My column Friday noted this glaring disconnect: On the same day a grim new scientific report came out on global warming, Kansas lawmakers pretty much washed their hands of responsibility for the new Holcomb coal-fired power plant, which would emit millions of tons of greenhouse gases in the next 50 or 60 years.
What, me worry?
Despite Kansas lawmakers’ unwillingness to consider a moratorium, the political and economic landscape is changing for coal-fired plants in ways that should give lawmakers pause.
Congress, confronting climate change, is likely to pass tough new carbon controls in the next few years, and this, combined with soaring construction costs, will make the economics of coal-fired plants more problematic.
Kansas leaders haven’t done their due diligence on the true costs of coal-fired plants and the possible alternatives.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- HLP on Open thread 11/23
311 Comments
Hmmm. I guess they can tackle a non-binding resolution to tell President Bush not to send more troops to Iraq, but don’t want to do nothing on coal power plants?
Since other states will be affected by this pollution they can sue the state to get these plants shut down. The coal plants will probably get subsidies while our health care costs increase with the increased soot and mercury going into our lungs.
Support Clean Renewable Energy
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/
If the plant is approved – it will be WITHIN federal standards for emissions.
What reason would the legislature have for denying them the permit?
Our Congressmen (hopefully) follow rules that are on the books. So what rules, or laws, are they not following?
Do you want them to arbitrarily make decisions that have no basis in fact?
Despite what the whiners on this board say – our congressmen have the actual facts and data on the emissions.
These plants will be patterned after the one in Craig Colorado – and owned by the same company, Tri State.
Here is an article from that local paper detailing the economic benefit to that town from the plant being constructed there:
http://craigdailypress.com/section/archive/story/21202
When the plant first came in – in the 70’s, many folks were upset that it would bring in transients (boom) and when they left there would be trailer park graveyards (bust.) That didn’t happen. Many of the people who came (union craftsmen) made a permanent home there. I married one of their sons.
The smaller plant in Craig employs over three hundred people – so it is likely the bigger ones in Holcomb will employ even more (when finished.) In the construction phase – thousands will work there, and while there – will dump their union-wages into the Western KS economy. A big plus.
Read what folks think after 25 years of a power plant in their community:
http://craigdailypress.com/section/archive/story/18046
The plants will MEET FEDERAL STANDARDS. So what is the problem?
The mercury levels are rising in KS water sources, ponds, streams. Many blame the coal fired plants. Mercury is a common factor in Cinnabar – a mineral found in salt.
If anyone wants to learn about mercury in our water – try finding out how much is in the rock salt spread liberally on our roads in the winter.
That might actually be helpful instead of trying to stop fossil fuel refinement that is meeting emission standards.
I think all future electric plants should be nuclear. Coal plants should be banned. Mandatory conservation meausres should be implemented including the outright banning of incandesant light bulbs within 2 years. That alone would cut power consumption greatly. Also, mandatory digital radio switches should be installed in all air conditioning units allowing the power company to switch units on and off during peak demand to balance the power load and reduce demand for electric power plants.
kev – I would add wind to nuclear. Maybe also solar. Fossil fuel for backup only.
kev – I would add wind to nuclear. Maybe also solar. Fossil fuel for backup only.
Battery/hydrogen technology can help with load-leveling. Also charging electric cars overnight to fill the ‘trough’
Anyone had a power shortage lately?
No?
So….WHY do we need another power plant?
J R – two reasons: (1) anticipate growth and (2) replace old polluting plants.
Anticipate growth could be accomodated by eliminating waste.
Replace an old polluting plant? I have seen no one prove that this is the reason for construction of this plant.
BenAn honest question:Don’t many electric batteries contain some harmful chemicals, including mercury?
GSheridan,
“If the plant is approved – it will be WITHIN federal standards for emissions.”
For future CO2 restrictions? Reality check: Future carbon taxes are going to HURT coal profits.
GSheridan: “many folks were upset that it would bring in transients (boom)”
Sunflower’s own estimates = trailers and motels,http://www.holcombstation.coop/Benefits/Gamble_Study.pdfPage 14,”… western Kansas: 20% motels @$40/day, 5 days per week, no trailers. Kansas: 60% motels @$60/day, 20% trailers, and 20% commute. Motel, 5 days/wk. Trailering, 7 days/wk. OUTSTATE: 70% trailers, 7 days/wk, 30% motels, 5.5 days/wk.”
There is no such thing as an energy source without negative effects.Some consider wind power an eye-sore, though not me. I think wind farms look kind of cool.However, some rather wealthy Democrats have fought hard to stop windmills they didnt want!Also, birds do get killed by windmills.”Alternative Energy” is just that, an alternative.Our primary energy source will be fossil fuels for at least the next 50 years, if not longer.Drastic measures to stop the use of fossil fuels will provide minimual real benefits, and will cause huge damage.
It must be noted that Econ101 is Paul Rosell.
Paul Rosell is an admitted trader in fossil fuels securities.
Gsheridan?
You seem to have a great interest in this plant being built.
On another thread, I asked you if that interest was financially based. To my knowledge you have not answered. Do you have a personal financial interest in this plant?
An admission and suggestion to you libs:
You have very valid points about ground water.The combination of all the ethanol plants and the coal fired power plants will put a strain on ground water needs and will risk further ground water contamination.I suggest you concentrate on that issue, since it “holds water” and many of your other arguments don’t.
Kev,
Austin Energy provides a free programmable thermostat, plus installation $200-$280 value) to customers who agree to let A/C be cycled off during peak demands.
http://www.austinenergy.com/Energy%20Efficiency/Programs/Power%20Partner/index.htm
I noticed that General Electric, owners of NBC have started advertising Coal Powered Energy Plants on TV commercials. It states (paraphrasing) they are energy efficient and environmentally more friendly. The concern about mercury from the plants.
Kind of makes you wonder about the Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs that General Electric makes and some Green Environmentalists are pushing to save energy that contain mercury to make them more efficient.
Econ – some batteries bo contain Hg but newer technologies do not. Also, batteries are not discharged up the stack.
I don’t know what you mean by “holds water” but scientists agree overwhelmingly that CO2 emissions need to be reduced.
“Drastic measures to stop the use of fossil fuels will provide minimual real benefits, and will cause huge damage.” Not if we do it right.
I suppose one way to deal with emission problems would be to simply relax standards. Then we can easily say “the plant meets standards” without worrying about whether it causes damage.
Paul, I don’t know about “libs” as you refer to; would that include the vast majority of scientists?
“I collected a list of climate change position papers put out by the major governmental scientific institutes of the world that deal with the atmosphere, ocean, and climate. All of these organizations (at least that I could find) agree that significant human-caused climate change is occurring:
United Nations IPCCAmerican Meteorological SocietyNOAAU.S. National Academy of SciencesNASAEPAAmerican Geophysical UnionNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchRoyal Society of the United KingdomCanadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Science, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Royal Society (UK)
Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK)
If anyone can find examples of governmental scientific organizations that deny the consensus position, I’d be happy to make a second list of links. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have long been hostile to international climate change negotiations, so their scientific organizations may well have official positions opposing the consensus. However, the Saudis are apparently changing their stance, as announced in May 2006 at a U.N. sponsored meeting in Germany. “I believe the petroleum industry should actively engage in policy debate on climate change as well as play an active role in developing and implementing carbon management technologies to meet future challenges,” said the president of the Saudi state-run oil industry giant, Aramco. In 2005, both Saudi Arabia and Kuwait signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse gases. However, the Protocol does not call on them to reduce their emissions.
In summary, there is an overwhelming level of scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. Those who defend the contrary view are fond of pointing out that we shouldn’t stifle their opposing point of view, since heroes like Galileo with his sun-centered solar system view and Wegener with his continental drift theory both challenged the overwhelming scientific consensus of their day and were proved to be correct. That is true. However, Galileo and Wegener did not have the public relations staff of multi-billion dollar companies helping them promote their contrary views. I’m not too worried about the contrarian view of human-caused climate change being stifled, and would like to see the media stop quoting the contary views of such think tanks as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall foundation, and scientists such as S. Fred Singer of the SEPP. Getting one’s climate science information from these sources it similar to getting one’s news from a tabloid newspaper. Sure, some of the stories are true, but a lot of the material is of questionable quality, to say the least. The media should focus on getting their scientific information from leading climate scientists who regularly publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The best easily available source of this infomation is from realclimate.org, a web site maintained by some of the world’s foremost climate scientists.
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for The Weather Underground ”
http://www.wunderground.com/education/928.asp
For the record, JM called me out and said he was willing to meet at any time and place.
I gave him a time and place and I was there.
He wasn’t.
Or at least not anybody who looked like JM had described himself.
Liar.
JM – that is why we recommend recycling.
PAUL ROSELL,
Opposition to Cape Wind is based on economic damage it would cause to the fishing industry, and other factors.
Some tall antenna towers kill more birds than wind farms.
Efficiency is the cheapest “source” of energy. If you don’t believe that, open your windows on cold/hot days, and see what happens to your utility bills.
Fossil fuel use will drop sharply, when people realize how cheap and powerful efficiency is — especially when carbon taxes kick in.
JRLOLYou are such a joke!
Everyone on this board who owns a mutual fund —Everyone on this board who has a pension fund —Everyone on this board who benefits from a college endowment fund —BENEFITS FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMPANY PROFITS!
No, I have no financial stake in this proposal.Are you neurotic?Are you paranoid?Is it impossible for you, JR, to believe that anyone can disagree with you and be an an honest man?If I owned the land where these plants were being built, or the motels in these towns, or the rails that will transport the coal, even then I would be a citizen with a right to express myself.You, however, think that the financial interests of anyone in the energy field prevent those people from having the right to voice opinions.You think the millions of people who work in the energy industry have no rights.My involvement in the energy industry is no greater than my involvement in the medical industry or the financial industry.What I have is experience, though sometimes small, in most of the areas that I comment upon.This, of course, is what you so obviously lack!
Lets not be “fossil fools” — We should use the resources we have, applying the technogy we have to make that production as clean as possible.
The rest of the world wants the United States to choke on enviormental controls, while China and India, two of the fastest growing, most populous areas of the world, ignore all “gloom and doom” predictions and build all the coal-fired plants and produce all the pollution they can.
The OPEC nations also want us to choke on carbon controls, so that they can sell us more OIL!
Everything is relative, and the fact is, oil is “cleaner” than coal, isn’t it?
Again, concentrate on water use and water pollution. Reasonable people will listen to those arguements, if based on facts and realistic projections.
Paul, having worked in the energy industry I suspect that my level of experience is greater than yours. And our science is based on facts and realistic projections.
A 500 megawatt coal plant emits roughly the same amount of GHG’s as 600,000 cars.
Holcomb’s three new 700 MW plants is roughly like adding 2.5 MILLION cars to the area — AND those cars would be driving around for the next 50+ years.
Incorrect CapnAmerica. You picked a time a place and I didn’t write ANY time or place as I have to drive a distance of 38 miles to get to Wichita. By the time I read your statement of where to meet I was already behind schedule.
I wanted to meet you to show you that I am a human being and deserve to be respected. Instead you constantly hurl insults at me on a daily basis since I’ve been on this blog.
You are the one with the problem and being judgmental of everyone but yourself. Why the people that run this blog put up with your cursing, personal attacks and trying to expose the identity of everyone you disagree with is beyond me.
It is you who should be banned from the blog not me. But maybe you have some sort of alliance with the Wichita Eagle and they are using as their Blog shill.
Who knows? Regardless, why concentrate your efforts on attacking me and my privacy and spend more time on the issues.
If you continue the attacks, then everyone will know exactly what type of person you really are.
BenPlease, don’t let your ego get in the way here.Is it not true that there are many scientists with MORE letters behind their name, more experience than you, more degrees than you, who disagree?
I have used the “jury trial” example before.
Those who advocate drastic measures to combat “global warming” have not met the “burden of proof.”
Lets be clear, that burden means you need a unananimous verdict.
Carbon controls will do damage.
The burden of proof is on you!
It would be better to build 2 1000 MW nuclear plants outside Salina to serve Kansas, Nebraska Oklahoma, Missouri and Colorado. Why do they want to put such a huge plant in Western Kansas?? Nobody lives there and nobody will live there in 20 years!
PAUL ROSELL,
“Everyone on this board who benefits [long list]BENEFITS FROM FOSSIL FUEL COMPANY PROFITS!”
Which is ANOTHER reason I do NOT want new coal plants built!
They will NOT be profitable in the future when carbon taxes get high, and their capacity isn’t needed due to efficiency and alternatives.
I don’t want to see huge $’s wasted on new coal, when it could be more wisely used on efficiency, and other sustainable solutions.
There was a story on BBC News last night about wind power. I think they said they (Britain) are now at 2 Gig and targeting 7.5 soon. I didn’t catch the entire story but I think they said it was enough power to supply a million homes.
Kansas and the rest of the Great Plains has the potential to become a “Saudi Arabia of Wind”. We have large swaths of land with steady winds. Fully exploiting this resource makes more sense than building new coal plants for which the coal must be railed into Kansas and which will deplete our water.
There will be siting issues just as there are with any land use decisions. We probably do not want wind turbines on the rim of the Grand Canyon for example. Similarly in KS we might want to restrict certain areas of the Flint Hills as a “viewshed”. Each location must be examined.
As for Massachusetts I do not know the details. However it might have similar issues as might exist at the Grand canyon. Without examining the specifics I cannot say.
JM, you said that you moved to Mississippi. That last time I checked, the Gulf Coast of Mississippi was a little further than 38 miles.
You also said that you were done with the WE Blog, so why are you back?
I was actually looking forward to you NOT being here.
So, what’s up with that?
Paul – they HAVE met the burden of proof. I was not referring to me and the letters behind my name but rather Dr. Masters’ survey of the literature in the field.
If you demand UNANIMOUS then cigarettes are still good for you and nicotine not addictive.
JR – I don’t have a financial interest. But I grew up in the fossil fuel industry, my father was the President of a strip mine – and also an oil driller.
I still have friends and family at the Craig Station – one in emissions control.
I have oil assets but that has nothing to do with coal-fired energy.
The new plants will emit the same amount of Mercury that the old plant produces.
The only aspect that will be changing – is the water – and I’ve advocated drilling into the Dakota Formation before – it has plenty – but is deeper and more expensive to reach.
I’m serious about the mercury in cinnabar – and hence, in the salt spread on our roads.
To me – the value of supplying the electricity being demanded, and I already posted links to show the rising demand, is more important since alternative energy just isn’t ready to take up the slack…yet.
There is always SOME kind of down-side to an issue, and I think we need to weigh the benefit to society – against that.
Ben,
You have any sources for Wind Power?
I would be interested in finding out more. Questions like what happens during wind lull periods etc. And how many wind power generator farms it would take to make it a viable energy source.
WSClark,
Why would it matter to you where I live? I will be gone in a few days, I’m waiting on the moving company to pick up my goods so they can be stored. I should be gone from this area by Tuesday if the company doesn’t cancel again like they did the last time.
Be more concerned about the discussion here than me. If you like to pick fights, why don’t you go to a redneck bar and start one.
JM:
http://www.awea.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
http://www.windpowermaps.org/default.asp
http://www.gaiam.com/retail/2/WindPower
Lull periods – a few ‘off-the-cuff’ comments: There tends to be a good positive correlation between wind and hot days so high A/C demand at the same time as high wind. The general strategy is to build overcapacity to account for it. I would add betteries and/or hydrogen to ‘level it out’. Generate H2 when lots of wind, use it in fuel cells when still.
“If you continue the attacks, then everyone will know exactly what type of person you really are.”
Well, JM, I was just responding to YOUR attack on my friend, the Capn’.
What kind of friend would I be if I let an attack go without a response?
But let me be the first to wish you a final farewell from Kansas.
Buh bye, JM.
PAUL ROSELL,
“Is it not true that there are many scientists with MORE letters behind their name, … who disagree?”
Like Pat Michaels, Bob Carter, Lindzen, etc.?Please list their names, and I’ll provide links debunking their arguments, and/or credentials.
“Lets be clear, that burden means you need a unananimous verdict.”
“Unananimous”? You’ve basically ALREADY got it, if you remove the garbage caused by right-wing media (like Rev. Moon) and fossil-energy funded “skeptics”
JM, I have the sources you are looking for. Since we don’t ’store’ electricity in the grid – we need a constant base to rely upon.
Wind falters on a calm day – and solar falters on a cloudy day. Besides that – the cost to obtain the massive land areas needed for wind generation – is prohibitive. Solar is just darned expensive.
Here’s a quote from a site you should take a look at:
[quote]A multi-billion-dollar government crusade to promote renewable energy for electricity generation, now in its third decade, has resulted in major economic costs and unintended environmental consequences. Even improved new generation renewable capacity is, on average, twice as expensive as new capacity from the most economical fossil-fuel alternative and triple the cost of surplus electricity. Solar power for bulk generation is substantially more uneconomic than the average; biomass, hydroelectric power, and geothermal projects are less uneconomic. Wind power is the closest to the double-triple rule.[end quote]
link to full document:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-280.html
kev – I like your idea – especially with some of the newer nuclear technology.
GS – although wind takes large space it does not ‘use’ all that space. You can still farm, graze, etc under the turbines.
Ben,
I have a quote for you. I’m not listing the source – since it isn’t on the net, anyway, but tell me if it is wrong – and if it IS wrong – tell me in what capacity.
[quote]if the earths’ atmosphere was a football field from the goal line to the 78 yard line is nitrogen. That’s naturally occurring. From the 78 yard line to the 99 yard line is oxygen, again naturally occurring. Of the last remaining yard about 66% of that is Argon, an inert gas. The remaining 44% of the last yard is trace gases. The CO2 that is supposed to be causing “global warming” would be the thickness of a pencil at the goal line.[end quote]
Thank you for your candor Gsheridan.
YOU have suckled at the teat of fossil fuels your whole life! LIttle wonder you so zealously defend them.
You posted your OPINION that demand would increase. You provided no proof.
And why SHOULD demand increase? The increase in population should more than be compensated for by the energy efficieincy of newer devices.
No there is no need for this plant.
GSheridan,
From your OWN link at http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/would_three_mor.html#comment-60105630It’s re oil, but it applies to electricty also.http://analysisonline.org/energy/lee.html“Energy conservation is the first step toward reducing this problem, Lee said.
“Investment in improved energy efficiency has three attractive characteristics: It is the least expensive; it has enormous potential; and efficiency enjoys political popularity,” he said. “
It sounds correct GS. What is your point?
“JM, I have the sources you are looking for. Since we don’t ’store’ electricity in the grid – we need a constant base to rely upon.”
Not exactly true GS. As I have mentioned – batteries and H2 can store energy. Also with dispersed wind farms we shift electricity from windy to calm.
Cosmos – your selective quote has nothing to do with what I’m trying to get across to you on this board. We ALL know conservation is good.
JR – who knows MORE about a topic? Someone who has been raised with it? Or someone who is jumping on a political bandwagon and believing everything they read?
Because I was raised in the industry does not mean I have a reason to wrongly defend it. I know liberals who have oil interests. I have NO current interest in ANY coal, or coal-fired plant. Hence, I’m just telling you the facts.
I’m serious when I tell you the risk of Mercury from the salt, is higher than that from the plants. In fact – it’s astronomically higher. And it’s being covered up. Why is no one going after that?
The burden of proof requires each logical step to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.) That global warming is happening:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070210/D8N6RIRG0.html
I would also note, besides my girlfriends house in Erie PA being under more snow than ever before in history, (It is a 40 year old house) That the following have happened in the last year:Snow fall in South Africa.Frozen orange groves in California.Frozen orange groves in Florida.Massive ice formation in Iceland, far more than previous years.
Anyway, as posted previously, I tend to think that climate change is a natural occurance, primarily caused by solar flares and sun spots and other natural events. The climate always changes. It seems egocentric, to me, to believe man causes it or can stop it when it happens.
I would be willing to accept conclusive evidence that the Earth was getting warmer, but that is only the “tip of the iceberg” where your burden of proof is concerned.
2.) Next, you must prove man CAUSED the warming.
3.) Next, you must prove man can STOP the warming.
4.) Next, you must prove that the cost of addressing climate change is worth the cost. Economic growth feeds the world. Killing growth kills people. Prove that your deaths are less important than the deaths caused by “warming!”
5.) You must prove that American efforts are fair to the American people. If the rest of the world takes advantage of world prices, based on US decline in demand for fossil fuels, what have we solved?
If the rest of the world goes full spead ahead on coal, while we inflict damage on our economy by denying ourselves this resource, what have we solved?
A reduction in demand by the United States will encourage MORE demand by the rest of the world, meaning no net change in demand!—–Where the burden of proof is concerned, you have not met element one.
If and when you do, you have a long, long way to go.The burden of proof has not been met.
Kyoto was voted down by a majority of Democrats. Kyoto would not have had much effect even if we followed it to the letter.Politically speaking, you greens are dreaming.This stuff isn’t going to happen to the degree you expect.I expect tax incentives, I expect some more pollution restrictions, but nothing even close to Kyoto will pass this Congress.
Ben, would you care to share with us the amount of batteries that would be needed to store enough energy to power the city of Wichita for an entire day?
Was I incorrect when I said we do not store electricity “on the grid?”
GSheridan,
That’s the *OLD* “CO2 is insignifcant” deception.
CO2 causes between 9 to 30% of the greenhouse effect.Different gases have different impacts. Methane is about 20 times more potent than CO2 — and manmade gases like CFC’s and SF6 are MUCH worse.Info, related links at,http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all-of.html
Paul – if you would read the extensive literature you would find that the other elements have ben proved as well. Perhaps not well enough for freshman-level economics but enough for graduate-level science.
I agree with you that this must be addressed world-wide; I have always said that. However, as the worlds leader in both per-capita CO2 production and technology we need to be taking the lead.
You might be correct that “politically speaking we scientists are dreaming”; however I fear that you anti-science people will give us a global nightmare.
For a general introduction … and follow links therein:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/education.asp
This is my last post – I badly need to get to work, but I want to share a quote from :
Arthur A. Mander, PE, R&D Coordinator
This specific quote concerns the plant I spoke of earlier – in Craig, CO and it references the amount of land needed to implement a wind farm that could generate the equal amount of energy generated by the coal-fired plant.
——————[quote]“The typical solar panel (photovoltaic panel or PV) is 2 x 4 foot and generates 75 Watts at high noon on a clear summer day. The average annual capacity factor for PV in Colorado is 14%. It would take 120 million PV panels to equal the output of the Craig Station. The surface area of the panels would be 963 million sq. ft. A PV array of this size would need access roads, which are estimated to increase the land coverage by 10%. Total land area needed would be 1.1 billion sq. ft., or 24,000 acres, or 38 sq. miles.
The capital cost for PV panels, supports, batteries, inverters, etc. is about $5 per watt. The total cost for a PV array equal in electrical output to Craig Station would be about $45 billion, not including land.
Large wind turbines at wind farms require about 36 acres per MW. The annual capacity factor for wind turbines at a good site is about 27%. The size of a wind farm equal in electrical output to the Craig Station would be about 169,000 acres or 263 sq. miles.
The capital cost for wind turbines is about $950/kW. The cost for wind turbines equal too the energy output of Craig would be about $4.4 billion. This doesn’t include land or leases.”[end quote]
Now, I absolutely HAVE to scoot. There is no link to that quote – it was sent to me, privately.
GS – were you incorrect? Not technically; however that would also apply when Wolf Creek goes offline for whatever reason. That is why we have a grid. To move power from place to place.
“Large wind turbines at wind farms require about 36 acres per MW. The annual capacity factor for wind turbines at a good site is about 27%. The size of a wind farm equal in electrical output to the Craig Station would be about 169,000 acres or 263 sq. miles”
Yes, but the land beneath the turbines is still usable for other purposes as noted above.
I wonder – have they ever PROVED that cigarettes are not good for you?
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6) has 23,900 times the global warming potential of CO2. IRONICALLY, it’s produced by electrical transmissions and distribution systems,PFC’s have 6,500 to 9,200 the GWP of CO2.
Other gases, graphs and details,http://www.icbe.com/emissions/calculate.asp
Yes Ben, I have irrefutable proof that cigarettes are not good for you.
When I smoked back in the day, a hot ash fell from my cigarette onto the leather seats of my friends car. He denied me any riding privileges thereafter.
It was a long walk to school thereafter and the cold winds that subsequently blew down my neck along with the rain that drenched my clothes proved to be detrimental to my health and state of mind.
So yes, cigarette smoking are not good for you. :)
But that is not irrefutable proof. Maybe it was just your carelessness with the ashes. I remember watching those tobacco industry representatives testifying the contrary. Gotta give the skeptics their due on this!
PAUL ROSELL,
1) “being under more snow than ever before in history,”
Duuuhh, do some research. WARMER air can hold more moisture — when it hits cold air, more snow (or ice) is produced.
2) 2007 IPCC, 90% to 95% chance that humans are causing global warming, up from 60% chance in 2001 report.
3) It’s impossible to “prove” a complex global problem with multiple unknown variables. But that does NOT mean we shouldn’t try to stop warming.
4) Reducing GHG’s SAVES money. You wouldn’t want to drive a vehicle that got twice (or more) your current mpg? Do you open your house windows when it’s 20 deg F outside?
5) America could be a leader re efficiency and alternative technologies, and MARKET it to he world. Instead, we buy high mpg vehicles from Japan, who may produce fuel-cell cars soon.
Re “cigarette smoking”, a very well researched report,
‘Scientists’ Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming ScienceOil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion ‘http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
It’s also worth noting the many groups in the late 1980’s who started spreading the misinformation.http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
Lake-effect snow: caused by moisture evaporating from the lake and then falling as snow on the downwind side of the lake.
” The National Weather Service said the bands of lake-effect snow fed by moisture from Lake Ontario would continue weaving up and down the lake’s eastern shore during the weekend, dropping 2 to 4 more feet of snow with wind of up to 25 mph.
The region is located along the Tug Hill Plateau, the snowiest region this side of the Rocky Mountains. It’s a 50-mile wedge of land that rises 2,100 feet from the eastern shore of Lake Ontario and catches the snow-laden winter wind blowing off the lake. It usually gets about 300 inches – roughly 25 feet – of snow a year.
The hamlet of Hooker, near the boundaries of Jefferson, Lewis, and Oswego counties, holds the state record for snowfall in a year – 466.9 inches, about 39 feet, in the winter of 1976-77. It sits right next to the hamlet of Montague, which got 77 inches in a 24-hour period in January 1997.”
If the lake doesn’t freeze then lake-effect snow is considerably enhanced. (I used to live near Lake Michigan)
Ben, as a former resident of Michigan, I can tell you that lake effect snow, especially in late Fall or early Winter is something to behold. In those days, a snowfall of 18-24 inches was very common.
I also remember that the lower Great Lakes, Lake St. Clair and the Detroit River regularly froze over. From what I understand, that does not happen often anymore.
Some of the GW deniers would like us to believe that we need proof of global warming BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
That of course, cannot happen, anymore than we can prove conclusively that the most distant star from the Earth is 13 billion light years away.
We have considerable evidence that it IS 13 billion light years away.
But we cannot prove it BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
WSC – I swam in Traverse Bay during spring break. COLD! That’ll wake you up!
Benefits of Global Warming!
You need to look at the bright side of global warming if there is such a thing. I am counting on global warming because it is way too cold in Kansas. 50 degree winters in Kansas suites me just fine.
If you really want to do something, sale your house and live in a tee-pee, and stop buying all the slave labor junk from China. China is the worse source of pollution in the world. Do something positive, stop consumming China junk. Otherwise, you are just a mindless hipocrit.
China is definitly an environmental problem to the world and the world needs to tell China to clean up its act if they wish to continue doing business. Even Iran has recognized that fossil fuel has a limited future which is why they are switching to nuclear. 2 nuclear plants could power Kansas for many decades.
Conservation will never be taken without incentive. The county water system here has what is called “tier billing” and the electric company should do likewise- where as you are given the first XXX amount of KW hours for a low price as long as you don’t go over that amount but if you do, you jump into a much higher priced tier. So if they said “we are going to give you 10 KW hours for 5 cents per KW hour but if you go over that, the rate jumps to 15 cents a KW hour retroactive (meanning that the first 10 KW hours would jump to 15 cents as well as the amount you go over). You would see energy efficient appliances and light bulbs flying off store shelves!
Good points kev. A twist – time-of-day pricing. Nuclear is lousy for ‘peaking’ – they work best with flat demand. So, give me a cheap metered outlet in my garage that is controlled by the power company to charge my car. Perhaps something similar to run appliances late at night.
It’s called thinking outside of the box – we can beat this thing if we decide to.
JM–
I just think that a person’s experience means something.
For instance, Kerry and Gore enlisted in the military and served in Vietnam.
If I said I had served in Vietnam and I hadn’t, I’d be claiming special knowledge that I don’t have.
Likewise if I said I was black, that would mean I had some special knowledge of that experience that would give me special credibility.
If I said that and I wasn’t black, then I would be demeaning people who really are black by saying that I knew just as well as they do what that means.
JM’s stories don’t ring true. They are not consistent. And when I see that, I jump on it.
What you call “personal attacks,” I call keeping you honest.
It’s a big job . . .
Info re GSheridan’s post upthread, author Robert L. Bradley,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/clouds_gatherin.html#comment-60185668
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cato_Institutehttp://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_for_Energy_Research“(IER) … advocates positions on environmental issues which happen to suit the energy industry: climate change denial, claims that conventional energy sources are virtually limitless, and the deregulation of utilities.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_L._Bradley“[Bradley] previously served as Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, where he was a speechwriter for CEO Kenneth Lay.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=115“Institute for Energy Research has received $147,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.”
Cosmos,You fell into my trap!
“warmer air can” — cause more snow??Well well, doesnt Global Geek Algore claim that shrinking glaciers are “proof” of global warming?You lefties are not at all consistent.Gore uses reduced snow fall to “prove” his point, but I can’t use reduced snow to “prove” my point?
