• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
.

Further to the subject of ... "misguided approaches to fighting global warming"

Wind farm proponents and owners have come to the realization that the huge wind generators only have a useful lifespan of about 10 years

Studies show that by 10 years the power generated has dropped by one third because of worn out components , and most generators do not function at all beyond 12-15 years and must be completely replaced

.
 
Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth...

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_20-2-2014-9-18-49

In a new study, researchers from Imperial College Business School carried out a comprehensive nationwide analysis of the UK fleet of wind turbines, using local wind speed data from NASA. They showed that the turbines will last their full life of about 25 years before they need to be upgraded.

The team found that the UK's earliest turbines, built in the 1990s, are still producing three-quarters of their original output after 19 years of operation, nearly twice the amount previously claimed, and will operate effectively up to 25 years. This is comparable to the performance of gas turbines used in power stations.

The study also found that more recent turbines are performing even better than the earliest models, suggesting they could have a longer lifespan. The team says this makes a strong business case for further investment in the wind farm industry.
Click to expand...
 
.

Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study.

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...nes-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html

.......................................................

A study commissioned by the Renewable Energy Foundation has found that the economic life of onshore wind turbines could be far less than that predicted by the industry.

The “groundbreaking” research was carried out by academics at Edinburgh University and saw them look at years of windfarm performance data from the UK and Denmark.

By 10 years of age, the report found that the contribution of an average UK windfarm towards meeting electricity demand had declined by a third.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/sc...-shorter-than-believed-study-suggests-1.62945

.
 
.

Article title

Green-Energy Inspiration Off the Coast of Denmark

-A visit to Samso Denmark ... (long time users of wind power)
-Wind friendly article
-I am surprised the editors let this paragraph slip out

The repair crew often works for 12 hours on a visit, so the (ship) captain passes the time watching episodes of “Deadliest Catch.” Mr. Mortensen said: “There’s a lot of trouble with the turbines. You’re repairing and repairing and repairing. By the time you get one fixed, the next one doesn’t work.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/b...en-energy-inspiration-from-samso-denmark.html

My My

.
 
Arnold Martin said:
.

Britain’s wind farms are wearing out far more rapidly than previously thought, making them more expensive as a result, according to an authoritative new study.

The analysis of almost 3,000 onshore wind turbines — the biggest study of its kind —warns that they will continue to generate electricity effectively for just 12 to 15 years.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...nes-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html
Click to expand...

Cool source, bro

The report, published last week by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a think tank that has campaigned against wind farms

I knew when the Tele announced in the first paragraph that the study was "authoritative" that it was going to be anything but - it took until the 17th paragraph for them to reveal the "authoritative" source.

So, on one hand, we have a three year old junk press release from a deceptively named think tank entirely dedicated to attacking renewable energy saying that wind turbines won't last as long as projected.

On the other, we have a prestigious research university testing wind farms all across the UK and finding that turbines that are already at least 15 years old are actually performing far better in the real world than was previously projected.

Who to believe? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Arnold Martin said:
.

Article title

Green-Energy Inspiration Off the Coast of Denmark

-A visit to Samso Denmark ... (long time users of wind power)
-Wind friendly article
-I am surprised the editors let this paragraph slip out

The repair crew often works for 12 hours on a visit, so the (ship) captain passes the time watching episodes of “Deadliest Catch.” Mr. Mortensen said: “There’s a lot of trouble with the turbines. You’re repairing and repairing and repairing. By the time you get one fixed, the next one doesn’t work.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/b...en-energy-inspiration-from-samso-denmark.html

My My

.
Click to expand...

And I suppose you think coal fired power stations operate without any maintenance, right?
 
Arnold Martin said:
.

The science of bio-fuels proves problematic ....

A new report sites numerous examples of what it describes as ... "misguided approaches to fighting global warming"

Some of the biofuel policies in the West go back a decade or longer, adopted on the basis of claims in the scientific literature that turning plant material into fuel would help lower emissions of carbon dioxide.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/s...ments-to-reconsider-reliance-on-biofuels.html
.
Click to expand...
This is why environmental groups have always been against the policies. They appeal to politicians and bureaucrats because they appear "green" and can be pointed to as "action taken" while not requiring anybody to change their behaviour (people hate that). In the US it also means a stream of subsidies to Iowa farmers and Iowa has a peculiar place in the US political system.

As to the anti-windfarm propaganda, one is bound to wonder if there's anything you wouldn't fall for if you liked the sound of it. You must be a salesman's delight.
 
CapelDodger said:
No, but god does it for free. The Cornwall Alliance says so.
Click to expand...

clap.gif
 
The Monckton et al (and what an al they are) farrago has achieved one purpose : the (not Chinese any more) Science Bulletin's relaunch got major publicity.

There are two options. One is that you open with some ground-breaking and headline-grabbing research declined by Science and Nature, which is implausible. Or you print something from leading AGW deniers and get your (new) name all over the interwebs.

Job well done, I'd say. Can't see myself adding Science Bulletin to my favourites, though. I'm surprised nobody's used the name already, though, "Science", "Bulletin", these are punchy words. Then again maybe somebody has and that'll be another story.

Like the one about Willie Soon and the declaration of financial disinterest. That could be milked by anyone who might have a grudge against him.

AGW denial has gone from being a clown act to being a freak show. I find it enormously gratifying.
 
good analysis by Gavin..

From someone that DOES know statistics....


Thoughts on 2014 and ongoing temperature trends
Filed under: Climate Science El Nino Instrumental Record Reporting on climate — gavin @ 22 January 2015

Last Friday, NASA GISS and NOAA NCDC had a press conference and jointly announced the end-of-year analysis for the 2014 global surface temperature anomaly which, in both analyses, came out top. As you may have noticed, this got much more press attention than their joint announcement in 2013 (which wasn’t a record year).

In press briefings and interviews I contributed to, I mostly focused on two issues – that 2014 was indeed the warmest year in those records (though by a small amount), and the continuing long-term trends in temperature which, since they are predominantly driven by increases in greenhouse gases, are going to continue and hence produce (on a fairly regular basis) continuing record years. Response to these points has been mainly straightforward, which is good (if sometimes a little surprising), but there have been some interesting issues raised as well…

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-trends/comment-page-2/#sthash.vz5r0tSh.dpuf
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Forum conservative position on anthropogenic climate change

I wanted to test my presumption that conservatives dogmatically deny AGW. I realize that the conservatives on this forum don't represent all US conservatives, but we seem to have quite a few different varieties, from libertarians to tea-party types.

Clarification: when I am talking about "the scientific consensus on climate change" I mean the findings summarized in the IPCC assesment report, summarized by me as "Warming is occuring and human activitoes are mainly to blame".
 
You need another option - I'm not left leaning and although I agree human activity contributes significantly to climate change, I haven't seen any government policies that I feel would adequately address the problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom