Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Dancing David]

Too understand my question precisely, read my reply to Lenny.

To sate you ideas you will have to do many times.

You did not respond, you dodged.

the increase in CO over the last 150 is not from natural causes, unless you can show otherwise.

 

[DC]

I've been trying to find this out for 10 years now: What is the CO2 footprint of a windmill? I'm currently helping construct a wind farm. I can assure you, it isn't 0. The number of pieces of heavy construction equipment is astounding, as is the amount of earth being moved. Sure, it's probably not comperable to the CO2 output of a coal power plant, but still.

Secondly, the amount of terrain destroyed in the making of a wind farm is simply stupendous. Global warming is one thing; habitat fragmentation and the proliferation of edge habitat is another, as is the destruction of endangered species due to the construction of new routes into their territory (check out an EIR/EIS of any turbine farm in California for a full discussion).

This is far from true. The biological reality is that any species will increase in population until it reaches carrying capacity, as determined by the presence of one or more limiting factors. Food is certainly a big one, but it's not the only one. Sea urchins, for example, are in some cases limited by the presence of predators. So ignoring the emotionally charged questions, your argument is wrong from a biological perspective.

12 g CO2/kWh

http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf

where have you been looking?`this is not exactly hard to find information.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Many posters here are aware that the topic of GW is held under moderation and that is very rough to deal with it. Those many posters here are also aware that derailing the thread into a general GW one seasoned with assorted stupidity would cause all the posts here to be flushed into the general thread in a disruptive manner. That's why the steps into derail in posts #11, 12 and 15 had to be contained, as those users knew exactly what they were doing.

Contribute to keep this thread clean and on focus. So far a distinction was made about climate change driven by the sun and by "a surfeit of greenhouse gases". Ratios of ¹²C, ¹³C in the atmosphere can be analysed in this context, together with ¹⁴C dispersion in the environment, in order to pinpoint the origin of it, including the fraction provided by volcanic activity. There's a lot that can be debated only on that.

As some topics may degenerate into the usual nonsensical bits -like someone shouting "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" or "the greenhouse effect doesn't exist" or "climate is not changing"- which are undoubtedly fodder for the moderated thread, I suggest you to keep the subject in an orderly fashion and don't engage in long give and takes about off-topics, specially those provided by the usual parachutist who are bored on Sunday.

 

[The Shrike]

Perspectives of a wildlife ecologist here, with specific field experience on wind farms:

First, I don't care if our rapidly warming planet is on a trajectory to return to some global climate it might have supported in the past. The problem is the upheaval such change portends for human cultures and populations that are dependent on 40% of the terrestrial land area to feed billions of people, and we've got something like 200 million worldwide living below 5m asl. "The globe" will be fine as it warms, many of its species - including us - will not.

Wind energy can help us reduce demand on energy derived directly from fossil fuels but cannot eliminate it. For one, each wind farm needs a redundant electrical grid drawn from a more reliable source, to maintain the grid when the wind dies down. The bigger problem, however, is that wind farms contribute greatly to habitat fragmentation as well as direct mortality of birds and bats. I've never understood why we got people excited to do something about AGW under the guise of "saving" polar bears and the solution we came up with dooms prairie-chickens. We're just trading one wildlife threat for another.

Solar is little better. Modern solar plants take up great swaths of land, exacerbating problems of habitat loss and fragmentation, often in sensitive deserts.

I like the idea of solar and wind, but I don't like the practice of installing them on industrial scales to try to mimic the output of traditional power plants. I think we need to go small with these technologies, not big. I'd like to see homes and businesses with their own solar arrays built into their infrastructure and small, vertical-axis wind turbines taking up about the same footprint as a flagpole or a 6' trashcan. Investments in making these technologies affordable and efficient for homeowners could greatly reduce dependence on the central grid. Right now, at least in the US, retrofitting one's home to take advantage of such things is still ridiculously expensive and seems to require a degree in electrical engineering or advanced tinkering to get right. I want to be able to buy a kit from Home Depot, bolt it into place on my home or property, plug it into the wall, and start saving the planet!

By the same token, we need to be pursuing nuclear power with gusto in the U.S., but the big plants are an environmental and regulatory nightmare. The solution here again is to go small. If we can safely operate nuclear plants within submarines then we can safely operate small-scale nuclear plants in small towns all across the Great Plains and Intermountain West. Demonstrations of safety and efficiency in these smaller markets will eventually convince people that small-nuke is a viable option in larger metro areas.

So in my ruminations on how to reduce CO2 emissions using "green" energy technologies in a way that would be compatible with wildlife and habitat conservation, I want to see us abandon the current models of industrial-scale installations and instead focus on going SMALL. If I'm missing something obvious that would render my ideas moot, I trust folks here will correct me lickety-split!