I am not a scientist, but I know more about this issue than crack pot Al Gore!
ENRON!!!!!
No Paul, we scientists are NOT inconsistent. But, I suppose it does go a bit beyond freshman economics.
By the way, for a meterologist’s review of gore’s movie:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/gore.asp
Gore knows one hell of a lot more about science than you ever will Paul.
PAUL ROSELL,
You fell into your own stupidity, if you didn’t realize that I meant occasional heavier snowfalls, like Denver recently — NOT more snowfall, on average, globally.
Glaciers are formed, primarily, by snowfall, for those of you who did not get my previous post. Gore claims that several glaciers around the world are shrinking. If the world was getting warmer, the Earth’s atmosphere should be able to contain more water vapor, which would produce more snow, correct?Again, when Gore uses snow fall, or lack thereof, to “prove” his points, it doesnt seem to matter to you lefties, you never challenge Gore.
Everything proves your point, if you are a greenie. Increased snowfall is caused by warming? Decreased glacier size, caused by decreased snowfall, is also “proof” of warming? Get real, you can’t have it both ways!
—–
Hey lefties,Some of you, above, have admitted that US efforts are meaningless without world-wide efforts, if the goal is to reduce CO-2. (I dont think reducing CO-2 will happen, I dont think we want it to happen, and I dont think it will have any postive effects if we do reduce CO-2) However, CO-2 will not be reduced without international efforts, some seem to agree.
Well well.Wasn’t Israel, the modern state anyway, created by U.N. Resolution?How do you libs like that International effort? I am fine with that effort, I love Israel, but this Blog doesn’t seem to like that International effort!
Yes, Japan is a leader in alternatives. Guess what? Japan has virtually NO fossil fuels. To quote you brainiaks on this board, “DUHHHHHHHHHH!” — Japan is doing what is best for Japan. If Japan had huge reserves of coal, Japan would USE that coal!
The United Nations is run by despots, thugs, Communists and Moslem extremists. Even so, they sometimes pass some good stuff.
Remember all those resolutions against Saddam’s Iraq? Was it 17 or 18 resolutions? (Were they “binding” or “non-binding”).
Wasn’t it wonderful how the whole world backed up those Resolutions?
Will we go to war to enforce carbon caps on other countries? I mean, what do we do when countries dont obey the UN or some future treaty?
Isnt it arrogant for the West, after we have been through OUR industrial revolution, to tell Africa and Asia and South America that THEY are not allowed to use THEIR resources?
Face it.
The world will ignore any and all treaties concerning energy.
All countries will do whatever meets their immediate national intrests.
At the same time, most other countries will love to dupe the United States into doing things that hurt the United States.
Fossil Fuel will be our primary source of energy for at least 50 more years.
Deal with it!
Heavier snowfall in Western New York – the cause – global warming.
Snowfall caused by warming?
Yes.
The lakes did not freeze over, so more moisture was absorbed into the atmosphere. As the moisture, in the form of clouds moved over land, it dumped massive amounts of snow.
Not all equations are as simple as they seem.
Global warming – more snowfall.
That is a fact.
The new UN report admits the following:
The previous UN report overestimated man’s effect on climate by at least 1/3.
The New report cuts the estimated rise in sea level from 3 ft to only 17 inches by 2100.
The new report found levels of methane were actually falling.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20070201_monckton.pdf
The newest UN report hurts the cause if greenies, if you care to actually read it!
Open up big bottle of “Rantin’ kook” today Paul econ101 Rosell?
Paul Rosell is an anknowledged trader in fossil fuels securities.
And a nut.
WSTry to read what I post please, before responding.
I am attacking GORE! It is Gore that first claimed less snow meant warming!
Glaciers are created by snowfall. I knew you lefties would never attack the patron saint of goofy leftists: Al Gore.
I knew you would attack ME for saying pretty much the same thing Al Gore said.
I KNOW that warmth can, at times, produce more snow. Al Gore has claimed that LESS glacier-forming snow is caused by warming.
By the way folks, while we seem to agree that moist air in areas that do experience snowfall, will result in more snow. I am well aware of the “lake effect” — I have driven on I-90 in snow storms, between Cleveland and Buffalo, I understand the concept.
However, “warming” can not explain the recent snowfall in South Africa, can it? It hardly ever snows there!
Also, how do you explain the recent freezing of the US citrus crop??
Warming certainly doesnt explain it!
PAUL ROSELL,
So you are UNABLE to understand that warmer global temperatures = less snow on average, but more humid air can result in occasional, unusually heavy snowfalls?Heh, okay, whatever…
ROSELL: “Gore claims that several glaciers around the world are shrinking.”
Most are losing mass balance, according to scientists,http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
‘world glacier monitoring service’http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/
Japan will be producing hydrogen fuel-cell cars within a few years.
Open a big bottle of “Rantin’ kook” today Paul econ Rosell?
Paul Econ Rosell is an acknowledged trader in fossil fuels securites.
And a nut.
Freezing of Citrus plants is not uncommon. News stories of Smudge Pots and spraying water on the citrus to protect them from freezing has been known since florida started growing citrus.
There are mountains in South Africa and they have snow there and on the slopes.
PAUL ROSELL,
Re your 5:09 PM post with Monckton’s PDF,
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/monckton_curious_take_on_the_s.phphttp://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/02/monckton_on_the_spm.php
From Dec ‘06,’Monckton fights for Exxon’s freedom of speech’http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/monckton_curious_take_on_the_s.php
CosmosInstead of attacking the source, can you, for once, engage the source?Is Monckton wrong?Does the new UN report hedge and correct previous false reports??
Yes, of course it does, so you ignore all of that and attack the source.
What if this report is also wrong? What if the next report says this report is off by 50%??
The variations are huge. The “beta” or fluctuation in these reports is much higher than the “beta” or change in actual temperature over the last 100 years!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14154793/
South Africa had one of its worst winters on record, see above!
PAUL ROSELL,
“Is Monckton wrong?” YES.
GSheridan,
“Cosmos – your selective quote has nothing to do with what I’m trying to get across to you on this board. We ALL know conservation is good.”
You’re trying to make the false and unsupportable point that we HAVE to build new coal-fired plants to supply a future increase in demand.
You cannot refute my points that:* Higher efficiency is cheaper than building new coal plants, especially when future carbon taxes are added.* Efficiency could cut future demand below what it is NOW, allowing shutdown of existing coal plants.
‘Electric Efficiency’http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid321.php
By the way, is there such a thing as an “AC Battery” ??Doesnt the storage of electricity convert that power to DC or Direct current?Therefore, any “stored” DC power would have to be converted back to AC current, such conversion back and forth would be “inefficient” right? Doesnt the conversion of power from AC to DC and then back to AC require the use of power?
You’re a real piece of work econ Rosell.
On one side of the balance, the health of the Earth. On the other, Paul’s financial state.
And he chooses his wallet.
Sick.
JRTry to feed someone without money.
Then come back and preach your socialist hogwash!
The world depends on economics.
You are driven by hate and envy. I have never known you to propose a practical solution to anything. You simply support anything that “sticks it to the man” in your warped, vindictive mind.
The world depends, in large part, on the charity of the United States. Every dollar of that charity is produced by profit, by an expanding economy.
Kill the economy and you will, literally, kill people.
But to you, as long as some CEO or fat-cat dies, you don’t mind how many others suffer.
You, sir, are the sick one!
Paul – the problem with the glaciers is melting, not ‘not snowing’. When I grew up in Georgia we always hoped for snow since we could play in it and they would close the schools. It was plenty cold – zero was common. Problem is, by the time the cold air got to us it had crossed the Plains and the Appalachian mountains and was DRY. So, little snow, not really unlike here. However, if I could replace those mountains with a lake I could have a better chance for snow.
Now, as you know, the vapor pressure of water decreases with temperature and really drops over ice. Tht is where warming comes in. Lets increase the temperature of my air from zero to 20 and, at the same time, make sure the lake is warm and doesn’t freeze. VOILA! Lots of lake effect snow!
“Worst winter” does not mean “coldest winter” – it often means “messiest winter”
Yes, batteries would be DC. We know how to do that. In fact, much ‘high-tension’ transmission is done DC.
“Meteorologists were investigating whether a severe storm that swept through the northern town of Dullstroom on Tuesday night was a tornado. At least six people were injured in the heavy winds and rain, which also ripped roofs off homes, police said.”
Record wind and rain; bot record cold. Tornadoes in winter – FUN!
“Kill the economy and you will, literally, kill people.”
So, Paul, you prefer to kill people a little more slowly, but much more effectively, right?
Kill the economy and eventually the economy will recover, as it always has.
Kill the Earth and the ball game is over.
Jeez, to me, it looks like an easy choice.
WSClarkREAD The UN report.That report, itself, corrects the previous UN report.There is not one bit of proof that all of your proposed actions will result in saving a single human life.However, there is plenty of evidence that your solutions will kill the economy, which will kill people!
Glaciers grow by not melting, not by ‘growing’. I realize that seems counter-intuitive but the key to the Milankovitch glaciation is not cold winters but, rather, mild summers. Mild enough for snowpack to survive. THAT is what we have learned from paleoclimatology about glacier ice budgets; get the fern line lower and the glacier grows.
When snowpack survives the summer the subsequent winter can build upon that foundation and grow the glacier. But, when it melts further and further back and up each year you have shrinking glaciers.
Paul – I do not claim to be an expert in economics but I would wager I have a whole lot more econ and accounting background than you have science background. And I bet Gore has more science background than you have.
Paul – yes, the report is more precise than previous reports. And, lessening droughts WILL save human life.
PAUL ROSELL,
“Kill the economy and you will, literally, kill people.”
Cutting GHG’s will NOT “kill the economy”. That’s a myth spread by fossil-energy, just like they spread BS about AGW.
Higher efficiency saves fuel, and $’s. Alternative energy would produce more jobs than expensive to build coal plants.
Ben,
Rosell seems to believe that Monckton’s stupid attacks on the IPCC’s report are accurate.
I gave him some links here proving they were not… but you know Rosell.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/clouds_gatherin.html#comment-60200036
Some of Monckton’s BS are funny howlers tho…
I’ll go ya one further Paul Rosell.
You are not just sick.
You are batshit crazy and evil.
You come on this forum and you will lie and say anything to advance your god almighty dollar.
Why I bet you’d let out your own mother if the money was right.
Driven by hate and envy? Oh there’s no envy about it. To envy you I’d have to want to be something like you.
I’d die or kill first.
The hate part you get right. Does it come through that clear.
Yes I do hate you Rosell. You and people like you are FAR more dangerous than any terrorist. And I will raise my son to recognize and fight and if at all possible to destroy such as you.
Whether the Earth was created or is am accident of nature, it is NOT here for the brief miserly exploitation and enrichment of you and yours Paul Rosell. It belongs to all the life on it now and in the future. And if that pinches a penny or two of yours that is just too damn bad.
Why did the Nobel Committee nominate Gore for the Peace Prize for his movie etc? If they are thinking about an award why not a science since the topic is climate? Perhaps because they realize that climate disruptions are already leading to increased violence? And the opposite of violence is Peace? I don’t see any of the anti-science crowd getting nominated other than by themselves.
Gore isn’t a scientist. All he did was narrate a movie. He does not deserve the peace prize.
Joe you know better since you have had you “nose broke” on this issue before. Gore did not just narrate a movie. The documentary covers his extensive travel to all parts of the country and the world to give his demonstration of the climate change issue. He even offered to make personal time ANYTIME to share his presentation personally at the covenience of one george w bush. bush has not yet RSVPd….
Apparently someone involved with the Nobel process disagrees with you Joe. I never said he was a fellow scientist – in fact I think I made clear otherwise. that was my point – Peace prize rather than one of the science prizes.
BenSorry but I don’t follow your logic on DC current vs AC current:
“The NFPC generated alternating current (AC), which, unlike direct current, can be transformed from one potential to another, to a higher or lower electromotive force, through the means of static transformers. The development of AC and step-up/step-down transformers were key to the transmission of hydroelectric power over long distances. The influence of engineers like Nikola Tesla cannot be understated. As Jack Foran points out in a related essay, Tesla did not invent alternating current or the transformer. Rather, he developed the alternating current motor, “making [AC] electricity a feasible industrial commodity.” Increase the demand for any commodity and surely the desire to supply that commodity will follow.”The above from this link:http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/exhibits/panam/sel/electricity.html#nfpc
It is my understanding that Nicola Tesla (They have a huge statue of him on Goat Island, at Niagra Falls) is famous for his use of AC to transmit electricity over long distances.
From the same link:”This plant is a perfect illustration of the influence of industry in the development of power generation at Niagara Falls. NFHP supplied electricity to manufacturers within a 1 mile radius since that was the effective limitation of the transmission of direct current. The generators installed were of various makes, depending upon the industries to which they were supplying power. Surprisingly, the NFHP underestimated the importance of alternating current (AC) production. As AC-driven machinery became more commonplace in industry, the demand increased. Eventually, the NFHP would add generators to produce alternating current”
In other words, I doubt that we transfer very much power over DC lines.
I think you mispoke, did you not?
BenGore and Limbaugh both got nominated.So what?Anyone can get nominated to the Nobel Prize!
So what? I never said otherwise. The difference is that Rush was nominated by an outfit where he serves on the Board. I have also been nominated. What does that mean?
“And the opposite of violence is Peace? I don’t see any of the anti-science crowd getting nominated other than by themselves.”
In effect, Rush nominated himself. Just like I just did.
I am familiar with Tesla. I am also familiar with AC/DC. They can be interconverted; that is the whole idea of battery backup. I am operating my laptop on battery right now – and it is charged with AC.
I guess they don’t teach that if freshman econ either.
Back to the AC/DC problem:
We really don’t know how to “store” electricity effeciently. “Stored” electricity is DC current. To convert, adapt or modify AC current into DC current takes energy, but such a process must be used in order to “store” the electricity.Then, when it is time to use that electricity, it must be converted back to AC current, again requiring more energy which reduces the effeciency of any process.—-Wind and solar are, therefore, permanent “alternatives” which will NEVER be primary sources of energy.We must have a READY market for any wind or solar power somewhere on the “grid” since AC current can not be stored, and since DC current can not be transmitted very far, and because it is too expensive to convert AC to DC, store the DC, then convert the DC back to AC so we can transmit the power!Use it or lose it, we cant store it, end of the electrical story!
I am well aware of that Paul. But you are wrong when you claim that “it is too expensive to convert AC to DC, store the DC, then convert the DC back to AC so we can transmit the power”. That is fully doable. Also electricity can be used to make H2 and then through a fuel cell to electricity. Yes, there are losses in the transitions just as there are with the water pumped storage they use in southern California. But they do work and are viable.
We CAN store it; we do it all the time. What do you think we have behind all our electronics in case of power failure?
BenHow FAR is your laptop from the laptop BATTERY?I got you, buddy.You lost this one badly.There isnt very much DC current being transmitted by high tension wires is there?DC current was used on the old Ark Valley Interurban, that used to service Wichita. The old Broadview Hotel has an AVA sign etched in the concrete above one door. Trolleys and cummuter trains and subways, I think the street cars in San Fransisco, might all use DC. However, transmission of electricty over long distances requires DC.You blew it.Admit it.We all make mistakes!
BenHow FAR is your laptop from the laptop BATTERY?I got you, buddy.You lost this one badly.There isnt very much DC current being transmitted by high tension wires is there?DC current was used on the old Ark Valley Interurban, that used to service Wichita. The old Broadview Hotel has an AVA sign etched in the concrete above one door. Trolleys and commuter trains and subways, I think the street cars in San Fransisco, might all use DC. However, transmission of electricty over long distances requires DC.You blew it.Admit it.We all make mistakes!
Excuse me, i made a typo
“The transmission of electricity over long distance requires AC”, the above post should read.
PAUL ROSELL = hopeless
“There isnt very much DC current being transmitted by high tension wires is there?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#HVDC“High voltage DC (HVDC) is used to transmit large amounts of power over long distances or for interconnections between asynchronous grids.”
More at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC
They made me take a lot of E&M (electricity and magnetism) at MIT.
Note this sentence: “such as storing power generated from photovoltaic arrays during the day to be used at night”. Also works with wind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery
“In science and technology, a battery is a device that stores chemical energy and makes it available in an electrical form. Batteries consist of electrochemical devices such as two or more galvanic cells, fuel cells or flow cells. The earliest known artifacts that may have been batteries are the Baghdad Batteries, from some time between 250 BC and 640 AD. The modern development of batteries started with the Voltaic pile, announced by the Italian physicist Alessandro Volta in 1800.[1] The worldwide battery industry generates US$48 billion in sales annually (2005 estimate).
Rechargeable batteries, also known as storage batteries or secondary cells, are batteries that can be restored to full charge by the application of electrical energy. They are also called or accu/akku, which is short for accumulator. They come in many different designs using different chemicals. Attempting to recharge non-rechargeable batteries will usually lead to a battery explosion. Some types of rechargeable batteries are susceptible to damage due to reverse charging if they are fully discharged; other types need to be fully discharged occasionally in order to maintain the capacity for deep discharge. There exists fully integrated battery chargers that optimize the charging current.
Rechargable batteries currently are used for lower power applications such as automobile starters, portable consumer devices, tools, and uninterruptable power supplies. Emerging applications in hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles are driving the technology to improve cost, reduce weight, and increase lifetime. Future applications are proposed to use rechargable batteries for load leveling, where they would store baseline electric power for use during peak load periods, and for renewable energy uses, .”
A rectifier is an electrical device, which converts alternating current to direct current, a process known as rectification. Rectifiers are used as components of power supplies and as detectors of radio signals. Rectifiers may be made of solid state diodes, vacuum tube diodes, mercury arc valves, and other technologies.
Paul – how much E&M did you take in college?
general electricity stuff:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/electricity.htm
PAUL ROSELL,
A photo of the batteries at RMI’s Headquarters — they sell the EXCESS A/C power back to the local utility company.http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid819.php
CosmosThe practical effect of your last post is? What?DC current cant be used on the grid. I asked a question about effeciencies.Others, Sheriden for one, have posted here that it would take huge space, money and resources to build either a solar plant or a wind farm capable of replacing the proposed coal plants discussed here.I make the additional point that the wind or solar you might, alternatively, produce, would have to be used or lost, since storing that power would be expensive and difficult.I admit that DC current can be transfered, but you have already shown that it must be very High Voltage current to be be transfered very far. Do you really propose that the wind and solar generators will store power and then transmit that power over HVDC lines?Yes, it can be done.I could probably put thousands upon thousands of lemon juice batteries together, like we used to make in science class, and power my Christmas tree next year.The point is: Is it practical?
The point has been made that Solar and Wind would require vast amounts of space. Yes, Ben, the Wind Turbines could still make room for cattle grazing. The rotors do break off at times. Some Cattle will be cut in half, but that won’t happen too often. Your point is valid: Wind power is well suited for duel use.However, I have made the point that, in addition to vast capital and land resources being needed, Wind and Solar really can’t be stored any easier than any other form of electricity generation. If it was easy to store electricity for use on the “grid” why don’t we do it now?You tell me all this stuff is easy, so why arent we doing it?Why dont we “store” electricity produced by geothermal, nuclear, coal, hydro-electric, natural gas?Ben, I have a battery charger. I know the energy can be stored in small quantities, for use over short periods.I am talking about practical, long term USE.
I think wind farms are great. Solar has a long way to go before it is practical.Both, however, will see little more “storage” in the short run, then we see with conventional power generation.—If it was practical we would be doing more electrical storage on the grid already.We don’t store electrical power for use on the grid.This, alone, is proof that it is not yet practical to do so.
Yes, Ben, I understand that the sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow, and therefore, storage is more important to wind and solar than it is to other sources of electricity.However, we have always had peak loads and fluctuating demand. If the power companies knew how to store power as easily as you claim, they would be doing it NOW wouldnt they?I just read your post above, and again, you admit that batteries for “load-leveling” are not yet ready for prime time.My point exactly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverter_%28electrical%29
An inverter is an electronic circuit for converting direct current (DC) to alternating current (AC). Inverters are used in a wide range of applications, from small switched power supplies for a computer to large electric utility applications to transport bulk power.
So, we have rectifiers, batteries, and inverters.
And I wondered why MIT made me take all that stuff! I guess maybe Wichita State isn’t quite as rigorous in such things Paul?
Those batteries in the photo look similar to what telephone companies used to use a long time ago. Of course they didn’t need near the voltage for phones.
No Paul, I never admitted any such thing.
Why aren’t we doing it? Subsidies for fossil fuel for one thing. Short-term focus for another.
Paul – batteries have come a long way from your lemon juice. Is that all the E&M you ever took?
One reason we don’t store all that much is the very nature of the grid itself. With scattered generating capacity and scattered uses the grid is ’self-leveling’ as we learned in class. The broader the base the more it self-levels as capacity comes on-line/off-line and as demand does the same.
It gets complex as they have to synchronize phase etc; that is one reason to use DC for transmission in some cases.
JM – they do look familiar that way JM. I suspect, however, they have a lot more density and thus voltage.
After sparing us your presence for a long time you sure have gotten talkative Mr. Rosell.
I LIKE that.
Not because I consider your posts valuable or good in any way. They aren’t
I like it because I sense a rising fear in you Paul.
You KNOW that if people are encouraged to pursue conservation of existing energy and use of alternative energy that fossil fuels use will become increasingly marginalized as an archaic and destructive thing.
And THAT scares the hell out of you. It hits you right where it hurts the most. Your wallet.
Americans are learning that it is unwise to be energy pigs Paul.
Deal with it.
BenLoad leveling, black outs and brown outs are problems all over the world and have been for years.
There are many places where fossil fuels have virtually no contribution to electric generation, due to nuclear or hydro.
Those places would be immune to any “corruption” from the fossil fuel industry would they not?
Why havent those places developed batteries for load leveling?
Yes Ben, I know it will happen because it would be a good thing and we need it.
However, practical electric storage for use on the grid is still a dream.
You cant provide todays needs with tomorrows dreams.
Sell me, Ben.
You never make a sale by calling your prospect stupid.
Show me that you can have your new battery, on a commercial scale, in the next 10 to 20 years.
Why do you hate America Paul econ Rosell?
Why do you want Americans to be slaves to an energy source of the past?
Don’t you have faith in America as many of us do that we can solve our problems?
JRIf I were the complete financial whore you think I am, why would I not just buy into the alternative energy craze myself?I will be more than happy to jump on any money making new technology. If Ben develops this battery he says is on the horizon, I will put my own IRA money into his company.How is that?JR, it is bad for the country to hold back the economy based on fear of “global warming” and based on promises of new technology that isn’t ready for prime time yet.Yes, we will develop alternatives. Right now, fossil fuel is cheaper and will be for a long, long time.
JR – I think he is still smarting about Bon-Bon getting thrashed last year. And, of course, his efforts to disrupt things blew back on him.
Paul, currently there are very few locations depending that much on a sophisticated wind-based grid.
Sell you Paul? Not likely. Your mind is made up; you refuse to be confused with facts.
So, Paul, do you still believe cigarettes are good for you? The industry skeptics testified to that effect.
PAUL ROSELL,
“The practical effect of your last post is? What?”
1) You can easily make buildings (and homes) more EFFICIENT, so that they require little, or no power from the grid.2) You can SELL your excess power TO the grid, and make MONEY.
ROSELL: “Others, Sheriden for one, have posted here that it would take huge space, money and resources to build either a solar plant or a wind farm capable of replacing the proposed coal plants discussed here”
1) Again (sigh)… HIGHER EFFICIENCY is the KEY!2) GSheridan’s source,http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_L._Bradley“[Bradley] previously served as Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, where he was a speechwriter for CEO Kenneth Lay.
And cosmos – GS pretended that the wind turbines actually cover all the land rather than just being mounted there. Of course, anyone who pays attention knows that the land underneath can still be used for grazing farming etc.
His comments make about as much sense as saying that nothing can exist beneath where airplanes fly.
BenMy premise is that wind and solar are not ready to replace fossil fuels because of the storage issue. Wind and solar can supplement other, traditional energy sources, but that wind and solar energy must be used immediately or lost.
You have not disproved my point, you have ratified my point!
You have posted something concerning the DEVELOPMENT of batteries for electric cars, etc, that will LEAD us to batteries to manage load on the grid.That means that no such battery technology exists today, that could manage grid loads!
Yes, batteries can store power. What type of battery would it take to transfer power over a HVDC line?
My guess is we do not have such a battery yet!
You did me the favor of admitting that stored power must be in DC form. You and Cosmos did me the added favor of also admitting that only HV DC could be transmitted over long distances.
Even if you get to the point that we can store power for the local grid using some type of battery system — isnt the idea of a battery system that could generate HVDC over a long distance rather far off into the future?
What size would the battery have to be to store one hour of net, usable power from the coal plant, for instance? What type of battery would it take to store that power and then transmit it over an HVDC line to another city 300 miles away? One hell of a battery, Ben, wouldnt you say? And what good would a one hour battery be? We would want at least several hours to make the whole project worth it, wouldnt we?
The libs on this blog dont want coal because, they claim, wind and solar could replace coal and other fossil fuels.
By your own words, you have proven that wind and solar are not ready because storage is not available. Storage is necessary if you want these sources to be primary, because the sun doesnt always shine and the wind doesnt always blow.
I love inventions. I love it when a new technology becomes economically viable. I will jump on these dreams of the future when one of them shows real promise.
You arent there yet.
By the way, I am often deliberately wrong on minor details because that way you guys do my research for me. You also have a hard time refutting facts that you, yourselves, posted. This tactic is necessary here because of the pack tactics you libs play on this Blog. I have to use your posts against you because you will not read or give credit to anyone you dont agree with in anything a conservative posts.
I care about the big picture. I raise minor objections and raise petty details so that you come back with firm statments that I use to support my premise:
Again, you arent there yet, that is my whole point. Until you have an alternative to fossil fuels, we are stuck with fossil fuels. Until you come up with a solution to commercial storage of grid-ready electricity, you arent ready for prime time with solar and wind as a primary source of energy!
Show me a cheaper alternative fuel and I will be the first to buy it!
I am not married to fossil fuels. I am not on a mindless jihad against fossil fuels, like JR, either. I am emotionally neutral on the subject.
The market is also emotionally neutral. Sell a good idea and we will all buy it in the marketplace.
Your ideas are BAD, that is why you must sell them at the UN!
Ben,
GSheridan also falsely claimed that Holcomb would use air-cooled (not evap) heat exchangers, and said the Sierra Club made “blatant lies” about water usage.
And claimed that the transient construction workers living in motels/trailers would build homes there.
What amazes me is how people can live in today’s world, with so many technological advances, and insist that we need to build more coal-fired plants.
How can someone use a cell phone, or a notebook computer — and then insist that the BEST way to generate electricity for the NEXT 50+ years is the very OLD method of boiling water with coal?
Not to mention all of the advanced technology we now have to cut energy demand.
Ben Hule = Earth angel O: )
cosmos = Earth angel O: )
Paul Rosell = econ101 = loudmouth shill : o~$$$$$$$$
PAUL ROSELL,
“The libs on this blog dont want coal because, they claim, wind and solar could replace coal and other fossil fuels.”
Rosell, I’ll type ’s l o w l y’, so maybe you can understand?
Higher energy efficiency, to reduce base demand, is the KEY PRIORITY. Then, you use the least GHG producing solutions to meet that LOWERED demand.
ROSELL: “That means that no such battery technology exists today, that could manage grid loads!”
Possibilities exist today, and many more will be discovered during the next 50 years — while ROSELL’S fossil-energy suppliers go bankrupt.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Energy_storage
Cosmos – a speaker from the Sierra Club came to Salina and announced the plant would use ‘nearly 100,000 acre feet’ per year. I was there – I heard her.
And please point out where I detailed that they would use air-cooled exchangers?
You’re just making things up.
I pointed out the increase in homes in Craig – and many of those people stayed after construction. That’s just a fact.
Western KS badly needs an economic boost.
I really enjoy discussing with Ben – he makes salient points and uses non-political facts to back them up.
But you’re a totally different story. You copy/paste anything your particular form of dogma (leftist) allows and you never read what others write.
What good is that?
Ben, I thought I addressed the ‘under the towers’ aspect yesterday – but it appears my post is not here.
First, there can be no pivotal irrigation under the towers, so any crops that require that – will have to be abandoned. That takes in a lot of KS crops.
Secondly, when I visited the Wyoming wind farms along Interstate 80 I became aware of other negative factors. Go visit them if you get a chance.
The ground literally vibrates under your feet from the spinning Props of the towers. These are no little towers by any stretch of the imagination. They look like something from a Science Fiction movie. The sound carries for miles – and it is NOT pleasant. In KS, we have farms every mile or so – what effect would the constant noise have upon the residents?
In this area no crops were growing – but to be honest – it was not an area they likely would have farmed anyway; rocky terrain and very little vegetation.
But there WAS something on the ground – bits and pieces of mutilated birds everywhere. A few Canadian Geese (I think) and numerous smaller variety of feathered creatures. Yuk.
Now, I don’t really care that these things use migratory winds to power their props and that birds get spread like fodder below – but I DO wonder if that’s a good environment for farm crops to grow. How long before someone screams that farmers are bringing food to market that was showered in bird guts?
As far as grazing – that might also present a problem. I know that critters die a natural death here and there, and decompose naturally, but the recent Mad Cow scare seemed to enforce the need NOT to feed non-carnivorous animals the animal byproducts of others.
From what I saw, there is almost a zero chance that a normal grazing cow will not eventually eat some of the decomposing bits of bird carcass – since the pieces are widespread. A farmer could pick up the larger pieces – but don’t most farmers prefer to spend their off-days in the donut shop?
” a speaker from the Sierra Club came to Salina and announced the plant would use ‘nearly 100,000 acre feet’ per year. I was there – I heard her.”
I think after all the proven lies and “truthiness” you have posted sherri, you dont have the credibility for us to just take your word on the 100,000 acre feet thing.
Please post a link to Sierra Club materials or a news story or something to back up your claim.
