[Zipperfish]

Thanos Thanos:

Yeah, I read about microwave power years ago too. Sounds like a terrific idea, all it needs is a giant mesh collector screen in orbit that transmits the energy down to stations planetside. Certainly beats regular solar that gets interupted by bad weather or nuclear with all the waste disposal problems.

Don't say that I'm against any of this BTW because I'm not. I'm just against the spin that the enviros keep putting on this stuff, such as "we can do it today" or "it's just around the corner". It's not. It'll take time to get these new systems in place and functioning in an efficient and useful manner. Realistically speaking, none of us are going to be around by the time it becomes commonplace. Even most of our kids will probably be gone too before these newer sources become a basic part of our civilization's infrastructure.

I understand the desire to rub the enviros' faces in it. I mean, they seem to picture this sort of "noble savage" world where we pick berries and frolic in the meadows like the Indians, except for the barbaric wars and animal hides. There view is so full of internal inconsistencies, I got bored of tripping them up years ago.

There is no win-win. Extracting work from an ecosystem will necessarily degrade that ecosystem. The sooner we can all accept that, the sooner we can move this discussion to a higher plane. Doesn't matter where you extarct it from. It's the Second Law of Thermodynmics (entropy) and it's inexorable.

[bootlegga]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I agree. But I would also argue that one of the reason that wind power needs to be subsidzed is that oil is so heavily subsidized. I mean a good chunk of the western world's geopolitical strategy (paid for by taxpayers) is to make oil more accessible to western oil companies.

Oil is key to our prosperity. But it ain't going to last, and even if we move down the food chain to shale oil, we're going to poison the air before we can oxidize it all. This is a critical discussion for our time.

I agree that wind isnt the answer Scribbling in the margins. Nuclear will hold us for two or thre more generations, but then we'll run out of uranium too (or so I read; don't quote me on that). Then what? Intenisfy hydro? You can only scale up so much before you destroy inland ecosystems?

We need a resilient energy startegy. Wind is useful locally. Geothermal should be used for all heating purposes--its a low quality energy source and heating is a low quality application. Use the oil for gasoline and diesel (as we have no substitute for that now). Get rid of the coal plants, or at least don't subsidize them and regulate GHG emissions. And start looking at some extraterrestial sources.

+1

Good points all - I read about a year ago that someone suggested using solar and wind power to crack hydrogen, then using said hydrogen to power power plants, and maybe cars at sometime in the future (T Boone Pickens IIRC).

[RUEZ]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

RUEZ RUEZ:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Everytime this comes up, its like a frickin Pavlovian dog response. All the right-wingers get all tomoato-faced (actually, I shouldn't say that; rightwingers are prety much permanently livid, it seems).

Wow really? All of them?

We're talking about wind power here. Clearly energy policy is beyond the ken of your tiny little mind, so best to help yourself to a nice piping hot cup of shut the fuck up.

Although unorthodox, I'll accept this as your apology for generalizing all right wingers.

[Zipperfish]

RUEZ RUEZ:

Although unorthodox, I'll accept this as your apology for generalizing all right wingers.

I beg your forgiveness, sir. Now rep me for being so magnanimous, then fuck off.

[Jack Phast]

For everyone complaining about the subsidies of wind power, remember that oil is heavily subsidized as well. In Canada, oil and gas companies are given huge tax breaks - I'm not sure, but I would suspect that they get more than wind generated power does.

Even more than than those subsidies, though, is the costs that they pass on to the rest of us that they don't pay for - the destruction of the land they extract oil from, the pollution generated from the extraction or the burning of the oil and even the costs associated with disasters (Exxon still hasn't paid court ordered compensation for the Exxon Valdez disaster - 21 years later). Those are subsidies, just the same as payments to wind generated power producers.

And as for why the subsidies are going to foreign companies? You have 'free trade' to thank for that.

Sig removed by mod

[eureka]

"But just how much more unemployment are you willing to tolerate? "

Clean energy already employs directly, several times more than the coal industry> The multiplier makes it even more of a factor in preventing the slide into deep recession in the USA. without counting.

It is estimated that there is the potential for additional hydro alone related jobs of almost 1.5 million over the next fifteen years or so.

If there is to be any recovery from the present poor conditions it will be in the area of "Greening" the economy and the country.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

eureka eureka:

"But just how much more unemployment are you willing to tolerate? "

Clean energy already employs directly, several times more than the coal industry> The multiplier makes it even more of a factor in preventing the slide into deep recession in the USA. without counting.

It is estimated that there is the potential for additional hydro alone related jobs of almost 1.5 million over the next fifteen years or so.

If there is to be any recovery from the present poor conditions it will be in the area of "Greening" the economy and the country.

Then you haven't been paying attention. In case you missed it, a CEPOS (Center for Political Studies) study found that 90 percent of wind energy sector jobs in Denmark were transferred from other technology industries and that only 10 percent of the wind industry jobs were newly created jobs. As a result, the study said, Danish GDP is $270 million lower than it would have been without wind industry subsidies.

At one point Spain was losing 2.2 jobs in all other sectors for every one created in the "green" sector. France, Holland and Italy have also felt the hit. Germany is just beginning to notice the problem as well.

Cutely postive estimations mean nothing in the face of cold, hard reality.
Yer so damn concerned about the income disparity in North America yet yer willing to increase it even more over wind power.

The new 400 turbine farm in Texas will create one job for every $1.6 million dollars spent. Yeah, that's gonna prevent a further slide into deeper recession.
Holy hell, you'd be screaming blue murder if you discovered that Harper had a "jobs program" that was going to cost $1.6M/ job created.

And for a while now, the 99% in Ontario have been getting fucked on their hydro bills so we can subsidize a 1%er foreign corporation. It's too bad we didn't have a Liberal gov't in power in Ontario so this wouldn't happen.....oh wait.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

sandorski sandorski:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

sandorski sandorski:

What happens when the Wind runs out? Betchya didn't think about that!

Just use the traditional power plants to power the turbines

Ahh, brilliant. Another problem solved by the Internet!!

Internet shminternet, I used my kidneys *taps head* See, you install some big plugs and recepticles so when it's not windy, someone can plug them in so they'll spin all purty like.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Jack Phast Jack Phast:

Wind power might be expensive and have its problems, but what is the alternative?

Nuclear is cheap, but dangerous and there is still no solution of what to do with the waste (it is isn't clean, once you take into account mining for and transporting uranium, then disposing of the waste)

Coal is dirty
Oil is dirty and running out
Large scale Hydro is cheap and clean, but is environmental disatrous to the rivers it is on
Small scale Hydro is expensive and still damaging to the rivers it is on
Biofuels are the ultimate scam, and aren't going to solve any problems
Solar, is in about the same boat as wind

If you don't like wind power, fine - but what is the alternatvie? Because the status quo isn't going to do it for much longer.

It's true what you say. In a world of 7 billion coal would make the whole world sooty. Nuclear melt downs will continue to happen, just waiting for the next one. The proper costing of these alternatives make wind look not too bad. Wind is potentially a solution. My back of the envelop calculations indicate there is not enough prime wind area for development, not enough land. The future will require a mix of sources. For sure future generations are going to be more sensitive to population pressure, the cost of having children. By the year 2200 resource pressure alone is going to make the world very different.

[eureka]

I think, P.A. that it is you who needs an attention fix. You should not look solely at information put out by the fossil fuel industry. You could ignore it altogether and save yourself the time wasted in reading it.

That CEPOS study was funded by the Energy Research Institute of the USA and it is a load of bollocks. There have been numerous independent studies including by the Danish government that give the facts. Why seize on one that draws the conclusions that are paid for and ignores reality?

I also, in another thread, gave you the facts about Spain. That information you hang on to about that country was also carried out by a Right Wing economist in denial and paid for by another Right Wing American source. I gave you the actual figure for Spain - more than 100,000 new jobs created.

The subsidy for Samsung amounts to about 1.5% of the investment that company is making in Ontario. Not bad for the number of jobs it will create directly and for the massive indirect effects. And a piddling amount compared to the direct subsidies that are still being given to the fossil fuel industries. Again, disregarding the indirect cost in lives and medical care for the traditional sources.

And, the Wind Farms in Ontario are nor all "foreign." Most are domestic so why pick on one "foreign" firm that is confident of Ontario's future? Should all the "foreign" auto companies be shut out? Shall we tell Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, Chrysler to take a hike? All are or have been, subsidised in some way.

[Gunnair]

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Jack Phast Jack Phast:

Wind power might be expensive and have its problems, but what is the alternative?

Nuclear is cheap, but dangerous and there is still no solution of what to do with the waste (it is isn't clean, once you take into account mining for and transporting uranium, then disposing of the waste)

Coal is dirty
Oil is dirty and running out
Large scale Hydro is cheap and clean, but is environmental disatrous to the rivers it is on
Small scale Hydro is expensive and still damaging to the rivers it is on
Biofuels are the ultimate scam, and aren't going to solve any problems
Solar, is in about the same boat as wind

If you don't like wind power, fine - but what is the alternatvie? Because the status quo isn't going to do it for much longer.

It's true what you say. In a world of 7 billion coal would make the whole world sooty. Nuclear melt downs will continue to happen, just waiting for the next one. The proper costing of these alternatives make wind look not too bad. Wind is potentially a solution. My back of the envelop calculations indicate there is not enough prime wind area for development, not enough land. The future will require a mix of sources. For sure future generations are going to be more sensitive to population pressure, the cost of having children. By the year 2200 resource pressure alone is going to make the world very different.

It also requires a fundamental change in social infrastructure. Frankly, cities have becoming sprawling metropolises with limited and ineffective transit systems. They continue to rely upon the vehicle as the primary mode of transportation. Out here, sprawl has created congestion problems, but that aside, the lack of desire to build up our city centres with housing and thereby diminish the population of suburbs is slow. Yes alternative energies are needed, but without a serious rethinking of how and where we house our people, or kicking in hundreds of billions for highly effective public transit, our problems will not go away anytime soon.

[eureka]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Bruce_the_vii Bruce_the_vii:

Jack Phast Jack Phast:

Wind power might be expensive and have its problems, but what is the alternative?

Nuclear is cheap, but dangerous and there is still no solution of what to do with the waste (it is isn't clean, once you take into account mining for and transporting uranium, then disposing of the waste)

Coal is dirty
Oil is dirty and running out
Large scale Hydro is cheap and clean, but is environmental disatrous to the rivers it is on
Small scale Hydro is expensive and still damaging to the rivers it is on
Biofuels are the ultimate scam, and aren't going to solve any problems
Solar, is in about the same boat as wind

If you don't like wind power, fine - but what is the alternatvie? Because the status quo isn't going to do it for much longer.

It's true what you say. In a world of 7 billion coal would make the whole world sooty. Nuclear melt downs will continue to happen, just waiting for the next one. The proper costing of these alternatives make wind look not too bad. Wind is potentially a solution. My back of the envelop calculations indicate there is not enough prime wind area for development, not enough land. The future will require a mix of sources. For sure future generations are going to be more sensitive to population pressure, the cost of having children. By the year 2200 resource pressure alone is going to make the world very different.

It also requires a fundamental change in social infrastructure. Frankly, cities have becoming sprawling metropolises with limited and ineffective transit systems. They continue to rely upon the vehicle as the primary mode of transportation. Out here, sprawl has created congestion problems, but that aside, the lack of desire to build up our city centres with housing and thereby diminish the population of suburbs is slow. Yes alternative energies are needed, but without a serious rethinking of how and where we house our people, or kicking in hundreds of billions for highly effective public transit, our problems will not go away anytime soon.

That I will agree with. Added to that is, with Toronto and many major cities, the gentrification process that has made downtowns unaffordable and forced people out to the suburbs and exurbs.

Apart from the social problems of concentrating the poorer in near ghettos.

[Batsy]

eureka eureka:

You do know that Lord Lawson, (Nigel to his friends) is the founder of the Global Warming Policy Foundation? A foundation that was formed for the sole purpose of denying Global Warming and promoting the fossil fuel industry.

A foundation that purports to present counter scientific argument while having no scientists in its employ OR reference.

Good. More such organisations need to be set up to tell people the truth and to fight groups such as the IPCC - who have been proven to be giving us false information regarding "global warming" - who brainwash the people into believing something which isn't happening.

[Batsy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Wind power may not be a panacea, but it's far cleaner than most other power sources.

It's completely and utterly useless. Britain's wind turbines need to be taken down and many more nuclear power stations need to be built.

It's important we build more nuclear power stations and rely less on "renewable" sources otherwise the lights will go out in ten years times and people will be living by candlelight.

$1:

As for the Duke and his advice, it's right up there with, "You better go home soon (from China) or you'll wind up with slitty eyes."

The Duke's advice was spot on. He was right to say that windfarms are useless and he's sticking up for the hard-pressed British taxpayer who don't wish to fork out their hard-earned cash on useless windmills.

The Duke will have millions of supporters over this issue.

[Batsy]

Melanie Phillips
Daily Mail
21st November 2011

For years, the scientific and political establishment has claimed that there is a ‘consensus’ that ‘the science is settled’ and that man-made global warming is beyond challenge.

But now the organisation at the very heart of this claim has sidled out a tacit admission that this is untrue — while trying to conceal that this is not in fact the mother and father of U-turns.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC as it is known, is the body which has driven man-made global warming theory for more than 20 years.

Despite the fact that hundreds of eminent scientists have challenged this theory, with some who have worked for the IPCC even attesting to the errors, manipulation and downright fraud at the heart of its purported ‘research’, it has never deviated from its alarmist predictions.

Until now. Suddenly, according to leaks from a new report, it is saying that it is not possible to predict changes in the Earth’s weather systems for at least the next three decades because of ‘natural climate variability’.

In other words, it might get warmer — or it might get colder. The IPCC doesn’t know which because there are too many unknowns in nature.

Well might you scratch your head. For these are the same people who have told the world that the climate will without a shadow of a doubt get so hot that the planet will fry, drown, succumb to terrible diseases, hurricanes, extinction of species and a general environmental apocalypse.

So is there something special about the next three decades which has suddenly served to halt the apocalypse in its tracks?

Of course not. The unknowns about the climate have always been there, just as the sceptics have always said — and the warmists’ terrifying predictions were always no more than a load of hot air.

What’s changed is that they know the game is now up. For even though carbon dioxide levels have been increasing, there has been no increase in global temperature for the past decade or so.

And that destroys the entire theory of man-made global warming, which is that carbon emissions inevitably and inexorably drive up temperature.

So the people who have demonised climate-change sceptics as ‘climate change deniers’ or ‘flat-earthers’ are now telling us, in a coy and roundabout kind of way, that actually no one has a clue how the climate will turn out.

If man-made global warming were merely a nonsensical idea which had taken hold of the scientific establishment entailing fraud, deception and the wholesale bullying and intimidation of all who dared speak the truth — which is indeed what has taken place over the past two decades — that would be bad enough.

But this is far, far worse even than that. For the theory which this world scientific body is now quietly trying to slide away from has driven the politics and economies of the West off the axis of reason altogether.

In its core aim to reduce carbon emissions, it has done untold damage to western prosperity. And it is Britain that has taken a leading role in exporting this madness.

By the Government’s own estimate, it would cost £404 billion to implement its Climate Change Act — £760 per household every year for four decades.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1eRyfTAqz