 

[r-j]

Solar is little better. Modern solar plants take up great swaths of land, exacerbating problems of habitat loss and fragmentation, often in sensitive deserts.

Nonsense. The space already available for solar, like rooftops, parking lots, highways, all baking in the sun already, wouldn't impact wildlife, but it would provide enough solar so there would be no need for any new power plants, and it would reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, to the point utilities would go bankrupt. It would also reduce cooling costs, make parking lots cool, highways cool, provide charging power for electric cars, all the while reducing the demand on peak days (hot days). Solar water heaters, pool heaters, and even home heating would further reduce the cost and trouble of converting solar to electricity then back to heat.

If power companies could profit, could charge you for solar (and some are starting) they would be used everywhere that the sun shines. It's a travesty that solar power is actively sabotaged due to economics.

And that people still dismiss it for reasons that have nothing to do with reality.

 

[tsig]

Nonsense. The space already available for solar, like rooftops, parking lots, highways, all baking in the sun already, wouldn't impact wildlife, but it would provide enough solar so there would be no need for any new power plants, and it would reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, to the point utilities would go bankrupt. It would also reduce cooling costs, make parking lots cool, highways cool, provide charging power for electric cars, all the while reducing the demand on peak days (hot days). Solar water heaters, pool heaters, and even home heating would further reduce the cost and trouble of converting solar to electricity then back to heat.

If power companies could profit, could charge you for solar (and some are starting) they would be used everywhere that the sun shines. It's a travesty that solar power is actively sabotaged due to economics.

And that people still dismiss it for reasons that have nothing to do with reality.

One problem with solar is that the sun goes down every night so you have to have a storage method. So far there are no good storage methods for electricity. another problem is that solar is not compatible with our existing machines-AC units, refrigerators, TVs.... so you need some complicated and maintenance heavy converter.

Then there are the cloudy days.

 

[r-j]

Solar works best on sunny days. The hottest party of the day is when you get the most power. Which is exactly when the power grid has the heaviest load. By eliminating the peak demand on fossil fueled power plants, it both reduces the need for more generation, and the increased fossil fuel burning.

It's a no brainer. If there was profit in it, it would already be done.

it also would eliminate brownouts, or rolling blackouts on days when the heat causes such a load there is no way to supply everyone.

 

[The Shrike]

Nonsense.

Instead of replying that my statement is nonsense, a more careful reading should convince you that our points are the same. Like you, I think we've got an abundance of flat, sunny places that we should be developing for solar energy production. The problem is that the big solar installations in the US that are being developed now are generally not taking advantage of such opportunities. They are instead being built on otherwise undeveloped lands, needlessly making solar development yet another net habitat loss problem for native ecosystems. Now that's nonsense.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

r-j,
I have a tendency to agree with you r-j. I wouldn't be using such weighted language. But The idea of solar collectors on otherwise already built up areas is valid.

 

[Trakar]

Instead of replying that my statement is nonsense, a more careful reading should convince you that our points are the same. Like you, I think we've got an abundance of flat, sunny places that we should be developing for solar energy production. The problem is that the big solar installations in the US that are being developed now are generally not taking advantage of such opportunities. They are instead being built on otherwise undeveloped lands, needlessly making solar development yet another net habitat loss problem for native ecosystems. Now that's nonsense.

With a combination of building code changes, a short-term tax credit for businesses and individuals for new construction and extensive remodels, and mandating that local power grids be designed to accommodate such systems, we could probably slow the growth and expansion of local centralized power generation, greatly reducing the need for new fossil-fuelled generators. Such a step could be taken in a tax revenue neutral manner, and would help the situation but it wouldn't remove the problems and issues we face.

That said, I'm really not sure that this fits the theme of natural vs. human caused climate change, which is the topic of this thread, probably needs a separate thread relating to the types of public policy steps that could be taken to address the causes and effects of anthropogenically forced climate change.

 

[Trakar]

This particular sidetrack started when I pointed out that the current warming doesn't match what climate models based on global warming theory predict. This was declared wrong, so I asked what the predictions of global warming theory were. As in, what do you say is predicted to happen? What is your source? (you meaning everyone who is participating here)

Rather than a simple answer, I see something like this.

And you ask,

I would bet you can't even see the problem.

Is it that you are incapable of seeing that they are all, in very simple terms, stating variations of a single theme?

This process is common in the scientific review and analysis, where people take the same data, process it independently, and reply from their own individual perspective and understandings - this is different from many congressional public policy debates in the modern era where most of what we see from both sides of the political divide revolves around ideological dupes shouting rhetorical talking points at each other.

