The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain

[rscott]

Gary C said:

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.

Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.

Are we seriously suggesting that a wind turbine increases global temperatures ? I can see that it can change local temperatures by changing wind flows, but anything else ?

Wouldn't it also be useful to know how this compares to the impact of other generation methods?

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

Gary C said:

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.

Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.

Are we seriously suggesting that a wind turbine increases global temperatures ? I can see that it can change local temperatures by changing wind flows, but anything else ?

Wouldn't it also be useful to know how this compares to the impact of other generation methods?

In response to the various questions...

Where was it stated or implied that a wind turbine increases global temperatures? If CMD had one fitted to his chimney are there people gullible enough to think this act may cause global warming? Even in the gullible world of agw supporters that a gull too far.

For anybody with residual comprehension difficulties, the first peer-reviewed paper involved data - not model gigo - showing that the largest windfarms have caused significant local warming (not global). So does the UHIE.

The other peer-reviewed paper showed, using gospel-like climate models, that at decarbonisation levels, windfarms globally are projected to cause climate change.

In terms of comparisons, the point at hand is that these white elephants are supposed to be costing us the earth to prevent or reduce global warming when in fact there is data and gospel to the opposite effect.

Diversions about other sources are diversions which aim to divert, HTH. A better diversion which would not be a diversion would be a credible peer-reviewed paper or two as above.

It's bizarre how people will 'believe' that incremental additions of a trace gas will lead to armageddon yet changes in kinetic energy (an atmospheric energy change just as radiative transfer involves energy change) will be impotent.

[Condi]

turbobloke said:

It's bizarre how people will 'believe' that incremental additions of a trace gas will lead to armageddon yet changes in kinetic energy (an atmospheric energy change just as radiative transfer involves energy change) will be impotent.

The increase in CO2 has increased the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere, and it is well recorded that there are increased number of violent weather events (storms, hurricanes etc.)

By removing some of this kinetic energy by using wind turbines it just brings the atmosphere back to balance.





Also, not sure if you're being serious.... but do you really 'believe' that with the small number of wind turbines are removing any measurable quantity of energy from the atmosphere?! Think for a small second about the amount of wind energy across the world, and consider how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of gigawatts are available at any one time. We take, what, a few hundred gig across the world at any one time.

[Gary C]

turbobloke said:

rscott said:

Gary C said:

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.

Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.

Are we seriously suggesting that a wind turbine increases global temperatures ? I can see that it can change local temperatures by changing wind flows, but anything else ?

Wouldn't it also be useful to know how this compares to the impact of other generation methods?

In response to the various questions...

Where was it stated or implied that a wind turbine increases global temperatures? If CMD had one fitted to his chimney are there people gullible enough to think this act may cause global warming? Even in the gullible world of agw supporters that a gull too far.

For anybody with residual comprehension difficulties, the first peer-reviewed paper involved data - not model gigo - showing that the largest windfarms have caused significant local warming (not global). So does the UHIE.

The other peer-reviewed paper showed, using gospel-like climate models, that at decarbonisation levels, windfarms globally are projected to cause climate change.

In terms of comparisons, the point at hand is that these white elephants are supposed to be costing us the earth to prevent or reduce global warming when in fact there is data and gospel to the opposite effect.

Diversions about other sources are diversions which aim to divert, HTH. A better diversion which would not be a diversion would be a credible peer-reviewed paper or two as above.

It's bizarre how people will 'believe' that incremental additions of a trace gas will lead to armageddon yet changes in kinetic energy (an atmospheric energy change just as radiative transfer involves energy change) will be impotent.

"Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted to cause global climate change"

That's all

[anonymous-user]

rscott said:

Gary C said:

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.

Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.

Are we seriously suggesting that a wind turbine increases global temperatures ? I can see that it can change local temperatures by changing wind flows, but anything else ?

Wouldn't it also be useful to know how this compares to the impact of other generation methods?

Given that the average hydrocarbon fueled powerstation operates at around 60% efficiency, and ultimately all losses are converted into heat (even the noises of the powers station are ultimately lost of heat as the movement of air molecules!) then it seems to me that there is really no sensible way that a wind turbine, being, what looks to be at worst around 81% efficient (10% blade loss & 10% generation loss and note this is not the overall efficiency as measured against the swept free stream area, but the efficiency of the system using only the captured air (ie that which is slowed down by 2/3rds velocity to extract peak power))

So, for any level of power output the wind turbine produces less heat?

