMHO a nonsense technology unless you're talking about growing trees (and biomass). it is also IMHO nonsense to talk about sustainability ... truly sustainable energy would mean using energy resources at the same rate as they're being created (ie no fossil fuels or nukes) or available (solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal). but then maybe that's one answer to the question, and we'll make truly huge investments in these "green" energies so that we'll increase the fraction of energy we derive from these sources, maybe enough to significantly reduce the carbon output.

if we're going to pay taxes on carbon (through whichever scheme you choose) ... where's the money going ? what's it doing to fix the "problem" ?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[cranky108]

I believe most industries, at least the electric, is required to report rapter deaths. So if the numbers are not available, then it mustbe a govermental problem, or not worth printing the numbers.

I know internally we can site rodent, bird and rapter deaths, as well as equipment failures, and car accedents that cause outages.

We can also site MgCl caused outages and pole fires, but that dosen't stop the DOT from saying it dosen't cause any of these.

An issue here is everyone that has a message will state it, and ignore the facts that disagree with it. The Califorina bird kill problem should have little effect on the bird population here. But someone hipacritical of the few bird kills we have here will ignore the numbers in Califorina. That's what bothers me (fix your own problems before you ask me to fix mine).

 

[rb1957]

oh, it much easier to fix other people's problems ...

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[btrueblood]

"widespread use of DDT or regular issuing of eagle hunting liscenses"

"DDT was banned in the USA in 1972."

Sheesh, you took that part seriously, and totally ignored the other? What does a guy have to do to get a laugh around here?

 

[TomDOT]

I used to be pretty common for ranchers to just shoot eagles (and well after 1972) - federal protection or not.

 

[rb1957]

it's pretty common for ranchers to shoot up pretty much anything, isn't it ? and being contray to fed reg's, well either that's completely unknown, or possibly an incentive ?

as for the DDT comments ... why comment today on something that was banned 40 years ago ? sorry, it doesn't seem relevant or humourous ? (and ask greg about having sarcasm missread)

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[KENAT]

btrue, attempts to inject humor into anthropogenic climate change related threads rarely works. Kind of like trying to apply logic or reasoning to the topic.;-)

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[CheckerHater]

That's what the headline from few days ago is trying to do (to inject humor):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ne-bird-death-rule-as-cats-kill-millions.html

 

[btrueblood]

Kenat: ayup. Tilting at windmills.

 

[rconnor]

TomDOT – My comment wasn’t directed at you in particular but at the “wind turbines are bird killers” topic in general; your comment was just the last that I saw in a string on the topic and so it caused my knee-jerk reaction (actually, there are a few mitigation studies about that wind farm in particular if you’re interested).

Avian mortality related to wind farms is of some concern, however it has been hi-jacked by many of those that don’t agree with anthropogenic climate change in an attempt to give the environmental movement a black-eye. It has little to do with concern over avian mortality and much to do about vilifying wind energy.

This is an obvious reaction to the continued vilification of O&G by environmentalists (and zdas04 I agreed completely with your comment that environmentalists are reluctant to give industry credit). Although this reaction is understandable (and, to some extent, well-deserved), it does nothing to push the debate forward. From both sides, this denigration is purely meant to obfuscate. It frustrates me when topics such as this, especially when anecdotal or when statistical evidence is mute (or supports the converse), are extended to “support” grandiose conclusions (i.e. wind farms killed eagles = wind power is evil. Every major storm = climate change is the sole cause. Some environmentalists are extreme = the entire environmental movement is irrational.).

 

[cranky108]

So we have estabilished that wind farms are bird killers. What does that mean? Do we need more wind farms, or less, or to just be more selective?

Do you trust the "leaders of today" to make that decision, or do we become the adults in this debate?

 

[rb1957]

i thought we'd "established" that wind farms contributed only a small %age of total avian mortality ?
though to be honest, i really thought we hadn't "established" anything !?

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[TomDOT]

cranky,

I think we have established that wind farm bird kills are pretty negligible in the USA except for Altamont, and they are (slowly) pursuing mitigation measures. Negligible compared to overall bird kills anyway. O&G bird kills appear to be pretty negligible in the USA as well.

I think it is good to have (modern) wind farms as part of the energy production mix. Other than the fairly critical need for fly ash in concrete, we should probably wean ourselves away from coal - it's the dirtiest method we use to produce electricity, including mining, stack emissions (somewhat controlled, in newer plants anyway) and the disposal of the bottom ash.

 

[zdas04]

I think that we have "established" that the "statistics" are made up nonsense. The only quote I saw in my reading that had the ring of truth was the guy that said in general wind turbines kill 60-70 birds and bats a month each. I do know that if an Oil & Gas entity killed "60-70" birds a year the e-NGO's would be up in arms.

As to weaning ourselves from coal, I have to ask "why?". If you had said that we need to develop scrubbers and processing to reduce SOx, CO, or NOx I'd be on board. To ban that energy source because some vague notion that it is "the dirtiest method we use" is just irrational.

As to wind farms (not wind turbines) they have zero place in the electrical grid. Nothing about their use, their density, or their return on energy used in their fabrication makes sense compared to a natural-gas fired co-gen. Individual turbines probably make sense for one-off applications, but the farms are just pandering to the eNGO's.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[cranky108]

Dirty how? Because of SO2, NOx, Hg, CO2? The SO2 and HG come from the fuel, agreed. NOx, comes from the burn tempeture, and is also a problem with natural gas and even wood. CO2 is from all sources, including you.
Hg can be removed by using chemestry. NOx and SO2 can also be removed by chemestry converting it into a possible fertlizer.

To midigate CO2, start with placing this pipe in your mouth so we can fix that. Besides if it was a real problem we should see increased growth of plants, which we have not seen much evedance.

One big problem with fly ash, is people keep calling it a waste. It is not, it is a resourse material.

Explain how it is dirty? What is the concern?

 

[2dye4]

Don't power lines kill a lot more birds than wind turbines?

 

[cranky108]

Power lines don't move as fast as wind turbine blades.

It's been a struggle to remove, or change those places where birds could get between phases or phase and ground, but there is an effort.

Strange how birds will find a favored place and keep coming back. Like the wood pole with 50+ wood pecker holes.

The incedence of birds hitting power lines is no more that with birds hitting anything else.

Most of the struggle is on the distribution system, not the transmission. We seem to have more problems on the transmission system with helium filled birds, with long tails, and long metal arm creatures.

 

[zdas04]

The statistics on bird kills seem pretty much made up on the fly. There are a (very few) places where you can count carcasses (using that data you get a couple of thousand dead birds a year and a true population explosion in the avian world), but mostly it is an extrapolation from some imaginary plane. For example a cat gets a bird, bones and feathers from one wing is over there, a foot is somewhere else, the beak is in the back 40--three bird kills right? Also a bird hits a window (an occurrence that happens somewhere between a dozen and a hundred million times a year), it is stunned but not killed. Falls to the ground and a cat eats him. That will be counted as at least one window strike kill and 2-3 cat kills. Some birds really get around. Everybody seems to be fine with a guy making numbers up and all the media outlets "reporting" the made-up number as factual. Much like AGW reporting in general.

I would expect that more birds are killed by other birds than all other causes combined. I don't have a single statistic to back that up, but it "feels" right. Please quote me.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle of injustice Frédéric Bastiat

 

[TenPenny]

"For example a cat gets a bird, bones and feathers from one wing is over there, a foot is somewhere else, the beak is in the back 40--three bird kills right?"

One would have to think that someone claiming to be a qualified engineer would have some consideration for professional methods that reputable wildlife experts use when doing studies. The use of ridiculous statements such as the above simply confirms that some people will use every ridiculous method possible to denigrate and discount anything that disagrees with their paid position on an issue.

 

[rb1957]

the "professional methods that reputable ... experts" is exactly why we have so many threads regarding the professional methods of climate experts.

i also think there was just a little tongue in cheek with the previous post.

Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati

 

[iceworm]

The statistics on bird kills seem pretty much made up on the fly.

Yuk Two point penalty for an unacknowledged pun.

One would have to think that someone claiming to be a qualified engineer would have some consideration for professional methods that reputable wildlife experts use when doing studies.

The field wildlife experts likely are reputable. However, 92%* of the office drone management - the ones that formulate policy that determines the official group output, are not. Of course, the other 8% are among the esteemed colleagues here.

David could be over reacting, tongue-in-cheek, or correct. I go with more correct than not. Personally, I highly suspect the groups publishing the kill rates have a dog in the hunt. That doesn't help their creditability.

No, I don't have a paid position. I just happen to think that most forms of "green" energy are expensive and counter productive.

*The "92%" is an exact statistic, well known, throughly vetted by me and, certainly not made up ... ahh, "on the fly".

ice



Harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction