Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[PRTVR]

They live on a different planet don't they,
i]Onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source. Reports by ARUP and Parsons Brinckerhoff commissioned by DECC in 2011, found that the cheapest onshore wind has a cost of £75/MWh, which is around the cost of nuclear at £74/MWh. Wind energy is variable but that does not mean it is an inefficient source of energy. Wind turbines tend to generate electricity for around 80-85% of the time and are able to harnesses the maximum potential from the wind resource.[/i]
In what world would you take a variable energy generation like wind and pay more for it when you can have a Nuclear energy for less,I wonder if the factored in the back up power station ,required on standby when they calculated their figures I bet they didn't .

[Globs]

PRTVR said:

I wonder if the factored in the back up power station ,required on standby when they calculated their figures I bet they didn't .

Or the cost of the new power lines + pylons going to these remote windswept spots.

[Diderot]

Globs said:

PRTVR said:

I wonder if the factored in the back up power station ,required on standby when they calculated their figures I bet they didn't .

Or the cost of the new power lines + pylons going to these remote windswept spots.

And roads.

[motco]

Diderot said:

Globs said:

PRTVR said:

I wonder if the factored in the back up power station ,required on standby when they calculated their figures I bet they didn't .

Or the cost of the new power lines + pylons going to these remote windswept spots.

And roads.

...and 80-85% effectiveness is a bit dishonest...

Wind-watch.org said:

Every wind turbine has a range of wind speeds, typically around 30 to 55 mph, in which it will produce at its rated, or maximum, capacity. At slower wind speeds, the production falls off dramatically. If the wind speed decreases by half, power production decreases by a factor of eight. On average, therefore, wind turbines do not generate near their capacity. Industry estimates project an annual output of 30-40%, but real-world experience shows that annual outputs of 15-30% of capacity are more typical.

Edited by motco on Sunday 4th November 16:48

[Apache]

Globs said:

PRTVR said:

I wonder if the factored in the back up power station ,required on standby when they calculated their figures I bet they didn't .

Or the cost of the new power lines + pylons going to these remote windswept spots.

Backup power is a bit of a red herring as the primary source will and does have a backup running regardless of what that source is

[Lost_BMW]

motco said:

Diderot said:

Globs said:

PRTVR said:

I wonder if the factored in the back up power station ,required on standby when they calculated their figures I bet they didn't .

Or the cost of the new power lines + pylons going to these remote windswept spots.

And roads.

...and 80-85% effectiveness is a bit dishonest...

Wind-watch.org said:

Every wind turbine has a range of wind speeds, typically around 30 to 55 mph, in which it will produce at its rated, or maximum, capacity. At slower wind speeds, the production falls off dramatically. If the wind speed decreases by half, power production decreases by a factor of eight. On average, therefore, wind turbines do not generate near their capacity. Industry estimates project an annual output of 30-40%, but real-world experience shows that annual outputs of 15-30% of capacity are more typical.

Edited by motco on Sunday 4th November 16:48

This bit is a classic case of weasel words:

Wind turbines tend to generate electricity for around 80-85% of the time and are able to harnesses the maximum potential from the wind resource.

So linking in the unwitting mind the % time they operate with a hinted-at efficiency, compounded by the last bit about harnessing the potential of wind. Well, what else would they harness? and how often do they 'maximise' that potential. Pure spin, in fact if the turbines cold spin as well as the criminal who wrote this bilge we'd be fine.

Edited by Lost_BMW on Sunday 4th November 18:58

[mybrainhurts]

They're trying to play down the health hazard, aren't they?

Here we go...

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/11/4/i...

AS BH says, time to sue the operators. That'll go down well in the USA.

[PRTVR]

Apache said:

Globs said:

PRTVR said:

I wonder if the factored in the back up power station ,required on standby when they calculated their figures I bet they didn't .

Or the cost of the new power lines + pylons going to these remote windswept spots.

Backup power is a bit of a red herring as the primary source will and does have a backup running regardless of what that source is

Not sure nuclear plant have back up running, and I do not think gas does else we would have 200℅ capacity in the system where as I think it is as low as 14℅ but with something as variable as wind were does not blow on some days you need back up.

[Blib]

The deafening silence on climate change
Global warming has seldom been mentioned this year on the campaign trail, despite Obama's promise to the contrary.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2...

[Lost_BMW]

Blib said:

The deafening silence on climate change
Global warming has seldom been mentioned this year on the campaign trail, despite Obama's promise to the contrary.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/10/2...

What a ttish article, the moronic and insupportable claims include:

"Already, nearly 1,000 children a day are dying because of climate change, according to a newly published study. The annual death toll stands at 400,000 people worldwide."

but the clincher is that this ill informed idiot actually quotes that fruit loop and serial alarmist Wadhams

Meanwhile, the Arctic ice cap has melted to its lowest level on record. The loss of Arctic ice is the "equivalent of about 20 years of additional carbon dioxide being added by man", Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC."

via the BBC! Have to laugh...

[Globs]

Lost_BMW said:

The loss of Arctic ice is the "equivalent of about 20 years of additional carbon dioxide being added by man", Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC."

And yet another university becomes a laughing stock through the actions of uninformed climate activists.

Almost as much of a laughing stock as these idiots.
http://connect.climatedots.org

I wonder of they are affiliates of the 'Proud to be Thick' society of the UK?

[Lost_BMW]

Globs said:

Lost_BMW said:

The loss of Arctic ice is the "equivalent of about 20 years of additional carbon dioxide being added by man", Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, told the BBC."

And yet another university becomes a laughing stock through the actions of uninformed climate activists.

Almost as much of a laughing stock as these idiots.
http://connect.climatedots.org

I wonder of they are affiliates of the 'Proud to be Thick' society of the UK?

Morons. I've just submitted my own fear report - the sort they are commissioning so cravenly.



With this explanation of my deep, deep concern:

Really worried about this carbon climate change... we've got some fine drizzle here at the moment, again! If it carries on like this we'll have to break out umbrellas, it's a bit of a nuisance. Driving us to drink, does no one care? When will the leaders of the world wake up to this menace.

Think it will pass moderation?

[Globs]

Lost_BMW said:

Think it will pass moderation?

Probably, these people appear to have a fractional IQ combined with a high gullibility index.

ETA: BTW, it doesn't have to be weather, it can be _anything_ that is affected by the dreaded CO2, anything at all....

[mybrainhurts]

Globs said:

ETA: BTW, it doesn't have to be weather, it can be _anything_ that is affected by the dreaded CO2, anything at all....

Quite...

I don't mind admitting I'm in constant fear of the coming of the giant slug. We're just not prepared for this huge threat to mankind and lettuce.

[deeps]

The first global warming snow of the winter fell in Somerset last night, some places woke up to 3 inches of warming, quite unusual for this area in early November, nothing was forecast though.

[Happy82]

deeps said:

The first global warming snow of the winter fell in Somerset last night, some places woke up to 3 inches of warming, quite unusual for this area in early November, nothing was forecast though.

We have painfully warm temperatures of 1*C in Basingstoke, thank God we don't need to use expensive gas heating the house due to GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!1111oneone!...... Oh.......... So my erect nipples are erect due to the cold, not excitement over a MMuGW link?

[Apache]

deeps said:

The first global warming snow of the winter fell in Somerset last night, some places woke up to 3 inches of warming, quite unusual for this area in early November, nothing was forecast though.

Snow? that stuff which we were told to get used to never seeing again?

[The Don of Croy]

Lost_BMW said:

[i]Onshore wind is by far the cheapest large-scale renewable energy source. Reports by ARUP and Parsons Brinckerhoff commissioned by DECC in 2011, found that the cheapest onshore wind has a cost of £75/MWh, which is around the cost of nuclear at £74/MWh.

[i]With regards to concerns about tourism: by way of example, the UK's first commercial wind farm at Delabole in Cornwall received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation,

Are they comparing the cheapest onshore wind with the cheapest nuclear? I doubt it. What about average costs as a comparison?

Also, I was a tourist visitor to Delabole in 1977 - then it was billed as the UK's largest 'hole', as an opencast mineral extraction site. It is still a large hole, albeit with added whirligiggs, but how many of those 350,000 tourists explicitly went to see green energy bilge? If there is a windmill in the Peak District does that mean all 8 million visitors are pro-green too?

[Globs]

deeps said:

The first global warming snow of the winter fell in Somerset last night, some places woke up to 3 inches of warming, quite unusual for this area in early November, nothing was forecast though.

Worthy of a picture on http://connect.climatedots.org perhaps?
Remember AGW causes everything, which is why we have to 'tackle' it

[kerplunk]

If AGW is about green bucks, then demial is about big oil bucks - it's all the same logic. Except big oil/coal/gas is much BIGGER of course.