Educated Opinions on Climate change - a denouement or a hoax? Part 2.0 29

[CajunCenturion]

==> Since the early twentieth century, with few exceptions, glaciers around the world have been retreating
This must be one of the few exceptions:
New sat data shows Himalayan glaciers hardly melting at all

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rb1957]

denier !

 

[CajunCenturion]

Denier? Me? I don't think so.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[rb1957]

There ! ... you just denied it !

Denier !!

 

[berkshire]

Todays Daily Express in london.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/300424/300424

I think they are beginning to suspect something.

B.E.

The good engineer does not need to memorize every formula; he just needs to know where he can find them when he needs them. Old professor

 

[rconnor]

Come on...this article is a joke. If the author wants to make a point, he can do so without completely slandering the other side. (Both extreme points of view are guality of this)

Also, the writer does not understand that one season, over one continent, is not indicative of global climate. Ask North Americans how their "winter" went this year; we've been setting record highs from temperature and record lows for snow fall all winter.

Garbage "journalism" like this, from either side, does not belong in a rational conversation about an important topic. We need to stop polarizing the debate.

People wonder why these topics always turn into a huge argument...

 

[Maui]

I believe that the glaciers in Alaska will more likely melt away completely before the opinions of those engaged in this conversation change.

The horse is dead. Please stop beating him.

Maui

http://www.EngineeringMetallurgy.com

 

[rb1957]

doesn't "conversation" imply people talking and listening to each other ... not just talking at people ...

i think the sun'll burn out before people change their opinions ...

 

[jmw]

Some people still think the end of the world is coming.
Oh, it is? Well why didn't someone say so?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[cranky108]

The end of the world, or another non-event like Y2K.

I think more likely you will feel more of the hands of goverment around your .... (whatever you want to add).

 

[SnTMan]

rconnor, agreed the article may be somewhat slanted, but this does not change the essential facts of windpower, i.e. it ain't there when you need it the worst, and no matter how much installed capacity you have you can't take a single conventional plant out of service, if you want to assure service.

This is want people need to recognize.

Regards,

Mike

 

[dawei87]

If the challenge of efficient storage could be worked out, then even an intermitent source could provide 100% of a community's electricity needs.

 

[TGS4]

If the challenge of efficient storage could be worked out, then even an intermitent source could provide 100% of a community's electricity needs.

However, for the next 100 years, what, pay do tell, do you propose we do? Maybe instead of wasting money on bird-shredders, some of the guvmit money (i.e. MY money) should be directed toward research into efficient storage and regeneration of electricity. Because, if the private sector figured out how to do it, they might make a profit...

I suppose that in the meantime, a little sprinkling of fairy pixie dust should help...

 

[dawei87]

Researching better storage methods is a terrific use of money, regardless of its source.

But I wouldn't say that expanding production of wind turbines is a "waste". They supplement existing generation facilities, and give private investors more confidence for risking their money on related products, e.g. efficient storage techniques. I doubt many people would be as willing to put money investing in storage techniques if the prospect of government-backed wind subsidies were more grim.

 

[rb1957]

if we developed a commerical fusion power station, then we'd be ok .... for awhile

 

[SnTMan]

dawei87, "If the challenge of efficient storage could be worked out", undoubtedly, and if frog had wings....

Regards,

Mike

 

[jmw]

That's like the French Invasion plans for the Uk back in Napoleonic times "First we lure the Royal Navy away...." and after that they could put whatever plans together they liked because the first bit was never going to happen and they knew it.

Amongst the many many admirers of renewable energy the National Trust (in the UK) stood out and they were strong supporters of wind power.... until they saw the light. Or rather they saw the darkness and the blight on the landscape.
The National Trust has now denounced wind power quiet vehemently.
The UK Government, still pretty gung ho about all this AGW nonsense, is being advised to be careful as the NT has 4 million loyal members naturally inclined to like pastoral scenery old castles and ruined abbeys, Country houses and national monuments. Not exactly naturally inclined to wind turbines at the best of times and the National Trust Board has to be very wary of its members.
National Trust members are all pretty much solid electors and a fair bet would assess a substantial proportion as normally voting Tory.
IT is thus a distinct possibility that Cameron may have to think carefully about this especially with over 100 back benchers starting to realise they have nothing to fear from the government whips and who recently discovered (way after the electorate) that Cameron is not actually a Tory.
So between the back benchers and the NT membership maybe we have a glimmer of light here.

Storage. Ah yes.
In Scotland, noting how sheep like to sleep on the roads at night and more so since the nice old style brown chipping stone surface has given way to black tarmac, it was proposed to install a heat sink to conduct heat from the roads to underground storage so they could release it in the winter months.
For electricity, the latest bright idea seems to be to super cool air and store it somehow. Then, when they want the air to drive turbines they heat it up.
Unfortunately some one asked about efficiency and got the brush off.
And yes, efficiency of storage schemes never seems to be raised.
We have a certain capacity and we seem to always get far less than capacity. Now of what we have we use some of the energy storing energy and more of the energy recovering energy.
Oh, and the other thing in the UK is the government is trying to halve the feed in tarrifs.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[zdas04]

JMW,
I think you have defined the thing that SHOULD be the golden fleece--effeciency. I'm looking at microturbines for a project and found a case study that was generating far more power than they needed and putting the excess into the grid for the sole purpose of generating heat for an Olympic swimming complex (I won't argue that keeping 500,000 gallons of water warm is socially responsible, they are going to do it regardless of what anyone wants). The process got 87% of the energy of the fuel into a useful form. The microturbine replaced grid power (which tends to get about 25-30% of the energy from the fuel consumed) and a significant steam load (the boiler got around 60% of the energy from the fuel).

Projects like that should be shouted from the steeples. Instead we hear about some really marginal "green" activities (e.g., ethanol which is less effective than bio-diesel, industrial scale solar panels which are less effective than everything, and wind farms that increase emissions of bad stuff because the plants that have to supplement them emit lots of NOx, SOx, and BTEX when they have to start up cold to fill in the deficiencies).

We should be looking for incremental effeciency improvements (just because it is always good to spend fewer resources on something you are going to do anyway) instead of political BS.

David

 

[rconnor]

Maui and rb1957,

Conversation may not have been the appropriate term; it is more of a debate. And like debates, the debaters are not trying to switch each others position; they are defending their side through points and counter-points to inform neutral parties.

This is how this topic should be discussed and a lot of the comments in this thread do contribute to a good debate (I've found a lot of this thread very interesting). However, when someone makes a "point" along the lines of "you're an idiot and your side is crazy" then the debate breaks down into a squakfest. (note that I'm speaking to the article and not a post)

I've talked to this point in other threads but the terms and language we use cannot be slanderous to the other side, it should focus on providing evidence to the side you are defending or dissecting the evidence provided by the other side.

SnTman,

I should clarify, the content of the article, other than the "one cold season = global warming is false" comment, is not what I'm questioning, it's how it was written (see above).

However, I would like to comment that although wind may not allow you to close down other plants, it can be an important contributor to your energy portfolio and usually decreases your overall $/kW produced and emissions/kW produced. For example, if you are primarily hydro and you have a drought, wind can help minimize the amount of import electricity you need. If you have primarily natural gas and gas prices get hiked up or you go above you quota for supply and have to pay penalities (assuming your an importer of gas), wind can minimize that impact. It all depends on how it works with your other forms of generation.

But, as you stated, it is not the "answer" to renewable energy supply on its own. That I definitely agree with and get just as frustrated when it gets paraded around as the miracle cure.

 

[SnTMan]

rconnor, agree, the supply of snideness exceeds demand. Rational discussion of facts and choices suffers...

But, hey, it's entertaining.