Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Silver Smudger]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

...

I do however agree with the message seen by the observation of the Gridwatch - a mixed power resource is a requirement to fill in the shortfalls of the cheaper Offshore Wind source.

Why? What would happen if we did not have wind power in the mix?

[dickymint]

"unnecessary CO2" ?!? have another

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

PRTVR said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Perhaps a simile drawn to whether Man causes Climate Change?

What smoking ,inhaling into your lungs a vapour that contains tar and various other nasty things, or a colourless inert gas that is crucial for life on earth as part of photosynthesis, similar? Would you like to explain.

Well - I was suggesting that the long winded version from LongQ had similarities with the cause / causation of absolute proof of Climate Change due to man, and Cancer due to Smoking.

The Odds and statistics are not good, for either.

Not exactly.

IIRC statistically the results for the smoking correlation gave something like P=2.

That means pretty darned certain whichever way you look at that smoking (and similar acitivities) are extremely likely to associated with being the most likely cause of lung cancer for smokers with lung cancer.

For most of the Climate Change we could look at what we know of recent and ancient history and say without any doubt the the climate (as we call it) is likely to be changing most of the time in one way or another (P=2?) but as this has always happened so far as we know any causal relationship to humanity would be non-existent.

If you look specifically for Climate change, especially recent Climate Change, to be causally connected to humanity the statistical probability would need to be better then P=.95 to get anywhere close to passing the test for consideration. More typically the claims are around P=.9 and the press is allowed the uncorrected freedom to present this as 90% certainty. Which, in statistical terms, it isn't.

Since few people have any education or training in statistics the assumptions are passed into common "knowledge" unquestioned.

The most obvious parallel between smoking and the claims of the health (etc.) catastrophe for humanity from increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is the strong element of taxation that can be observed. P=20.

[London424]

What a timely article based on the discussion in here.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-...

[turbobloke]

London424 said:

What a timely article based on the discussion in here.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/05/wind-turbines-...

It'll need repeating every month or so and even then the vested interests will spin for the green shilling anyway. Political and religious zealots won't be doing it for any material benefit, such people actually believe most truly.

Article said:

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy
We urgently need to stop the ecological posturing and invest in gas and nuclear.

The bit at the end of the first line requires clarification but in principle never were truer words written.

[robinessex]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Death and Taxes.


I don't have a claim in the statistics at all and it was merely an unnecessary tangent I apologise for taking the discussion down- but it appeared to be a not entirely dissimilar correlation between smoking and cancer, or mankinds activities and climate change, based on your lengthy post late afternoon yesterday.

But to close - is it not also similar in the risk stakes ?

If you smoke you might not get cancer Bilfinger let's be honest the thought of the probability scares people off, makes people quit.

Clark mate change might not be made made but because there are only tendrils of connections and imagery just explain what the impact could be,

Is smoking a gamble ?
Is humanity willing to gamble? A win is great- but a loss is likely fatal in both cases.

Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Thursday 11th May 07:00

Considering dinosaurs lived for about 50,000,000 years with much higher CO2 in a rather lush environment, I’ll take my chances. Not That any of us will around to experience it anyway !!!

PS.Just where has the bloody global warming gone anyway, I had the central heating on again last night!

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

Considering dinosaurs lived for about 50,000,000 years with much higher CO2 in a rather lush environment, I’ll take my chances. Not That any of us will around to experience it anyway !!!

Higher tax gas levels are better for greenery including vegetation, grass, trees and crops, and they're at the heart of the food chain. Climate optima remain...warm, and optimal.

Submariners have already showm that scaremongering over higher tax gas levels is as bad as CMD spinning for Project Fear, the only difference is that the fear relates to another non-existent boogeyman.

As posted on PH, medical research led by the famous Dr Butejko shows that low levels of carbon dioxide lower uptake of oxygen by human cells, this replicates earlier work from Bohr and Verigo way back.

The less carbon dioxide in the blood, the less oxygen is found in cells. Carbon dioxide is not only essential for the food chain to operate from photosynthesis up, it's critical to human health. It helps our bodies in many ways (oxygen level, dilating capillaries, thinning the blood and supporting circulation).

In terms of tax gas levels and guidelines - which are ultra-conservative:

-current outdoor level: 400 ppmv
-comfort level: 600 ppmv
-ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppmv
-maximum within any 8 hour working period: 5000 ppmv

USA nuclear submarine studies on human tolerance of carbon dioxide levels ranging up to 10600 ppmv as revealed in testimony from naval medics shows how conservative the above guidelines are.

"We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8000 ppmv, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels."
– Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer

Hyperbolic greeny activists will have died of atmospheric religious persecution long before 8000ppmv, they'd better stay away from submarine duties.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Non story IMHO

Precisely why no one should give you the time of day on here, because you would say it was time of night!

You aren't interested in facts or the truth, just having an argument for the sake of it.

If you really believe what you are saying, your belief is blind bigoted and indoctrinated.

Solar PV and wind have no place in a prospering society, they are futile, pointless, irrelevant, the facts/economics speak for themselves.

That's why their proponents have to produce risible dishonest accounting methods like LCOE and SCC to try and justify them.

[LongQ]

robinessex said:

Considering dinosaurs lived for about 50,000,000 years with much higher CO2 in a rather lush environment, I’ll take my chances. Not That any of us will around to experience it anyway !!!

PS.Just where has the bloody global warming gone anyway, I had the central heating on again last night!

I have it here.

It was really hot yesterday afternoon and evening. A massive jump from the day before.

I blame my house which, after a full day of continuous sunshine and little "shading" from any airborne moisture, had absorbed a lot of heat energy and spent the evening releasing it to the surrounding area.

I now await the introduction of a law that requires all houses to be painted white in the summer and black in the winter (but only on certain days when the temperature is lower than required for a stable temperature to be maintained).

[LongQ]

Paddy,

Out of interest as I doubt there is anything more than speculation available on the internet as yet, the recent developments being rather too recent to have anything definitive reported ....

There are number around for optimum density and positioning of wind turbines, both onshore and offshore, based, inter alia, on historical installations and performance monitoring.

Presumably these were the much smaller output capacity units that are no longer expected to be deployed offshore.

Do you have a comparative figure for a total area output potential for different sizes of turbines?

If one takes, say, a square mile of sea surface and assumes that the entire area can be used for turbine installations, what would be the expected gain in output from that area for the deployment of larger 8Mw units compared with, say, the existing figures for 2 and 3Mw units?

I know there are 3D issues (height considerations) to take into account and that it is not simply a 2D calculation. Also that there are other variable involved but as I understand it the unit density (per given area) of turbines is reduced to retain efficiency when larger units are installed.

So, ignoring all other factors apart from installed base density per area, what would be the rated output (note rated not actual expected) potential output from a 1 square mile deployment of 8Mw turbines compared to 2Mw and 3Mw units?

[Phud]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Does one believe that the concern with CO2 levels is the ability for humans to function aerobically?
Or that plants can't survive ?

about 60,000PPM for CO2 to be toxic to human as I recall plants use Co2 in photosynthesis

[Phud]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Yes, I am aware of that - but with respect to what is by en large the theme of this thread :

CO2, and it how it effects the bigger picture : Climate Change.

Paddy, following the theme of the thread, CO2, does it or does it not lead warming or follow it, is politics saying it is or science, various answers, however, a different question, does man effect and impact the climate or does man disrespect the world and use resources beyond sustainability?

I do not accept the man made global warming and taxation, but I believe that the world has never had a stable atmosphere and will always be such, man, I think is a destroyer, not able to seemingly live in the world but wants to control it. We can produce and feed the population but it seems we wish not too.

I like the concept of windy mills and water mills, but my take is that there are far too many hidden aspects which need to be discussed.

So with more C02 plants have more food, man is not really affected until a lot higher PPM, what amount of CO2 is mans fault and is it only that CO2 which we are concerned about or is there a political reasoning for the taxes.

I will put forward the real threat to man is clean freshwater, without water most life is buggered.

[Phud]

Balanced and fair on PH?

I agree BTW

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

CO2, and it how it effects the bigger picture : Climate Change.

Changes in carbon dioxide levels don’t cause climate change. This is not a matter of opinion.

In the geological record, changes in carbon dioxide levels always follow temperature shifts, where the data has sufficient time resolution to enable the order of events to be determined,and the lag involved is bigger than the error bars so it’s not something that can be put down to experimental error. This result appears several times in the peer-reviewed literature including Monnin et al, Fischer et al, Petit et al, Jouzel et al. These references have all been posted in PH climate threads on numerous occasions.

From similar research led by Dr N Caillon “Carbon dioxide is not the forcing that drives the climatic system”

Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y.: Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes, Science 299, 1728-1731

From ressearch led by Dr S Idso: “Changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide content never precede changes in air temperature when going from glacial to interglacial conditions, and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions the change in CO2 concentration lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al)".

In the modern era, research based on data (rather than manmade climate modelling) shows the same order of events, i.e. the wrong order for carbon dioxide to cause climate change.

From research led by Dr O Humlum: “Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011...We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except two but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5–10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature.”

Changes in carbon dioxide do not cause climate change in any era, nor do they do anything to pre-existing trends as there is also no evidence for this beyond the usual speculation from vested interests, which is of course dressed up as evidence.

[LongQ]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I can see and understand your query and can go off dig out some typical (actual) wind farm layouts for you if you want showing the array layout(s) for some of the Round 1 sites (3MW - V90 / V112) WTG's where in this instance it is the swept area of the blades / hub, through to the modern era (8MW -164)

Network / IT issues currently but PM me and I'll see what I can do (as I assume no one else on this thread has an interest in this, so pointless posting it) CAD files OK ?

Again a good source of information - and in particular on the real life actual performance and life cycle of the UK projects - is the Catapult and the monitoring an inputs achieved via the SPARTA programme.

Bear in mind that not one is the 'above water' aspect to factor in for the layouts, the sub sea geo-tech factors in to the layout / spreads.


IIRC the typically spacing between WTG is/was loosely based on 3.5 x Diameter.
However that is along a single string or array.

Paddy, thanks for that.

I doubt there are as yet any figures that one might claim as highly accurate, qualified and proven. There just has not been the time to come up with anything that well assessed. So we can really only discuss generalities.

And your point about sub-sea geology is something I was going to consider separately to avoid confusion but yes, as with onshore installations, one has to assume that the sites with clearly better potential for wind based generation will be used first and that, therefore, there is a good chance that the future will mean slowly reducing levels of efficiency and, more than likely, increasing deployment and maintenance costs. In which case the LCOE, even taken in isolation from the rst of the electricity generating industry, is likely to plateau (before the numbers are affected by number inflation in line with general inflation) and potentially increase.

I imagine the developments will show cost graphs quite similar to that of Oil over the past century where increasing demand (or in the case of wind, mandated deployment) means seeking way to operate in ever more challenging offshore environments. However I would guess that the push to "go green", being politically driven, will soon crash into a need to install capacity anywhere as quickly as possible and onshore installations, no matter how inefficient they me be and how poor the location is for measured wind availability, will be pushed through in desperation.

My fear is that the politicians will get things so wrong through ignorance that they will be panicked into decisions that will be utterly wrong because they have not properly considered the consequences and spent the available capital leaving them nowhere to turn.

The cheapest way to support the erratic nature of power delivery from a mass of wind turbines (and the added problems of solar power) on a synchronised power network would be diesel generator farms - always assuming that the production of diesel fuel has not been banned and the price of production has not yet become so high that is is unaffordable.

I find it difficult to believe that any of the current "leaders" around the world are giving any thought at all to what their Grandchildren will be faced with in the very real event that their posturing and egotism goes so badly wrong that the developed world gains 100% social mobility on a downward trend for all.

So when I see estimates about the number of installations required to "hit targets" and consider how that could be done, even allowing for rapidly improving efficiencies in the building and servicing fields, I usually wonder whether the politicians involved have an clue at all - even the slightest clue - about what they are overseeing through policy and legal impositions. So far I have found nothing that suggests they do. (Indeed a few have recently proved publicly that they are not likely to be able to grasp anything that might require an understanding of numbers. Except maybe expenses claims.

All of that is why these discussion matter and we lay people should seek opportunities to become informed.


ETA: I meant to say thanks for the offer of technical info. I may well take you up on that but first I'll see if there are any sources, speculative or technical, that offer anything that we could consider might make up a valid range of likely results. Just to get a feel for the wider picture and to see how far ahead people appear to be thinking about this development.

Edited by LongQ on Thursday 11th May 13:47

[jshell]

Huge issue forthcoming with offshore turbines. Seems the vibrations are causing many piled structures to start sinking or destabilising. Now, that will be costly!

[robinessex]

Todays Beeb CC puff piece

SOS Ivanka! Can 'first daughter' save Paris climate deal?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3988...

among the diplomats meeting here in Bonn, there's a recognition that the person who's really key to the future progress of climate talks is not in Germany but in the White House some 6,500km (4,000 miles) away.
It's not you Mr Trump, it's your official first daughter!
One delegate here trilled: "What are we going to do about Ivanka?"
He wasn't alone. In most of the conversations I've had here in Bonn, one name is mentioned with a nodding mixture of reverence and hope.
For rich and poor countries, she's seen by many as the best bet for keeping the US in the Paris climate agreement.
But is this the true state of affairs? Or just the delusion of delegates, who, in fairness, don't get out much..................continues

Getting a bit desperate the Beeb is. It'll be Trumps dog next !!!

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Turbobloke - in response to your Post.

I can't be arsed to read past the first emotional outpour on the basis of a boy that has cried wolf.

You got the wrong boy, which saved you from admitting you have nothing credible by way of a proper response.

Chris Folland of UKMO and IPCC said:

The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.

Thar's because the data shows that carbon dioxide has never caused any climate change in any era on any timescale.

Climate models have human warming because the modellers assume it and put it there.

By all means go snidey with more cheap shots if it makes you feel better. Chin up!

[turbobloke]

jshell said:

Huge issue forthcoming with offshore turbines. Seems the vibrations are causing many piled structures to start sinking or destabilising. Now, that will be costly!

It certainly will.

In terms of basics:

Recent article on wind power said:

Deepwater Wind, developer of the Block Island turbines, estimates that the cost to build them was $300 million. New York and other Northeastern states are watching to see how it all turns out. New York recently adopted a mandate requiring the state to get 50% of its electricity from renewables by 2030. Carbon mitigation was the driving force behind the mandate.

Estimates! same old accuracy on costs.

The supposed basis for that mandate and all others like it is bogus, as shown clearly by the information in my post earlier today, now with the Folland quote on top.

[jshell]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

All of them ? or just say the ones on shifting sands of Robin Ring ?

Enough of them to be very worrying for the industry. I know the guys that are being called to look into what could be a disaster...