Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[turbobloke]

Nice one DM for covering research on white elephant killers. Spot on to the very last sentence.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech article-4924236/Noise-caused-building-wind-farms-KILLING-fish.html

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Wait-

I thought you said it was Millions of bats. Not Hundreds.




As for the other {nimby} stuff & pile driving - which would take perhaps 6 months out of the lifecycle to be considered
Classically there is only rhetoric rather than any content, and omits more than it claims.

Bubble curtains etc are deployed. no mention of that in the report conveniently.
Nor the growth in fish stocks around Offshore wind farms

6 months of suspended silt is enough to wipe out an entire year class of fish eggs deposited in the region by demersal spawners . there were also mutterings around some elasmobranch species being affected by emf from the cables , not seen much on it in a while, but apparently a solvable design issue.

any structure deposited in the open sea will act as a fish aggregating device ,so the offshore wind farms will provide areas where fish will gather.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

You realise that is 'Six Months' for a full bloody site of circa 30 sq miles ?

A single Monopile (rather than the 'pole' reported) takes about 4hrs to knock in. The next / nearest is about 800m away

And cables?
The ones that are buried a minimum of 1.5m below the seabed and shielded?



You points are irrelevant

the point about emf may well turn out to be irrelevant once studies give it the clear. though 1.5 m below the surface is nothing when current scour is taken into consideration.
the point about silt deposits covering fish eggs is not. i forgot that pelagic spawners are also affected as the silt sticks to eggs causing a loss in bouyancy ,then they sink and become non viable . it only takes one short stint of piling for these effects to occur , not six months. once the ailt is in the water column that is it. as the preferred site for these offshore farms appears to be raised banks it is a real problem as these are the type of areas species like herring and sandeel spawn.

the time of year the piling occurs is important . i asked during a mpa consultation meeting up here if the forth array would take spawning times into consideration ,but no one could give me an answer. a common theme on certain topics relating to green energy it seems.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Fair points all round - as opposed to the usual cheap snide stuff here:

The 1,5 m is as mentioned 'minimum' -deeper if required, and / or mattresses to suit
Perspective as always is required - but never applied. Todays average monopile is circa 8-9m in a matrix of 800m the disturbance as you can quickly calculate is 'minimal to irrelevant'

as you say - yet TB's bible of the DailyMail doesn't - "the time of year the piling occurs is important"
which is why it is limited. A
ny site with spawning / dolphins etc is limited and constrained in the foundation installation.

good to hear, though i wouldn't worry about the dolphins , i don't think they are as sensitive to all loud noise as is sometimes made out .they will follow squid boats banging the trawl doors off rocks when towing close in (you can hear the noise a couple of miles away on shore) and i have watched them working a shoal of fish within half a mile of a localish yard building platforms for turbines when there was a helluva clanging going on with a platform being loaded onto a barge.

we aren't going to agree on everything green energy related paddy, but i won't be disagreeing just for the sake of it. for instance i always try to remember you are not an advocate for 100% renewables like the true ecoloons .i think my main point of disagreement would probably be on the ratio of renewables to traditional generation and the rate renewables are being installed. i can see a place for limited amounts of wind generation, large scale solar in the uk just doesn't make any sense at all to me . i can also accept in the long run i may well be wrong, time will tell.

i posted a link to this a fair while back http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1050032/sc... and i had high hopes it was something that would see further rapid development ,but it seems to have gone quiet, are you aware of any further developments ?

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

the the Muppet Show perpetual trawling of tabloids and fkwittery web sites for perceived negatives to float for amusement.

Which after translation from the debate stifling lingo of touchednervese actually refers to published research that's helpfully covered by the MSM as a secondary source, and posted here for information, causing consternation in the windies as believers would prefer the MSM to keep quiet.

Name-calling from PnM was unexpected though

[chris watton]

I caught this on SKY News earlier this morning,

'WOOD burning could be banned in UK towns and cities in an attempt to tackle air pollution, under proposals suggested by Sadiq Khan.'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4573185/open-firepla...

[The Don of Croy]

Anyone else watch 'Simon Reeve in Russia' on the beeb last night?

Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.

But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...

Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.

But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.

[paulrockliffe]

chris watton said:

I caught this on SKY News earlier this morning,

'WOOD burning could be banned in UK towns and cities in an attempt to tackle air pollution, under proposals suggested by Sadiq Khan.'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4573185/open-firepla...

That chap is seriously stupid. His core vote is the middle-class uber-using wood-burner. Very few in London give a st about this rubbish when it comes it putting their hands in their own pockets. I wonder how this squares with wood being classed as a 'renewable' when it's shipped from Canada and shoveled into Drax and gas being the farts of satan though?

Second question, seeing as I'm here, is anyone doing any research on the impact of extracting energy from the atmosphere with all these wind turbines? And what the impact of installing enough to satisfy the lentilists and free-loaders might be? Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.

The basic science is that if the wind isn't moving at all then it must be warmer, so you'd think slower air would be bad for temperature.

[XM5ER]

chris watton said:

I caught this on SKY News earlier this morning,

'WOOD burning could be banned in UK towns and cities in an attempt to tackle air pollution, under proposals suggested by Sadiq Khan.'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4573185/open-firepla...

Inevitable.

By the way, when did the Sun become a soft porn site?

[Jinx]

paulrockliffe said:

Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.

They do

[XM5ER]

Jinx said:

paulrockliffe said:

Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.

They do

Wonderful, the already scarred landscape of southern Portugal can expect to lose more vegetation them.

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

paulrockliffe said:

Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.

They do

They do indeed, in addition to Zhou there's Vautard et al and Keith et al, details already posted in the Future of UK Energy thread back in early August. IIRC these authors use IPCC-type methodology so the irony is delicious. One of the papers adds windfarms causing global climate change (warming) to the mix - with windfarms proliferating to so-called decarbonisation levels - though on the hoof I can't recall which.

[mybrainhurts]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Time Lord says it all works out in the end though....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqtVNvRSIWw&fe...

Dr Who The fk said:

It's going to save the planet

Another lefty luvvie swallows the yarn....

[jurbie]

chris watton said:

I caught this on SKY News earlier this morning,

'WOOD burning could be banned in UK towns and cities in an attempt to tackle air pollution, under proposals suggested by Sadiq Khan.'

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4573185/open-firepla...

Not really a new idea though, the estate that I live on has been a smoke free zone for I would guess over 30 years and was introduced to deal with the smog from a thousand coal fires located in a few square miles. Everyone moved onto smokeless fuel and eventually gas and electric central heating.

.

[Gandahar]

The Don of Croy said:

Anyone else watch 'Simon Reeve in Russia' on the beeb last night?

Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.

But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...

Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.

But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.

Why don't you just don't go out there ( just walking on foot) and do a documentary saying

"Actually, it is really cold"

To give an alternative viewpoint?

I tell you why, because you are all mouth. Sorry, keyboard.

[Gandahar]

paulrockliffe said:

Second question, seeing as I'm here, is anyone doing any research on the impact of extracting energy from the atmosphere with all these wind turbines? And what the impact of installing enough to satisfy the lentilists and free-loaders might be? Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.

The basic science is that if the wind isn't moving at all then it must be warmer, so you'd think slower air would be bad for temperature.

If the wind is not moving at all it must be warmer? Do you actually mean air rather than wind? If wind is not moving it is not wind. Nonsensical

I wouldn't bother going on the climate change science thread if I was you, you might be in trouble.

Slowing the wind with turbines ...


And after all that you saying "Given how poor the science is around climate"

Go on Einstein, tell us how poor it is. snigger.

[durbster]

The Don of Croy said:

Anyone else watch 'Simon Reeve in Russia' on the beeb last night?

Great images of frozen wastelands, tundra, former sub pens and some largely scrappy towns.

But much to say on global warming, throughout the full 60 minutes. It's bad, it's worse than we thought, the evidence is there, if only we'd wake up and take action before...

Not to mention his featuring; two diesel train rides, one helicopter, two skidoo type things (one 8 hour trip), an ancient prop plane, many and varied 4 x 4 road vehicles (petrol?) and somehow getting 1500 miles overnight to his next feature. And he's not alone - in one shot they 'caught' the crew (about 8 of them) so the transport requirement is fairly major.

But it's not his fault, he's just one lonely traveller out in the wilderness. It's the rest of us that (presumably) needs to rein back our carbon footprints.

You'd have preferred he shot a documentary about Russia on his own in his bedroom?

What did you think hearing it directly from people who are on the extremes of the climate and therefore experiencing the effects of AGW first hand?

Edited by durbster on Saturday 30th September 09:51

[Kawasicki]

Gandahar said:

paulrockliffe said:

Second question, seeing as I'm here, is anyone doing any research on the impact of extracting energy from the atmosphere with all these wind turbines? And what the impact of installing enough to satisfy the lentilists and free-loaders might be? Given how poor the science is around climate, it wouldn't come as a huge shock to learn that slowing the wind enough messes around with all sorts of equilibriums and leads to an increase in temperatures.

The basic science is that if the wind isn't moving at all then it must be warmer, so you'd think slower air would be bad for temperature.

If the wind is not moving at all it must be warmer? Do you actually mean air rather than wind? If wind is not moving it is not wind. Nonsensical

I wouldn't bother going on the climate change science thread if I was you, you might be in trouble.

Slowing the wind with turbines ...


And after all that you saying "Given how poor the science is around climate"

Go on Einstein, tell us how poor it is. snigger.

Slowing the wind with turbines is hardly a controversial statement.

[gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Slowing the wind with turbines is hardly a controversial statement.

I think it's perspective thats lacking here. The size if the turbines and the amount of wind 'slowed' compared to the amount in the system.

[Fat Fairy]

gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Slowing the wind with turbines is hardly a controversial statement.

I think it's perspective thats lacking here. The size if the turbines and the amount of wind 'slowed' compared to the amount in the system.

Does that cover the amount of CO2 as well?