Re: Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
- From: FL Turbo <noemail@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 12:34:55 -0500
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:01:25 +0100, "Pyriform" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Irish Mike wrote:
[Nothing of any consequence - snipped]
Got rid of that 0.004% of iron from your body yet? It can't possibly be
doing anything important, can it? Hell, there's even less of it in
percentage terms than there is CO2 in the atmosphere!
And I'm still waiting for you to explain the flaws in scientific methodology
that have lead so may scientists to the wrong conclusions. Or is it just
that you read some other idiot saying that, and are now repeating it here
without the benefit of any of the alleged science ever having passed through
your thick head? No doubt in the fullness of time yet other idiot will
repeat the claim, perhaps citing you as an authority. Denialist research in
action!
So I am a "Denialist"?
Very well, then.
I am a Denialist.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/6/29742/01353791.pdf?arnumber=1353791
Just as a prelude to the article, the IEEE stands for Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers.
Hence my referal to people with technical competence.
Unfortunately, it is one of those damnable PDF files that don't let
anyone cut and paste.
You will have to go and read it for yourself.
The article outlines the problems that the Danes are having with their
wind farms.
My take is that it is a government subsidized effort.
As in all governmentally subsidized programs, the merits of any energy
source are obscured by the influx of public money.
And then, there's this.
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
IA Problem With Wind Power
by Eric Rosenbloom
Wind power promises a clean and free source of electricity. It will
reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuels and reduce the output
of greenhouse gases and other pollution. Many governments are
therefore promoting the construction of vast wind "farms," encouraging
private companies with generous subsidies and regulatory support,
requiring utilities to buy from them, and setting up markets for the
trade of "green credits" in addition to actual energy. The U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) aims to see 5% of our electricity produced
by wind turbine in 2010. Energy companies are eagerly investing in
wind power, finding the arrangement quite profitable.
---------------------------------------------------
A little research, however, reveals that wind power does not in fact
live up to the claims made by its advocates [see part I], that its
impact on the environment and people's lives is far from benign [see
part II], and that with such a poor record and prospect the money
spent on it could be much more effectively directed [see part III].
Links to aid the reader's own research are provided throughout this
paper as well as at the end [see Links; off-site links will open to a
new window]. Click here for an abbreviated version of this paper.
Click here for an even briefer version (a handy model for letters).
This paper is also available as a 7-page typeset PDF file (156 KB) --
click here.
Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced
electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no
conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the
intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants
must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for
electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies
and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be
would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide
(the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right
for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and
sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the
turbines are simply shut off.
-----------------------------------------------------
A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too
Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's
wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003,
i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's
electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the
Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only
1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported,
this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The
large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is
typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click
here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In
Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark
as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.
Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is
not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported
more electricity than they exported.
And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support
the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity
costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe. [Click here for a
detailed and well referenced examination by Vic Mason and the Danish
Society of Windmill Neighbors, and here for a follow-up paper by
Mason.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably just fine fora tiny little country like Denmark.
I have great admiration for their stance on Islamofacist terrorist in
their midst.
After all, when their windmills don't produce enough energy, they can
rely on their neighbors for the imported power.
Those of us in the USA have only Canada to rely on.
(Not that I would denigrate Canadians.)
I report, you decide.
PS
If you want to know what I think of cross-posters, just ask.
.
- Prev by Date: Re: WSOP check confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
- Previous by thread: Re: Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
- Next by thread: Re: Moon proves the green house effect is b*llocks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