 

[Pixel42]

Solar works best on sunny days. The hottest party of the day is when you get the most power. Which is exactly when the power grid has the heaviest load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_demand

The daily peak demand usually occurs around 5:30 pm. At this time there is a combination of office, domestic demand and at some times of the year, the fall of darkness.[1]

In some places there may be a need for air conditioning in the hottest parts of the day but most people use more energy when it's cold and dark than when it's hot and sunny. tsig is right that a good storage method is needed.

 

[Trakar]

We are precise. They are pedantic.

This is all very diverting, but that is the obvious intention. The scientific basis of AGW is not rationally debatable, and can be easily presented. The evidence of it is hardly more debatable. The emerging science and evidence is where the real interest lies, and where debate is reasonable.

This is why I mention the meandering jet-stream, which seems not to be a great surprise as such but does seem to be manifesting earlier than expected. If these blocked weather-systems remain as frequent as recently the implications are pretty serious.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/

Interesting article back in March which lays this out in a bit more detail for those who are interested. Article is by Dr. Jennifer Francis who is one of the world's leading researchers on Arctic climate change and the link between Arctic and global climates.

 

[Dymanic]

In some places there may be a need for air conditioning in the hottest parts of the day but most people use more energy when it's cold and dark than when it's hot and sunny.

Which is what explains why peak demand invariably occurs during the middle of the night.

Wait...

 

[Pixel42]

Which is what explains why peak demand invariably occurs during the middle of the night.

Wait...

This subject is contentious enough without people deliberating misunderstanding simple points. Or you are genuinely disagreeing that in most countries energy use is greater in the winter than in the summer?

In any case we're way off topic. I think the OP's question has been answered.

 

[lenny]

But there are so many variables (e.g. how the global economy is faring (which affects the amount of CO2 emitted), whether El Nino or La Nina conditions are prevailing, variations in solar output and the amount of volcanic activity and so on) that even the best models are unlikely to be very accurate over periods shorter than several decades.

we might unpack this a bit. and acknowledge that today's models would not yield high fidelity predictions even if we knew what the external forcings would be.

Earth System models simulate the planet, and they need to simulate components of the climate system, like el nino and la nina, with reasonable fidelity if they are to get realistic statistics of climate over any period of interest. like all forecasts (indeed like all probability statements), climate predictions are conditional, meaning conditioned on "external" things. rather than simulate human or volcanic activity, or variations in solar output, today's climate model predictions are conditioned on certain scenarios. for a given scenario, different models give rather different distributions over what the future looks like. (also for the past.)

today's models have nontrivial shortcomings, many of which we know how to fix but cannot afford to fix with today's technology. nothing in this changes the basic science, but it misleading to suggest that if we knew future CO2 concentrations etc then we could make high resolution (policy relevant) forecasts with today's models.

 

[Steve001]

This subject is contentious enough without people deliberating misunderstanding simple points. Or you are genuinely disagreeing that in most countries energy use is greater in the winter than in the summer?

In any case we're way off topic. I think the OP's question has been answered.

It has been answered well enough, but you know people we just love to argue on and on.

 

[Dymanic]

This subject is contentious enough without people deliberating misunderstanding simple points. Or you are genuinely disagreeing that in most countries energy use is greater in the winter than in the summer?

The context was not energy use. It was use of electricity. And you quite specifically referred to "parts of the day". An important detail you're overlooking is that much of the spike in energy use during the day is due to industrial and commercial consumption. Heating and air conditioning together comprise only a fraction of total energy use.

 

[Dymanic]

It has been answered well enough, but you know people we just love to argue on and on.

And to try to get in the last word.

 

[tsig]

Solar works best on sunny days. The hottest party of the day is when you get the most power. Which is exactly when the power grid has the heaviest load. By eliminating the peak demand on fossil fueled power plants, it both reduces the need for more generation, and the increased fossil fuel burning.

It's a no brainer. If there was profit in it, it would already be done.

it also would eliminate brownouts, or rolling blackouts on days when the heat causes such a load there is no way to supply everyone.

How do you get the electricity from solar panels to be compatible with commercial power?

A 100 amp inverter will cost about $1000 dollars, it costs me at most $60 extra to run my central AC unit for approx four months out of the year so my ROI time just for the inverter is (1000/240)/.333 = 12 years.



$1159.20 (1 store)

Description

The ME Series Inverter/Charger from Magnum Energy is designed specifically for rugged mobile applications. The ME Series is powerful, easy-to-use, and best of all, cost effective. It is:Safe and Reliable: The ME Series is ETL Listed to the stringent requirements of UL/cUL 458 and CSA C22.2 #107.1-01, ensuring that the inverter is safe

http://www.bing.com/shopping/magnum...&lpf=0&lpq=100+amp+inverter&FORM=ENCA&lppc=16


Of course you still have to buy and install the solar panels and the switchgear.