(it's not clear to me the proportional magnitudes of "frictional heating" ie heat generate from additional turbulence and "rubbing" of the air on the spinning blades and the heat release from compression effects, that are of course effectively adiabatic and hence fully reversable)

[DocJock]

Condi said:

The increase in CO2 has increased the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere, and it is well recorded that there are increased number of violent weather events (storms, hurricanes etc.)

By removing some of this kinetic energy by using wind turbines it just brings the atmosphere back to balance.





Also, not sure if you're being serious.... but do you really 'believe' that with the small number of wind turbines are removing any measurable quantity of energy from the atmosphere?! Think for a small second about the amount of wind energy across the world, and consider how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions of gigawatts are available at any one time. We take, what, a few hundred gig across the world at any one time.

Are you sure?

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

[wc98]

DocJock said:

Are you sure?

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html

i'm really glad you posted that, i can stop banging my head against the wall of regurgitated dreck relating to cagw extreme weather claims on here. i might not be very bright but at least i go and have a look at the available data on various climate related topics.

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

rscott said:

Gary C said:

turbobloke said:

Indeed.

Windfarming has caused local warming (Vautard et al), air temperature data at large windfarms increased by 0.7 deg C in a decade. Global warming is supposedly 0.6 - 0.8 deg C per century.

Widespread windfarming associated with decarbonisation is predicted - IPCC type models so must be gospel truth - to cause global climate change (Keith et al) as alteration of kinetic energy fluxes exerts greater climatic effects than alteration of radiative fluxes by the same amount.

Are we seriously suggesting that a wind turbine increases global temperatures ? I can see that it can change local temperatures by changing wind flows, but anything else ?

Wouldn't it also be useful to know how this compares to the impact of other generation methods?

In response to the various questions...

Where was it stated or implied that a wind turbine increases global temperatures? If CMD had one fitted to his chimney are there people gullible enough to think this act may cause global warming? Even in the gullible world of agw supporters that a gull too far.

For anybody with residual comprehension difficulties, the first peer-reviewed paper involved data - not model gigo - showing that the largest windfarms have caused significant local warming (not global). So does the UHIE.

The other peer-reviewed paper showed, using gospel-like climate models, that at decarbonisation levels, windfarms globally are projected to cause climate change.

In terms of comparisons, the point at hand is that these white elephants are supposed to be costing us the earth to prevent or reduce global warming when in fact there is data and gospel to the opposite effect.

Diversions about other sources are diversions which aim to divert, HTH. A better diversion which would not be a diversion would be a credible peer-reviewed paper or two as above.

It's bizarre how people will 'believe' that incremental additions of a trace gas will lead to armageddon yet changes in kinetic energy (an atmospheric energy change just as radiative transfer involves energy change) will be impotent.

But these "white elephants" produce less local warming that most other methods of power generation - surely you agree with that?

[turbobloke]

rscott said:

But these "white elephants" produce less local warming that most other methods of power generation - surely you agree with that?

Pure conjecture. A post or two ago you were asking for information on the comparison, did you find it after all and if so, which peer-reviewed paper(s) did you unearth? Naturally, opinion/conjecture/speculation just won't do. What does the data show for 'most other methods' since you appear to have located it?

There is zero established causality from climate change to anthropogenic emissions in any empirical data (as opposed to climate model gigo) merely the same type of opinion/conjecture/speculation referred to above.

White elephants may cost the earth but aren't saving it. Not that it - as opposed to its inhabitants - is at risk.

[rscott]

turbobloke said:

rscott said:

But these "white elephants" produce less local warming that most other methods of power generation - surely you agree with that?

Pure conjecture. A post or two ago you were asking for information on the comparison, did you find it after all and if so, which peer-reviewed paper(s) did you unearth? Naturally, opinion/conjecture/speculation just won't do. What does the data show for 'most other methods' since you appear to have located it?

There is zero established causality from climate change to anthropogenic emissions in any empirical data (as opposed to climate model gigo) merely the same type of opinion/conjecture/speculation referred to above.

White elephants may cost the earth but aren't saving it. Not that it - as opposed to its inhabitants - is at risk.

A standard turbowaffle response. Demanding a far higher level of proof than he provides.

Did you even read Gary C's comment?

[gadgetmac]

rscott said:

A standard turbowaffle response. Demanding a far higher level of proof than he provides.

Did you even read Gary C's comment?

I can’t believe you even argue with him, even somebody in the wind generation industry walked away from this thread shaking their head in disbelief.

[Condi]

gadgetmac said:

rscott said:

A standard turbowaffle response. Demanding a far higher level of proof than he provides.

Did you even read Gary C's comment?

I can’t believe you even argue with him, even somebody in the wind generation industry walked away from this thread shaking their head in disbelief.

Most people with any involvement in the power generation industry have found this thread frustrating to the point of walking away, shaking their head. Or in Turbowaffle language, I 'flounced out' because having a sensible argument was less enjoyable than banging my head against the wall.

On the one hand, they disregard all the science around global warming and CO2 emissions. But on the other hand they come up with dubious scientific papers supporting their arguments and demand fully referenced scholarly articles from anyone else challenging them.

Its quite funny though; these angry little men, stuck in the past and unable to do anything about it other than post on t'internet.

[gadgetmac]

As they’ve discovered over on the climate thread, ALWAYS check all sources that are given and you’ll invariably find a self-interest common denominator.

[Condi]

DocJock said:

Are you sure?

As ever, the science doesnt seem to agree with each other.

European Science Council report showing an increase in extreme weather events
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/1803...

Scientific article published this year linking atmospheric carbon with extreme weather events
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao335...

[robinessex]

gadgetmac said:

As they’ve discovered over on the climate thread, ALWAYS check all sources that are given and you’ll invariably find a self-interest common denominator.

CC scientists (whatever they are) are like economists. Put 2 in a room, and you'll get 3 opinions

[wc98]

Condi said:

As ever, the science doesnt seem to agree with each other.

European Science Council report showing an increase in extreme weather events
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/1803...

Scientific article published this year linking atmospheric carbon with extreme weather events
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao335...

the ipcc assessment reports don't agree with them.

[DocJock]

Condi said:

As ever, the science doesnt seem to agree with each other.

European Science Council report showing an increase in extreme weather events
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/1803...

Scientific article published this year linking atmospheric carbon with extreme weather events
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao335...

Without trying to be confrontational, then why make the unequivocal assertion that you did?

BTW, your first link indicates more storms, but less damage (adjusted for inflation), which implies they are less powerful.
The second link discusses temperature and precipitation extremes, not hurricanes It is interesting though, thanks for the links.

Edited by DocJock on Saturday 29th September 15:32

[DocJock]

wc98 said:

the ipcc assessment reports don't agree with them.

Quoting the IPCC reports to support your argument is dodgy ground...

[Condi]

wc98 said:

Condi said:

As ever, the science doesnt seem to agree with each other.

European Science Council report showing an increase in extreme weather events
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/1803...

Scientific article published this year linking atmospheric carbon with extreme weather events
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao335...

the ipcc assessment reports don't agree with them.

I'm confused. The IPCC believes in man made climate change, but the anti-renewable posters here dont believe in man made CC. So why are they using the small parts of the IPCC research they do believe in to argue their case? Either you trust the scientists and their conclusions, or you dont.

EDIT - If you read this Scientific American article it not only states that not only do the scientists generally agree on the link between more extreme weather and climate change, but also references the IPCC reports.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate...

Edited by Condi on Saturday 29th September 17:07

[rscott]

DocJock said:

Condi said:

As ever, the science doesnt seem to agree with each other.

European Science Council report showing an increase in extreme weather events
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/1803...

Scientific article published this year linking atmospheric carbon with extreme weather events
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/2/eaao335...

Without trying to be confrontational, then why make the unequivocal assertion that you did?

BTW, your first link indicates more storms, but less damage (adjusted for inflation), which implies they are less powerful.
The second link discusses temperature and precipitation extremes, not hurricanes It is interesting though, thanks for the links.

Edited by DocJock on Saturday 29th September 15:32

Not sure how you can make that assumption for the first link. It may well be that there's less damage simply because we're better at developing systems for preventing that damage. (flood barriers, higher building standards, etc).