You dont have a good enough track record of honesty and facts here to throw up crap like that without some documentation.
“but the recent Mad Cow scare seemed to enforce the need NOT to feed non-carnivorous animals the animal byproducts of others”
Just in case your knowledge of cattle is as biased and shallow as your “energy” shilling…
as you point out, cattle are “non-carnivorous”. That means they would NOT eat bird parts lying around.
They are perfectly capable of pushing aside “bird guts” to eat the veggies. They only eat the body parts of other animals when HUMANS force them to do so.
Damn, sherri, do you even THINK before you post?
And just how far can you reach to come up with this crap?
“A farmer could pick up the larger pieces – but don’t most farmers prefer to spend their off-days in the donut shop?”
And just a final little insult from the joe williams school of idiocy?
You can transmit high voltage DC but in order for it to be stepped up and down at both ends, you will have to convert to AC and you will suffer a high loss of efficiency in doing so which is why they don’t do it. There is lots of of research going on in so called “superconductors” which might make such a system feasible in the future. And BTW, street cars as well as the subway trains in NYC, Chicago and Atlanta all run on 600 VDC but it is converted at the track- not transmitted that way from the electric company.
Hey Cosmos, here is what sherri says about those “Transient” workers about which you provided Sunflower’s own figures.
“Your question is moot, Ksfarmgirl, since many of the ‘transient’ workers, will build homes, their children will go to school and they will eat more than sandwiches.
You must have NO concept of how long it will take to finish the construction of all three phases.
During this time, do you suppose none of the ‘transients’ children will marry and make homes of their own – have children?”
Hee hee hee hee..,
I see nothing about “increase in homes in Craig”. Just how those “transient” workers will be building houses, raising families, etc.
I mean, who are bloggers gonna believe? Cosmos, with his facts and links, or gee sherri with her lies and shilling.
And now she cant even remember what she says?
heheheheheheheheheehheheehehhehehhhe
Yeah. Real credibility.
I have to go along with Ksfarmgrrl on this one. The wind generators I visited, in California, did not vibrate or shake the ground. Nor, do I suspect, do the majority of the others.
They are balanced, and done so for a very specific reason: Vibrations are BAD and reduces the life of the generator in a big way. Being out of balance is not condoned, and is probably monitored and corrected in very short times.
As for the birds: hahahaha . . . I doubt you have seen one bird lying on the ground in pieces, let alone, “bits and pieces of mutilated birds everywhere. A few Canadian Geese (I think) and numerous smaller variety of feathered creatures. Yuk.”
You seem to be confusing dreams with reality.
GEE sherri, since you are not likely to come back and post a link about the Sierra Club, I’m gonna repost something from cosmos here from another thread:
“GSheridan,
“I watched spokespersons from the Sierra Club tell blatant lies about the water usage Holcomb would need. The plant fills up once then recycles the steam and only uses a minimum amount per year after that.”
http://www.kansas.sierraclub.org/Wind/SunflowerPlant-WaterUsage.htm“Sunflower Electric has indicated they will need about 8000 acre-ft per year of water to operate each of their three proposed new 660 MW boilers. This will be needed to operate water cooling towers.”
http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm“Each of the three new units will require about 8,000 acre-feet of water to meet annual production needs.”
Since you seem to claim to be a coal-plant expert, please explain what the Sierra Club’s “blatant lies” are.
Posted by: cosmos | February 08, 2007 at 03:55 PM
Sherri has had two days to respond. Her answer?
Crickets chirping…..
Hey Walker! LTNS.
Good to see you.
Gsheridan
You are rather new here.
SO a bit of explanation is required.
Do you see the posts of econ101 on this thread? Well dear that is one Paul F Rosell, the universally acclaimed shill and bane of the WE blog.
Why do I tell you this?
Because dearie? When I was reading through your post about windmills shaking the ground and being a quisinart for birds I THOUGHT before I got to the end that I would find the signature of econ Paul Rosell.
But I found yours instead.
Your credibility here is spinning down to nothing.
You said your hubby builds power plants. What is your financial stake in building this plant we do not need?
GSheridan,
“please point out where I detailed that they would use air-cooled exchangers?You’re just making things up.”
ksfarmgrrl posted it (thank you!) at 8:19 AM, but I’ll repeat it,
GSheridan: “The plant fills up ONCE then recycles the steam and only uses a minimum amount per year after that.”http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/would_three_mor.html#comment-28971669
Isn’t’ that an air-cooled exchanger system???
Want to argue that 30,000 acre-feet/year, mostly for evap-cooled exchangers, is a “minimum amount”?
YOU are making things up.
GSheridan: “Western KS badly needs an economic boost.”
You’d get a bigger, more reliable boost by investing the Holcomb expansion money in higher efficiency, and alternatives.There’d be more jobs, and more business, for appliance, hi-E window makers, etc.
Consumers would have lower utility bills, and could spend the money elsewhere.
Ben! Saying that a former politican narrating a movie about global warming is somehow related to bringing peace to society is a far stretch.
It’s actually silly to suggest that reducing greenhouse gases will reduce violence and cause peace.
I’m not trying to discredit Gore or the Global Warming crowd. I’m just saying, that Gore doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, because he hasn’t done anything remotely to promote, broker and struggle for Peace as with the former Nobel Peace Prize Winners.
If you do think he deserves it, then it’s a pure political motivation as the reason why.
If Gore did anything releated to Peace, lets say something in the Middle East, then by all means, award him.
But to suggest he deserves it for narrating a global warming film is a huge stinking stretch.
Joe Williams
You are showing your willful ignorance.
Again.
The documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” presents the slideshow and arguement on climate change that Al Gore has brought to many forums in many states and countries.
Please have the intellectual curiousity to see it before you presume to comment on it.
Al Gore has a passion for environmental protection.
A mostly forgotten project he had in mind would have launched a satellite and a cable channel that would shown constant video of the Earth from space. Of course, a Republican congress wasn’t having any of THAT!
Gore is a very viable candidate for the Nobel prize.
GSheridan,
“- bits and pieces of mutilated birds everywhere…”
Your PROOF? For example,’AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY WIND ENERGY POLICY’http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windpolicy.htm“Fatality rates at the Foote Creek Rim Wind Project in Wyoming, with 105 large turbines … was estimated to be 1.75 bird fatalities/turbine/year.”
“more than 3,000 birds were killed by collisions during one night in fall migration at a four-smokestack Florida coal-fired power plant.”
What really worries the American Bird Conservancy?CLIMATE cHANGE, caused by GHG’s, such as emitted by GSheridan’s coal-fired plants.http://www.abcbirds.org/climatechange/statepage.htm
http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf“We have reviewed reports indicating the following estimated annual avian collision mortality in the United States:‚Ä¢ Vehicles: 60 million – 80 million‚Ä¢ Buildings and Windows: 98 million – 980 million‚Ä¢ Powerlines: tens of thousands – 174 million‚Ä¢ Communication Towers: 4 million – 50 million‚Ä¢ Wind Generation Facilities: 10,000 – 40,000
…even if windplants were quite numerous (e.g., 1 million turbines), they would likely cause no more than a few percent of all collision deaths related to human structures.”
GSheridan,
“The sound carries for miles – and it is NOT pleasant.”
http://www.bwea.com/ref/noise.htmlWind farm = 35 to 45 dB(A) at 350 meters distance. That’s “background noise”, about the same as leaves rustling in a gentle breeze.
You cannot hear that miles away.
Why Politicized Science is Dangerous(Excerpted from State of Fear)by Michael Crichton
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms.
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant. But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and its history is so dreadful — and, to those who were caught up in it, so embarrassing — that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should be well know to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
The theory of eugenics postulated a crisis of the gene pool leading to the deterioration of the human race. The best human beings were not breeding as rapidly as the inferior ones — the foreigners, immigrants, Jews, degenerates, the unfit, and the “feeble minded.” Francis Galton, a respected British scientist, first speculated about this area, but his ideas were taken far beyond anything he intended. They were adopted by science-minded Americans, as well as those who had no interest in science but who were worried about the immigration of inferior races early in the twentieth century — “dangerous human pests” who represented “the rising tide of imbeciles” and who were polluting the best of the human race.
The eugenicists and the immigrationists joined forces to put a stop to this. The plan was to identify individuals who were feeble-minded — Jews were agreed to be largely feeble-minded, but so were many foreigners, as well as blacks — and stop them from breeding by isolation in institutions or by sterilization.
As Margaret Sanger said, “Fostering the good-for-nothing at the expense of the good is an extreme cruelty … there is not greater curse to posterity than that of bequeathing them an increasing population of imbeciles.” She spoke of the burden of caring for “this dead weight of human waste.”
Such views were widely shared. H.G. Wells spoke against “ill-trained swarms of inferior citizens.” Theodore Roosevelt said that “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” Luther Burbank” “Stop permitting criminals and weaklings to reproduce.” George Bernard Shaw said that only eugenics could save mankind.
There was overt racism in this movement, exemplified by texts such as “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy” by American author Lothrop Stoddard. But, at the time, racism was considered an unremarkable aspect of the effort to attain a marvelous goal — the improvement of humankind in the future. It was this avant-garde notion that attracted the most liberal and progressive minds of a generation. California was one of twenty-nine American states to pass laws allowing sterilization, but it proved the most-forward-looking and enthusiastic — more sterilizations were carried out in California than anywhere else in America.
Eugenics research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation, and later by the Rockefeller Foundation. The latter was so enthusiastic that even after the center of the eugenics effort moved to Germany, and involved the gassing of individuals from mental institutions, the Rockefeller Foundation continued to finance German researchers at a very high level. (The foundation was quiet about it, but they were still funding research in 1939, only months before the onset of World War II.)
Since the 1920s, American eugenicists had been jealous because the Germans had taken leadership of the movement away from them. The Germans were admirably progressive. They set up ordinary-looking houses where “mental defectives” were brought and interviewed one at a time, before being led into a back room, which was, in fact, a gas chamber. There, they were gassed with carbon monoxide, and their bodies disposed of in a crematorium located on the property.
Eventually, this program was expanded into a vast network of concentration camps located near railroad lines, enabling the efficient transport and of killing ten million undesirables.
After World War II, nobody was a eugenicist, and nobody had ever been a eugenicist. Biographers of the celebrated and the powerful did not dwell on the attractions of this philosophy to their subjects, and sometimes did not mention it at all. Eugenics ceased to be a subject for college classrooms, although some argue that its ideas continue to have currency in disguised form.
But in retrospect, three points stand out. First, despite the construction of Cold Springs Harbor Laboratory, despite the efforts of universities and the pleadings of lawyers, there was no scientific basis for eugenics. In fact, nobody at that time knew what a gene really was. The movement was able to proceed because it employed vague terms never rigorously defined. “Feeble-mindedness” could mean anything from poverty to illiteracy to epilepsy. Similarly, there was no clear definition of “degenerate” or “unfit.”
Second, the eugenics movement was really a social program masquerading as a scientific one. What drove it was concern about immigration and racism and undesirable people moving into one’s neighborhood or country. Once again, vague terminology helped conceal what was really going on.
Third, and most distressing, the scientific establishment in both the United States and Germany did not mount any sustained protest. Quite the contrary. In Germany scientists quickly fell into line with the program. Modern German researchers have gone back to review Nazi documents from the 1930s. They expected to find directives telling scientists what research should be done. But none were necessary. In the words of Ute Deichman, “Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding for their work through their modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state.” Deichman speaks of the “active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy … where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine … no external pressure can be documented.” German scientists adjusted their research interests to the new policies. And those few who did not adjust disappeared.
A second example of politicized science is quite different in character, but it exemplifies the hazard of government ideology controlling the work of science, and of uncritical media promoting false concepts. Trofim Denisovich Lysenko was a self-promoting peasant who, it was said, “solved the problem of fertilizing the fields without fertilizers and minerals.” In 1928 he claimed to have invented a procedure called vernalization, by which seeds were moistened and chilled to enhance the later growth of crops.
Lysenko’s methods never faced a rigorous test, but his claim that his treated seeds passed on their characteristics to the next generation represented a revival of Lamarckian ideas at a time when the rest of the world was embracing Mendelian genetics. Josef Stalin was drawn to Lamarckian ideas, which implied a future unbounded by hereditary constraints; he also wanted improved agricultural production. Lysenko promised both, and became the darling of a Soviet media that was on the lookout for stories about clever peasants who had developed revolutionary procedures.
Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, and he milked his celebrity for all it was worth. He was especially skillful at denouncing this opponents. He used questionnaires from farmers to prove that vernalization increased crop yields, and thus avoided any direct tests. Carried on a wave of state-sponsored enthusiasm, his rise was rapid. By 1937, he was a member of the Supreme Soviet.
By then, Lysenko and his theories dominated Russian biology. The result was famines that killed millions, and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads. Lysenko was aggressive in attacking genetics, which was finally banned as “bourgeois pseudoscience” in 1948. There was never any basis for Lysenko’s ideas, yet he controlled Soviet research for thirty years. Lysenkoism ended in the 1960s, but Russian biology still has not entirely recovered from that era.
Now we are engaged in a great new theory that once again has drawn the support of politicians, scientists, and celebrities around the world. Once again, the theory is promoted by major foundations. Once again, the research is carried out at prestigious universities. Once again, legislation is passed and social programs are urged in its name. Once again, critics are few and harshly dealt with.
Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science. Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded. Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions. Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences. Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice — terms that have no agreed definition — are employed in the service of a new crisis.
I am not arguing that global warming is the same as eugenics. But the similarities are not superficial. And I do claim that open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed. Leading scientific journals have taken strong editorial positions of the side of global warming, which, I argue, they have no business doing. Under the circumstances, any scientist who has doubts understands clearly that they will be wise to mute their expression.
One proof of this suppression is the fact that so many of the outspoken critics of global warming are retired professors. These individuals are not longer seeking grants, and no longer have to face colleagues whose grant applications and career advancement may be jeopardized by their criticisms.
In science, the old men are usually wrong. But in politics, the old men are wise, counsel caution, and in the end are often right.
The past history of human belief is a cautionary tale. We have killed thousands of our fellow human beings because we believed they had signed a contract with the devil, and had become witches. We still kill more than a thousand people each year for witchcraft. In my view, there is only one hope for humankind to emerge from what Carl Sagan called “the demon-haunted world” of our past. That hope is science.
But as Alston Chase put it, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.
Ralph,
Do you realize that Crichton’s novel is fiction? And you might want to read these…
‘Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion’http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
‘Checking Crichton’s footnotes’http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/02/06/checking_crichtons_footnotes/?page=full
Yeah, I know his novel was fictional and I believe that the literary reviews are missing the point that Crichton was trying to make which is stated above, “when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”
In the big picture, the data is compelling. We very well may be in a cycle of global warming. What is less evident is whether or not mankind is contributing to what very well could be a natural, cyclical change and, more importantly, whether or not mankind can do anything about it.
Methinks not.
Ralph,
Science and politics are seperate, independent issues.For example “politics” had nothing to do with Arrhenius’ 1896 calculations of GW from human-caused CO2. http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
The “big picture”,1) “Nature” safely stored huge amounts of oil and coal underground.
2) “Mankind” retrieved it, burned it, and increased the Earth’s GHG’s.
3) “Mankind” produced, and released other, more potent GHG’s — CFC’s, HFC’s, SF6…
4) “Nature” reacted “naturally” to all the increased GHG’s, and warmed the Earth.
I think it’s fair to say that “mankind” contributed to GW.The IPCC says there’s a 90% to 95% chance we’ve done so.——–Crichton’s novel: “The effect of Kyoto would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100″
Author of that analysis explained: that “assumed that Kyoto was followed to 2010, and that there were NO subsequent climate mitigation policies. … Once we’ve done Kyoto we’re obviously going to do other things.”
I agree with Chreiton that politicized science is dangerous; that is why I oppose it. And, when you place an oil industry lobbyist in charge of science policy you are DEFINTELY politicizing science.
A review of Crichton’s book:
http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp
“The excessive interruptions of an otherwise good story by Crichton’s bad science make State of Fear a bad buy.
by Dr. Jeffrey M. MastersChief Meteorologist, The Weather Underground, Inc.”
Hi cosmos. I get the feeling you are a bit more idealistic/optimistic than I am; thus my inclusion of nuclear in my power scenario. It struck me this morning who you remind me of: A wacko nutcase from Boston way back when I was in high school. This crazy guy came up with a far-out idea that in no way could be accomplished. There we were in the very early 60s; our puny rockets blowing up on the launchpad and the Soviets winning the space race. That fruitcake vowed: by the end of the 60s America will put a man on the moon! Ya gotta be kidding! With what? Those exploding rockets?!
John Kennedy never lived to see it but we did.
Of course, I guess the skeptics still claim it was all staged in Hollywod …
According to my ex-father-in-law, the famous walk on the moon was done in a studio next to Walter Cronkite’s. heh
My last boss in research was an ex-Nasa Shuttle Mission Specialist. He was a very interesting fellow.
What’s the word on using isotope measurement to determine the specific origin of carbon emissions.
Anyone settled on that science yet?
It would be nice to know what Carbon comes from what source in a precise measurement (in the troposphere, etc.)
C isotope? I’m ot real sure of your question. I do know that fossil-fuel CO2 would be very depleted of C-14; this has been measured. And the ratio of C-12/C-14 in tha atmosphere is changing to reflect that.
I have talked with some shuttle guys – the stories they can tell, especially when they can ‘let their hair down’ in an informal settig.
What shuttle guys did you talk to and in what capacity were you able to talk to them?
Don’t remember the names; one fairly recently at a local CHMM meeting; some others at various science meetings. One technical topic was Remote Sensing for land use; however the most fun talk was over drinks at social hours.
These guys were mission specialist types, not ‘astronau’ types. My son met some at Space Camp – Hutch to Houston.
So you didn’t meet them professionally? Just happen to be there drinking with them or brushed up against one at a hazmat meeting. And the topic was global warming and carbon emmissions?
As I stated, the topic was remote sensing and land use. It was professional. It was also quite a few years ago.
One of the common uses of remote sensing is to map pollution spread and also effects on vegetation.
If you have ever been to an ACS or other similar meeting you know that a lot of informal conversation takes place over snacks etc at social hours. The one here was a lunch meeting so the extent of the ‘drinks’ was pop and iced tea.
Ok! Just wondering. You don’t come off as anybody professional or hold any position of importance. No offense!
Another theory on warming:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
Again, the sun!
‘anybody professional’? Do you mean professional like a Certified Haz Mat Manager? Or a licensed geologist? Or a graduate degreed scientist? Come on Joe, you know better than that.
Thing is, one of these guys might not “come off as anybody professional or hold any position of importance” either; they are fairly laid-back and not ‘full of themselves.’ Just regular guys who are having far too much fun doing what they do.
Paul – even if they are correct they still state that anthropogenic CO2 is a culprit – they just take a position that the COs effect is not as bad as everyone else says it is.
I don’t know you. You have been known to lie and exaggerate claims. To be honest, I don’t really trust what you say after being wrong on a few issues that you a blindly politically driven to argue about.
You post more often than any other person on this blog. With the date and time stamp, you post all the time during working hours. So I assume you don’t work in a professional capacity.
HazMat isn’t really anything, but a licence geologist is something.
I just picture you as a person working at Lear having all the free time to prounce around on the net.
This is worth noting here.
The arguements of those who do not believe in man caused global warming should be taken with a grain of salt.
Most of those folks at first denied that there was any global warming AT ALL. Are there ANY folks still saying that?
NOW they admit that warming is occurring. They just want to think of every thing other than a human link to it.
well, Joe, I don’t really care a lot what a lying nobody like you thinks. But no, I am not at Lear. I AM a licensed geologist in the State of Kansas – look it up on the KSBTP website. Getting CHMM was much harder than getting the LG.
And I picture you as a loser who has nothing better to do with your worthless existence than to try to slander anyone you disagree with.
I did a search on the Kansas Board of Technical Professions. You’re name did come up! So you told the truth there.
Just had to double check. Can’t be too careful what people claim on the internet now-a-days.
And check with WSU, UCLA and MIT for my degrees. Can’t be too careful you know!
Pretty half assed half hearted apology for a rather nasty set of shots Joe!
I’ve met Ben. I didn’t get to talk to him much at all because he was busy educating Nathan. Hanks Nathan I mean. He’s for real.
“You have been known to lie and exaggerate claims.”
How about ONE example?
Hank and Nathan are real too – and both good men. Nathan and I were having a very interesting discussion about nuclear power ideas. Funny thing is – we were largely in agreement. So I wouldn’t say I was ‘educating’ Nathan; lets say we were exchanging ideas. And THAT is educational for all concerned.
JR – for the record I was DEAD WRONG on some things I said about Bryan Brown. I have apologized to him (on this Blog) for that; the person involved had been someone else. Turns out that during the time period in question Bryan was in Virginia making good grades in law school (and maybe surfing a bit)
You are being very gracious Ben.
It is one thing to be wrong and admit it. It hardly earns one the title of liar and exaggerator.
Joe should look at Paul Rosell a little closer!
I’ve a challenge for the critics of Al Gore.
(Affecting my best Al Gore voice)
Joe I’m looking in your direction.
SEE the documentary. It is out on disc now and I understand it will start running on Showtime in March.
If you do you will prove that you are more open minded than the pResident of the United States.
For whatever that is worth….
See it and I grant you the right to assign me one film to see or book to read.
By the way, I think I also have claimed that Hank threatened me with a spatula at the meet-up. But, then again, maybe he was only serving me up a burger!
;^)
Ben,
You’ve got it backwards, I’m pessimistic about the future.
For example, look at this thread — IPCC says there’s a 90% to 95% chance that humans are causing GW… and “our” solution is to build MORE NEW coal-fired plants?? WTH??
Then there’s Paul ROSELL, who after getting stomped re HVDC, storage, etc., claims the “sun!” is causing GW.http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin
Not to mention the “contributions”(sic) of GSheridan, Joe Williams, JM, Ralph, et al, to this very crucial issue.
Being pessimistic, I think we have to use the cheapest, and fastest solutions. And I just don’t see nuclear as part of that.
Another good read:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
Cosmos, guess what, the COSMOS is the source of most warming, cosmic rays!
Can I call you Cosmoswarming or would you take offense?
Cosmos,
The point of my post is that I don’t believe that mankind can “solve” global warming. Furthermore, yeah, big oil business, big auto business put their spin on it, but so do all the anti big oil and big auto businesses. The fact is that there ARE deferring opinions out there. Such as this linky. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1034077.cms
Bottom line is that no one really knows the answer that the future will bring. Everything can be considered in terms of economic consequences. There are trade-offs. The debate is healthy, but we, humankind, should be careful to rush to judge.
Cosmos – the system is a condenser system – not air cooled.
You are pulling some pretty obscure numbers from some pretty dubious sites.
I suggest you take a little trip this summer on I-80 into Wyoming. It’s really not that far a drive and tell me what you think after you pull your car to the side of the road and get out and feel the vibration under your feet and hear the noise.
You will likely need some credentials of some sort to go under the towers – but perhaps someone will give you a tour.
In Wyoming – they call them “eagle killers,” although I didn’t see proof of any eagles on the ground.
Until you see for yourself – you really don’t have a leg to stand upon.
There is one factor that you don’t seem to acknowledge here – that of ‘real life.’ Not EVERYTHING in the world exists on the Internet – and if we’re lucky it never will. If you can’t find a LINK on the net – you don’t even consider the story to be valid.
That’s just not reality, my friend.
I know you’re passionate about this – but I think you’re missing a lot by only referencing the net.
You can bet Kathleen Sebelius isn’t depending upon what she can pick through on the net to make her decisions – she’s listening to the experts.
Therein lies the rub.
Unfortunately, credentials mean very little on the net, which is one reason I never share mine.
When someone tells you they are a professional in one field or another – they MAY be telling the truth – or they may NOT. We like to think that folks are being honest with us – but often they are not. We don’t know their reasons for being here so we can’t possibly evaluate their honesty.
On the Kansas Boards years ago – way back in the BTK era – there was a gal who claimed she had kids in Iraq. A couple of months later – she must have forgotten that claim, because she then said she was childless.
I like to debate the issues. I’ll never really KNOW what your expertise is – and you wont know what mine is. We can all claim to be rocket scientists – but that wont make it so.
I’m convinced Ben has some sort of experience in the field of science – but I am less convinced about Cosmos. That may change in the future.
In a world where a person can purchase a PhD over the net, credentials fall by the way and substance of discussion take their place.
Ben – I really don’t think you need to keep throwing out more information about yourself. Your posts stand upon merit. You can hold your own by discussion. The WE Blog officials are claiming this site is one of the most popular in the nation – for a newspaper.
None of us know who is lurking here and never posting. It’s not really safe to share those kinds of personal tags.
But – since you brought up geology – I don’t remember if you have addressed my position that Tri State (if water is the concern) could drill deeper into the Dakota Formation.
Would you please weigh in on that?
JR – Gore may be a candidate for the Nobel Prize, but since they gave it to Arafat – it ceased to mean anything (to me,) anyway.
If CO2 is the main culprit – why aren’t we undertaking massive horticultural steps to offset the damage? Why are we concentrating on SOME causes, and totally ignoring others?
When the UN issued the warning that the methane from cows was a very large contributor – you could hear a pin drop.
Why?
People love their Fillet Mignon too much to consider changing?
This ENTIRE warming issue – is highly political.
If anyone who propounds the disuse of fossil fuels – still eats meat – his/her opinion is tainted. Because they refuse to put their money where their hamburger…er…mouth is. :)
Since I’ve been a vegetarian for almost twenty years – I guess I’m ahead of those who still eat meat.
woohoo Does that make me an expert?
…sticking my nose in the air….
Joe Williams wrote: “You [Ben Huie] post more often than any other person on this blog. With the date and time stamp, you post all the time during working hours.”
Thing about Ben Huie is that he claims he doesn’t have time to work the system.
JR wrote: “Most of those folks at first denied that there was any global warming AT ALL. Are there ANY folks still saying that?”
Hey JR, why don’t you google “Global Cooling” and see if NO ONE is out there who have jumped into the lemming’s rush to the sea?
The Atmosphere consists of about 5.8 x E18 tons in mass. The total CO2 mass at 370 PPM is 2.8 x E13. The CO2 emissions from ALL the burning of fossil fuels in the world annually is 27 x E 9 in 2005. Numbers are from any almanac for the Atmosphere weight, and simple math gets the PPM part of the CO2 mass. The annual rate of CO2 emissions from the fossil fuels is from the IPCC.
So using these numbers as a base, in order for CO2 buildup to be occurring there has to either be a) more CO2 emissions from *natural sources*, or the residence time of the SO2 is 200-300 years.
The science for man made global warming is weak and does not pass a smiple mass balance. The people that support the Al Gore position are looking at only temperature and glaciers.
Additionally if “man made Global Climate change” was happening, the scientist could *prove* portions of it. They have not. What has happened is “consensus”. Scientists do not do “consensus” that is what politically driven entities do. In science, it is an either or situation.
But NOT consensus. Consensus is not fact, truth or therom.
GS – I am only vaguely familiar with the specifics of the Dakota but if I am correct it is very hard water; thus while they cen drill into it they would likely have problems with the usability of the water. The KGS has a lot of good information including subsurface maps. That is what I would look at to get you a better answer. These can be borrowed for free at their office on Monroe.
Tyler – the models DO include mass balance. And residence time for CO2 is in the centuries. The key thing here is that input into the reservoir (atmosphere) is greater than output from that reservoir. Thus the amount in that reservoir increases. One approach being discussed is to increase sequestration (horticultural), either terrestrial of marine. Here in KS there has been talk about carbon credits for farmers who adopt certain practices.
GS – my credentail comments were in response to Joe’s query.
Ralph – there is a difference between taking a quick break without leaving my office or chair and trying to work myself into the GOBN in City Hall.
By the way, another funny vignette like the ones I mentioned with the shuttle passenger. One of the scientists who has done ice core work in Greenland and Antarctica spoke at WSU some years back. Of course, the talk was about methodology and results; however we also got a nice picture of a “port-a-potty” with the INSIDE coated in ice. BRRRRRR!!!!!!! Dinner conversation was fascinating – about what it is like just being there.
My challenge for folks to see the Gore documentary stands.
Gsheridan
I do not NEED to go to Wyoming. I have seen a wind farm right here in Kansas. The ground did not shake under my vehicle or my feet.
I say again. You have posted that your husband builds power plants. What is your personal financial stake in this one?
Ralph and Tyler? Clearly Rushbots. I can’t help them.
I CAN skip the issue of global climate change entirely and stick more to the point of this thread.
SHOW that construction of these new power plants is necessary. Dates and times for the last power shortages please.
“You have been known to lie and exaggerate claims.”
That is NUTS!!!!!
Ben is one of the most credible posters on this blog. To question his integrity is to show your own ignorance.
You dont have to agree with Ben, but pul-eeze, dont throw that kinda garbage at him.
Ben, GS is WHINING about credentials because she questioned mine on economics, and when I challenged her to post her qualifications, well…. crickets chirping.
SO now, of course, credentials dont matter.
heheheheheheheeheheheheeheheh
Yeah. Like someone with no education posts on science with the same validity as a PHD from MIT.
Here is a clue sherri. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they usually stink. Having a vested interest in building coal plants does not make you an expert. It gives you opinions, not credibility.
You are still failing on the credibility issue. Someone pointed out yesterday that when we correctly call bullshit on your bullshit, you slink away.
Please answer cosmos’ questions. Please answer my questions. Please answer for your OLD bullshit before moving on to NEW bullshit. Otherwise, you just sound like the shill you are.
Ben, GS is WHINING about credentials because she questioned mine on economics, and when I challenged her to post her qualifications, well…. crickets chirping.
SO now, of course, credentials dont matter.
heheheheheheheeheheheheeheheh
Yeah. Like someone with no education posts on science with the same validity as a PHD from MIT.
Here is a clue sherri. Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they usually stink. Having a vested interest in building coal plants does not make you an expert. It gives you opinions, not credibility.
You are still failing on the credibility issue. Someone pointed out yesterday that when we correctly call bullshit on your bullshit, you slink away.
Please answer cosmos’ questions. Please answer my questions. Please answer for your OLD bullshit before moving on to NEW bullshit. Otherwise, you just sound like the shill you are.
hee hee hee heee
Yes, sherri, we need PROOF. Links are usually acceptable, but there are other forms of proof.
You are proof challenged as there is no way to PROVE your opinions. There is no way your opinion will EVER have the same validity as facts, backed up with citation.
If it isnt on the internet, post where you did find something. In print? Cite it! If it isnt in print, it isnt on the internet, and you dont have a citation for some broadcast you watched while half asleep, maybe you dont HAVE any proof?
Like your Sierra Club lies. Funny, you are the ONLY person who heard their lies? You dont think if the Sierra Club was lying that steve miller wouldnt jump on it like a dog on a bone?
Another clue for you honey. If you make wild unfounded allegations, people on this board, on all sides, will ask for PROOF. Everytime.
Damn, if you are so freakin’ smart, why dont you just stop posting bullshit you cant back up? Or back up the bullshit you do post!
Or… and here is a novel idea, just get used to the idea that if you post opinions, others will have differing opinions. And they ALL have the same credibility.
Which is less than the credibility of fact.
GSheridan,
“the system is a condenser system – not air cooled.”
GSheridan: “The plant fills up ONCE then recycles the steam and only uses a minimum amount per year after that.”http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/would_three_mor.html#comment-28971669
Again… YOU implied that the plant uses air-cooled heat exchangers, instead of evaporative.
The amount of water to fill the “condenser system” is insignificant compared to HUGE amounts lost in the evap heat exchangers (cooling towers).
Can you see the graphic, with arrows upward labeled “evaporation”?http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm
That’s could total 30,000 acre-feet of water each year, for 50 years.
GSheridan: “some pretty obscure numbers from some pretty dubious sites.”
“Dubious”? All stats/links were from,’AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY WIND ENERGY POLICY’http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windpolicy.htm
“GSheridan: “some pretty obscure numbers from some pretty dubious sites.”
Yeah cosmos. She HATES those dubious sources like SUNFLOWER’S own application figures….
Ralph,
“Global Cooling” on the Internet?
One of the best researched and informative ones is,’Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the ’70’s? No’http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
cosmos – by ‘optimistic’ I was referring to your projections of what wind can do. I also noted that such optimism has happened before (Kennedy and space) and was fulfilled with a comittment to make it work.
Like you, I am pessimistic about the ‘will’ to get this under control.
I think the ‘global cooling’ thing was some ‘popular press’ article back in the 70s. And, if i am correct, it was SPECULATING that such a Milankovitch trend could follow in several thousand years.
Ben,
Maybe I am optimistic re wind, but sited properly, it’s a good, cheap source.
But the key solution is higher efficiency, because it’s cheapest, and fastest. Consider that WalMart has re-designed their buildings to be 30 to 50% more energy efficient.
The ’solutions’ need to be competitive on the market.New nuclear plants are expensive, and take years to build.Coal will get hammered both by carbon taxes, and the stigma of producing GHG’s.
Global cooling worries in the 1970’s raised awarness of how important climate is — farming, water supplies, etc. It triggered more climate research.
A informative timeline.http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm“1977: Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century”
cosmos – from AudobonMag:—–”When wildlife researchers have looked closely at wind farms, disturbing numbers have emerged. One 2003 study spent seven months compiling bat fatalities at a wind-power site in the West Virginia mountains. Researchers found, to their surprise, that the 44 turbines killed as many as 4,000 migratory bats. Similarly grim findings have since been reported at wind farms in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, raising the possibility that significant bat kills are a regional or even national phenomenon.”————-
That’s a little different than your source.
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0609/energy.html
JR – towers are different sizes. The one I’m planning to build is quite a bit smaller than the ones on Western KS windfarms.
Those, in turn, are much smaller than the ones in parts of Colorado and Wyoming. I’m serious about driving out there if you get a chance – it’s nothing like here.
I told you already, I have NO financial interest in the new plants. I also told you that I was from Colorado – I met my husband when he worked on the plant in Craig. He was very young, 17 at the time, and lying about his age so he could work there. He had worked there since he was 14.
He went to work for someone else when he turned 18, and we married soon after.
For the last 17 years we have run our own business in KS. My parents were originally from Russell.
I have friends that still work there – and I have contacts with a number of Tri-State folks, but I have NO financial interest.
My father, the retired miner and driller, is still consulted by some in the industry. He’s like an encyclopedia on this topic. No one has accused him of being wrong yet.
cosmos – you’re being MORE than just a little bit “optimistic” on wind energy.
It’s already been determined that it will NOT replace fossil fuels.
GSheridan,
No comment re Holcombs evap heat exchangers, and water usage?
If wind farms are properly sited, bird and bat kills are minimal.
‘Power users go for green’http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2006/10/03/news/wyoming/25-green.txt “Even in the heart of coal country, most customers would rather go green.
A survey by Powder River Energy Corp., a cooperative serving much of northeastern Wyoming, found 75 percent of respondents were willing to pay extra for wind-generated electricity or other clean power sources.”
cosmos – not sure what your point is on the re usage of the water. Do you have one?
I showed you the top bird organization in the world and the stats they collected about bird mortality.
Do you dispute it?
…still waiting for that list of power shortages that necessitates a new plant….
Thanks for the article GS -I am forwarding it. I note in the article that they comment on the need to be site-specific; that is something I have said all along. There are good locations and there are bad locations. For a number of reasons Altamont appears to be a bad location.
GSheridan,
“It’s already been determined that it will NOT replace fossil fuels.”
Quote the post where I said wind would do that!
I’ve said use higher efficiency FIRST, to cut demand.Then use Distributed Generation, which is multiple sources, including wind, PV, and other sustainble sources.
You claimed Holcomb would use a “minimum amount [of water] per year after” being filled ONCE.
30,000 acre-feet/year is NOT a “minimum amount”.Air-cooled heat exchangers would NOT use that water.
I don’t dispute Audubon’s bat’s stats. Proper siting is the key point.
Cosmos – it just dawned on me – for some reason – you don’t think the heat evaporation method is a form of condensing.
The heat-exchanger is a TYPE of condenser.
Air-cooled is another type.
I never stated the power plants would have the air-cooled type.
….sheesh….
GSheridan,
I’ll type ’s l o w l y’, so maybe you can understand?
Can you see the graphic, with arrows upward, labeled “evaporation”?http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm
That “evaporation” is from the cooling towers.
Cooling towers can INSTEAD be built with air-cooled heat exchangers. They use air, instead of “evaporation”.
They do NOT waste the water.
Cosmos – once again, I’m confused by your usage of the condensing terms involved.
They WILL be condensing the water – it’s part of the plan.
But there is extreme heat that is generated and the water turns to steam. Some escapes, as I addressed in an earlier thread, and I advocated using that heat to either burn trash, as is done in Carbondale Colorado – OR recyle it for commercial greenhouses. Both are being done.
There is ALSO the ability for the new plants to utilize water from Holcomb’s water treatment plant. That water is not recycled into more drinking water for them- once it has been treated, but some plants ARE using waste water. Right now – it just flows into the river – or drainage.
Russell has the piggy-backed Ethanol plant, so there is another option for wasted heat.
You need to take a look at this explanation for the water usage, because there are some misconceptions going around.
And you need to understand that the water the plants will be using – has been purchased from irrigated farm rights – meaning that amount of water was being used anyway.
Read this:
http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm
GS, I wonder; were the sellers, in fact, using the full 29,000 acre feet of water to which they were given the rights, or did they merely have the right to use that much, and didn’t? To avoid the loss of the water right, the statute merely requires it be used, not used to its full extent, IIRC.
If anyone has the answer to the question posed above, or can point me to a link showing the actual water usage by the sellers of the rights, it would be much appreciated.
Vaughn – they purchased rights that were already in place by farmers who irrigated the land. You can bet they paid a pretty penny for those rights.
I believe that the water rights that transfered to my husband and me when we purchased a corn farm have ‘retired’ since we did not use them.
I don’t know what percentage of the allowable water the farmers were using. But I think meters have been on the wells for a few years now – so the documentation should be somewhere…..
Anyone have the ability to track it down?
All for now, folks. I’ve tarried here longer than I should have.
Toodles.
GSheridan,
“But there is extreme heat that is generated and the water turns to steam. Some escapes, ”
Don’t you understand how power plants work?The “evaporation” from the cooling tower is NOT some steam that “escapes”. It’s how the “evaporation”-cooled heat exchanger works.
Air-cooled heat exchangers work like a car radiator. They’re used when there isn’t sufficient water for the evap-cooled system.The plant then uses, as YOU claimed earlier, a “minimum amount” of water.
Gee sherri, as you always say, “educate yourself”
Bats are mammals, not birds.
They will not be counted in bird kill figures. And I dont remember you talking about BAT kills either, just bird kills.
Or are you confused about the difference since they both fly?
hehehehehehehehhe
Ditto on VT’s questions about whether or not the irrigators were pumping at full volume, and not all of the right’s Sunflower purchased were irrigation rights. Some were domestic rights which rarely pump close to the max. Some were industrial rights, and some were unused and about to be retired.
Also, the kwo has RECENTLY determined a portion of the water used for irrigation returns to the ground water as recharge. This was used as a basis for water rights decisions in the kwo.
The portion of the Holcomb plant’s water returned to the ground: 0
It is not a one to one transfer for water used as irrigation and water used for industry. The kwo has COMPLETELY different forumulas for allocating them.
Please dear, educate YOURSELF
Gee sherri, as you always say, “educate yourself”
Bats are mammals, not birds.
They will not be counted in bird kill figures. And I dont remember you talking about BAT kills either, just bird kills.
Or are you confused about the difference since they both fly?
hehehehehehehehhe
Ditto on cosmo’s questions about whether or not the irrigators were pumping at full volume, and not all of the right’s Sunflower purchased were irrigation rights. Some were domestic rights which rarely pump close to the max. Some were industrial rights, and some were unused and about to be retired.
Also, the kwo has RECENTLY determined a portion of the water used for irrigation returns to the ground water as recharge. This was used as a basis for water rights decisions in the kwo.
The portion of the Holcomb plant’s water returned to the ground: 0
It is not a one to one transfer for water used as irrigation and water used for industry. The kwo has COMPLETELY different forumulas for allocating them.
Please dear, educate YOURSELF
Good point about recharge ksfg. I remember that coming up in discussions with the KWO about rights assignments.
GSheridan,
“You are pulling some pretty obscure numbers from some pretty dubious sites.”
Did you mean this one?http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf
They’re recommended at the bottom of the Audubon page YOU used.”The National Wind Coordinating Committee offers a wealth of detailed information about wildlife research…”
ksfarmgrrl,
Someone who thinks the steam rising from cooling towers has “escaped” from the turbines probably wouldn’t know bats are mammals.
And an irony…The old windmills allowed homesteaders to pump the water they needed to survive on the plains.The new wind farms could help prevent new coal-plants, that’d pump water and evap it wastefully into the air.
farmgirl – Please point out where I stated ANYTHING about bats.
Are you and Cosmos passing the bong again? Neither one of you can keep anything straight.
So far you have been dead wrong on the economic impact – yet you claim to have studied economy. Obviously, that is a lie – or you were loaded during the lectures.
You have claimed that the water needed was more than Holcumb would use – again, either a lie – or loaded.
You’ve claimed I posted something about bats – but the only bats I know about – are in your belfry, obviously.
Strike threeeeee…she’s…..outta there…..
That village is still mising their idiot.
lol
Cosmos – you still know nothing about the condensers. You’re running around like a chicken with your head cut off.
Are you trying to say that the energy is NOT wasted on the coal towers?
That sounds a lot like you are defending them for efficiency.
Welcome (finally) to the side of coal-fired energy.
“farmgirl – Please point out where I stated ANYTHING about bats.”
Gee sherri check your posts at 1:05 and 1:22 for your BAT reference.
Thanks for confirming what I wrote before. You dont even READ the stuff you post.
Gsheridan
You clearly are impressed with yourself.
That doesn’t sound too hard….
Economic impact?
You and I and any fence post knows that any economic impact will be brief. cosmos and kfg already blew you outta the water on that.
Construction workers who will stay in the community? Not likely. Not LEGAL residents anyway. You KNOW any contractor is gonna use illegal labor.
And again, without a demonstrable NEED for the power plant? Why build it?
You are faring badly here Gsheridan.
“You have claimed that the water needed was more than Holcumb would use – again, either a lie – or loaded.”
Sherri, please post where I said that. It doesnt even make sense!
And please point out where I have been wrong on economic impact. So far, you have double shilled the Garden City chamber, but have NEVER answered my questions about the value of the water being mined vs. positive economic impact for the region.
And cosmos and I BOTH pasted links showing how many houses SUNFLOWER says the transients will build. And how many trailers and motels they will use as TEMPORARY dwellings.
Looks to me like YOU are the one who has been wrong three times in one post, and consistantly on this subject.
As someone pointed out, it is REAL stupidity for you and paulie to have your noses rubbed in your errors and then still refuse to admit them.
Please, do keep posting more errors.
And we still dont have any proof of your claim that the Sierra Club lied.
GSheridan,
I guess you don’t even read what you post…?
“One 2003 study spent seven months compiling bat fatalities…”http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/02/clouds_gatherin.html#comment-60318070
And I claimed that air-cooled heat exchangers (like car radiators) would use “minimum water”.
And I’m going to infer yet again that there must be an ecomomic matter motivating you GSheridan.
There just is no other reason to be FOR a new power plant that we don’t need.
Hey gee sherri, does THIS refresh your memory about what YOU posted on bats? hehehehehehe
“Researchers found, to their surprise, that the 44 turbines killed as many as 4,000 migratory bats. Similarly grim findings have since been reported at wind farms in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, raising the possibility that significant bat kills are a regional or even national phenomenon.”————-
That’s a little different than your source.
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0609/energy.html
Posted by: GSheridan | February 12, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Like I said, I guess even YOU dont read your bullshit…
No, JR – KFG provided NOTHING to back up her erroneous theory that there would be no measurable lasting benefit from the plants. If she studied economy – I’m a martian, and the last time I checked I wasn’t green.
There WAS a real study done – by a PhD at Hays University.
It totally stampedes all KFG’s goofy statements.
Here you go:
http://www.holcombstation.coop/Environmental/water.cfm
Farmgirl,
I checked the references you cited – nope – the word ‘bat’ does not appear in either of my posts.
Still toking, I see.
So – tell us how the PhD in the Gamble Study is wrong – and you are correct.
I’ll be waiting.
GS – read beginning at 4,000 migratory …
“cosmos – from AudobonMag:—–”When wildlife researchers have looked closely at wind farms, disturbing numbers have emerged. One 2003 study spent seven months compiling bat fatalities at a wind-power site in the West Virginia mountains. Researchers found, to their surprise, that the 44 turbines killed as many as 4,000 migratory bats. Similarly grim findings have since been reported at wind farms in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, raising the possibility that significant bat kills are a regional or even national phenomenon.”————-
That’s a little different than your source.
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0609/energy.html
Posted by: GSheridan | February 12, 2007 at 01:05 PM “
The bat reference was from Audubon, not me.
Don’t you realize what the quotations marks are for?
Grammar not your strong suit, eh?
lol
lol – but your quoting it indicade that you had presumably read it.
But you are correct, grammer is not my strong suit.
I didn’t mean that last comment to you, Ben – it was for KFG.
The original point was that the mutilated carcassas were on the ground.
Cosmos had some sort of brain fart between birds and bats.
My original point stands – the meat is still on the ground.
Gsheridan
YOU have coal stocks don’t you?
Daddy was a strip miner…(by the way my book that makes you the offspring of pond scum.)
You clearly aint hurting for money.
And there is NO REASON to be for a plant that is not needed.
SO despite your claims to the contrary, it is clear to any reader that you want us to build this pollution belcher to line your purse.
No thanks lady. No thanks.
A quick aside for anyone N and W of Wichita – has it turned freezing yet? Have to be on the road tonight and not really looking forward to it.
GSheridan,
“Cosmos – you still know nothing about the condensers.”
Hello?? YOU are the one who seems UNABLE to understand the very simple difference between EVAPORATIVE and AIR-cooled heat exchangers.
You’re not a very good rep for the coal industry.
JR – that explains a lot …
JR – you are really out of line. My father is more of a man than you can EVER hope to be. He served this country for four years in WWII and he he has forgotten more than you will ever know.
I already told you I had NO financial interest in the plants – that includes stock.
The plants are needed, you have not been paying attention. There is no viable alternative for the energy and every accusation from the liberal democrats (librats) has been proved wrong.
How can you possibly know what my financial situation is? You have no idea who I am.
Can you not conceive that someone might actually KNOW more than you because they don’t just listen to the liberal MSM?
Has that crossed your mind at all?
I happen to know Ralph Gamble, do you?
“no measurable lasting benefit from the plants.”
POST WHERE I SAID THAT!!!!!
I have said that the multiplier effect distorts the economic benefits.
I have said that the water is more valuable to the region than whatever benefits Garden City might get.
AND you did post about bats. Deny ’till you die, EVERYONE can read it but you.
Are you sure you arent paulie the shilli?
And YOU still have not addressed the economic benefits to the region of retaining the water.
And YOU still have not addressed the mulitplier effect.
Ben – my thermometer reads 35.8.
I’m about an hour N of Wichita.
Cosmos – give it up. You don’t understand the concept. Your trying to compare apples and oranges.
EVERYONE – please check out the link to the Gamble Study I posted.
Then look back at farmgirl’s claims that there would be no new houses built, the workers would live in hotels and eat sandwiches?
The girl is as loony as they come.
Pretending to be educated in economics and yet she doesn’t have the first clue about it.
Now – THAT’S funny!
GSheridan’s “quote”,”One 2003 study spent seven months compiling bat fatalities at a wind-power site in the West Virginia mountains. Researchers found, to their surprise, that the 44 turbines killed as many as 4,000 migratory bats.”
Versus
‘AMERICAN BIRD CONSERVANCY WIND ENERGY POLICY’http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/windpolicy.htm“more than 3,000 birds were killed by collisions during one night in fall migration at a four-smokestack Florida coal-fired power plant.”
MORE than 3,000 birds killed in ONE NIGHT, by just 4 coal-fired smokestacks!!!We CANNOT allow any more coal-fired plants to be built!!!
Sherri is clearly whirling in a circle trying to fend off everyone who reads her posts. ’cause anyone who reads knows her personal interests in the plants, her husband’s interests, her family interests, blah, blah, blah.
Funny, she can only get nutz and williams to agree with her.
I think that just about says it all….
hee hee hee hee hee hee
And Cosmos pointed out (because he can read and all, ya know) that some of sherri’s “research” quoted ken lay’s former speechwriter at enron.
No special interest there. Nope, uh-uh.
So much for sources and bias.
Keep puffing on the bong, farmgirl.
Too bad the Gamble Study totally TRASHED everything you said about Holcomb.
I once again, invite everyone to go back and read farmie’s claims about no new houses being built, workers living in hotels eating sandwiches.
Puff…..puff…..puff
Shit it’s getting smoky in here.
Did you catch your mustache on fire?
Keep puffing on the bong, farmgirl.
Too bad the Gamble Study totally TRASHED everything you said about Holcomb.
I once again, invite everyone to go back and read farmie’s claims about no new houses being built, workers living in hotels eating sandwiches.
Puff…..puff…..puff
Shit it’s getting smoky in here.
Did you catch your mustache on fire?
Yes, please go read the link.
Read about the temporary jobs and the permanent jobs. As stated in their own report.
You already know she doesnt read what she posts.
You are melting down Gsheridan.
If there is a NEED for this plant then demonstrate it!!
You are embarrassing yourself here GSheridan.
If there is a NEED for the power from this plant then PROVE IT!
If you cannot, them there is NO justification to build the plant.
I say again, prove that this plant is needed.
…and just as an example that sherri doesnt read, just spews, is that cosmos and I have both, over two days, posted figures from the Gamble study that CONTRADICT the economic benefits that gee sherri has been touting.
Three times, over two days. Let that sink in.
From the Gamble study dear:
“Sunflower’s own estimates = trailers and motels,http://www.holcombstation.coop/Benefits/Gamble_Study.pdfPage 14,”… western Kansas: 20% motels @$40/day, 5 days per week, no trailers. Kansas: 60% motels @$60/day, 20% trailers, and 20% commute. Motel, 5 days/wk. Trailering, 7 days/wk. OUTSTATE: 70% trailers, 7 days/wk, 30% motels, 5.5 days/wk.”
Posted by: cosmos | February 10, 2007 at 11:53 AM
Hotels and sandwiches…..
That’s farmie’s description of the way the workers will live.
Check out how badly the guy she pretends to know totally trashes that statement.
JR – you may not think there is a need – but your opinion, like farmie’s, is totally irrelevant.
You can’t stick up for farmie – she dug her own grave.
Now she has to lie in it.
:)
Cosmos – now, go back and post the part about how many homes will be built – how much revenue will be generated, how the schools will benefit.
I’ll be waiting.
GSheridan,
I don’t rely on MSM on energy issues.I don’t pretend that we live in the 1950’s, and our ONLY solution is more big, centralized coal-fired plants
I instead look at new solutions, that have been proven to work, by people like this group,http://www.smallisprofitable.org/TheAuthors.html
‘Saving the Utilities’http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid322.php“The way out is for utilities to help their customers use energy more efficiently.”
Sorry, I guess sherri’s own source says “motels” not “hotels”
Any figures on those houses you say they will be building?
More from the study that shows farmie for the nut she is:
“The spending of construction workers on food, beverage and housing, andthe contracts and purchases made locally to support construction, will have a largeimpact on the economy of Garden City and western Kansas from July 2008 until thesummer of 2013, but the impact does not end there.The new plants will be operated by Sunflower. It will receive compensation for itsservices; however an increase in staffing will be required.After construction ends and the two new plants go on line, Sunflower’s employmentat Holcomb Station will be doubled. It will purchase an additional $28 million of contractservices and materials, of which $3.8 million will be purchased in western Kansas.The new jobs and spending will induce additional job creation and spending. Salestaxes, housing construction, and property taxes will increase as well. The net revenueearned by Sunflower from operating the generators, and the benefits resulting from theincreased economies of scale, will reduce the total net operating costs of Sunflower tothe benefit of the customers of the distribution utilities it serves.”
Wow- and to hear farmie tell it – there wasn’t going to be much economic benefit at all.
Pass that bong, farmie.
We all want what YOU’RE smoking.
…and we are still waiting on this:
“no measurable lasting benefit from the plants.”
POST WHERE I SAID THAT!!!!!”
I still dont recall saying that.
You bore me little girl. And clearly you are a new poster, otherwise you would know the story of hank falsely accusing JR to be a drug user. Cosmo and I might force the same fate on you.
You better ask around…
Bottom line, farmie – are you calling Ralph Gamble a liar?
Because one of you sure are.
We do not build power plants because a woman whose father was a strip miner SAYS they are needed.
We don’t build them because you can call people names or toss cute little insults.
SHOW the need for the plant GSheridan!!
Quit with the crap about bats and birds and workers building power plants. That’s all noise.
Demonstrate the need for the plant.
Notice the Gamble study gives no HARD figures or estimate, merely rhetoric that implicitly uses the multiplier effect, yet fails to cite which multipliers and why.
It is indeed, a VERY nice chamber piece.
And I see you still are not producing any evidence that this “large” (your word) economic impact will outweigh the loss to the region of the water mined.
Why are you avoiding that question?
And… do you know who PAID Ralph to do the study? Sunflower. I know the people who hired him. He is indeed a highly respected prof at one of my alma maters, but he has also served as a private consultant to Sunflower for years. Does that make him wrong? no. Does it make the study biased? maybe.
Especially since it is just vague multiplier rhetoric, not hard figures.
Did you want to address the part of Ralph’s study that talks about motels and trailers?
Ben, just on the phone with my mother who lives in McPherson; still above freezing there, but it looks like they will be getting into snow about 6-7 p.m. from radar. Hope this isn’t too late to be of use.
I see why sherri is scared to identify herself or even to post credentials. She says she is afraid. Probably afraid of people like herself.
I see that she is rabid enough and far enough into denial of facts that she might just strap on some diapers and grab some pepper spray for a drive to western kansas….
ksfg, thanks for answering the question I was about to ask: who paid for Gamble’s study? Always an important question to ask, IMHO. Again, not alleging he is wrong.
VT–He’s a very brilliant guy and a good guy too. But he did NOT do this study in his role as a professor or as a university researcher.
He has done paid consulting work for Sunflower for years. Given what Ft. Hays pays, who could blame him? :)
Go ahead farmie – give it your best shot.
You can’t figure out if you’re coming or going. First you accuse me of being another poster – then you say I’m obviously new.
Actually, I remember you from the Kansas boards long ago. I kicked you around back then – and I’ll be happy to oblige again.
So go ahead – give it your best shot.
Since Ralph Gamble did the study – I guess that makes YOU the liar.
I have never been on the Kansas boards in my life.
I have yet to lie here. You have yet to prove me a liar.
I never accused Ralph of lying, just doing his job. Not even criticizing him. AND I used him as a source before you did. And so did Cosmos.
We are not trashing the source, just your “pick and chose” use of it to fit your viewpoint.
But you get a ten for gymnastics and twisting EVERYONE’s words, including your own. We are amused, and we do encourage you to play again.
Check out this BS Gamble uses to push coal, page 33http://www.holcombstation.coop/Benefits/Gamble_Study.pdf“Probably the only practical use for wind will be off-grid, powering electrolysis production of hydrogen,…”
Wind is so popular, utilities are fully subscribed, despite an added charge.
So now – farmie tries to pass off her lies by trashing old Ralph.
Man – you’re sinking quickly.
It’s getting deep in here.
And like I also said, you bore me little girl. Why do all the nutcases come here from lonely blog?
No kidding. All the trolling and nut jobs like nutz and fleetie and JM came when the sal, er, lonely blog folks started coming here.
Gee, do ya think THEY are the reason lonely blog is lonely blog? Do you think the Sal Journal PAID them to come here and drag this blog down to their level?
Or are these just freelance nut jobs and trollers? Paid shillies like paulie?
Could one of you techie types create a filter for them? heheheheh
hee hee hee hee hee
Would anyone like me to trash them like I did Ralph in this post?
“VT–He’s a very brilliant guy and a good guy too. But he did NOT do this study in his role as a professor or as a university researcher.”
I’d be glad to call some of you brilliant and good guys. Who WOULDNT want that kind of trashing?
Proving once again, sherri doesnt read, just spews.
GSheridan,
I never posted that building multi-BILLION $ coal-fired dinosaur plants would not cause some new homes to be built.
But will the coal plants be profitable in the future?Efficiency is cheaper, and WILL cut the demand that coal is planning on, and hoping for. Less demand = less profit.
Future carbon taxes will hurt coal some more.And, consumers do NOT like coal plants — look at the protests in TX today.
Invest those BILLIONS of $’s in efficiency instead — there’d be more jobs, more economic growth, and customers would have lower bills.
The Professor’s study disproves farmie – so she casts aspersions on his character.
Real classy.
GSheridan
I have asked you REPEATEDLY to show the necessity of this power plant.
You do not show any such evidence.
Your daddy was President of a strip mine and you are telling me you have no financial interest in the energy industry??
I call you a liar.
I call you also a shill for the energy industry that lines your own pocket. I say this removes any and all credibility you have on any matter on this forum.
There are any number of reasons to be against this plant. They have been defined well.
There are 2 reasons to be for it.
1. The plant is needed.
See above. Neither you nor anyone else has demonstrated a need for the plant.
2. The plant is WANTED
Well we don’t build power plants because you or Sunflower WANTS them.
JR, you can call me a liar until Hell freezes over and it wont make it so.
Use your brain – why would Tri State sink HUGE bucks into a plant if no one wanted to buy their product?
Get a clue.
You’re almost as bad as farmie with her insinuations that a Professor she ‘claims’ to know and respect has sold out his integrity to the highest bidder.
Shame on both of you.
GSheridan,
“You don’t understand the concept. Your trying to compare apples and oranges.”
I understand the concept, but you don’t. You claimed Holcomb would use air-cooled heat exchangers.
“The plant fills up ONCE then recycles the steam and only uses a minimum amount per year after that.”
You fill up an air-cooled heat exchanger once, like a car radiator — but an evap-cooled system has to be continuously refilled (supplied), as water evaporates.
Cosmos,
Thanks for the linky. Quite interesting, the gist which tends to support what Crichton is saying.
JR,
“Rushbot?” Not hardly not even close.
GSheridan,
“why would Tri State sink HUGE bucks into a plant if no one wanted to buy their product?”
Because they can — but that does NOT prove it’s wise, or needed.
Isn’t Tri State a cooperative? That means their rate-payers are investing (and gambling) on the success of expanding Holcomb. Or are other investors paying for it?
Are Tri States customers aware that efficiency could eliminate the need for Holcomb, with a smaller investment, and LOWER their bills?
What will electricity demand be 10, 20, or 30 years from now. Carbon taxes? Cost of alternatives to coal-fired, etc…?
GSheridan,Kfg has not trashed her professor friend. She has said that he did a good job doing the job he was paid to do. Namely spinning a little good from a bad idea.Much as YOU are likely doing the same sort of job here. Either for your own or similar interests.I asked you to demonstrate that the power plant was necessary.You cite no brownouts or rolling blackouts.I am well aware that there is a market for what they produce. Enron had lots of fun playing with that market. Oh there was plenty of power. But power brokers decided who would get it and when.
You MUST understand that in many cases, less is more.
And the more excess juice in the grid, the more they or others can play that game.
Looking into the future, we can see that devices will become more efficient. Conservation is becoming a virtue. You’ve admitted that yourself. What little increase in actual demand that population brigns is easily addressed with better stewarship of these.AGAIN there is no reason to be in favor of this plant unless you personally have something to gain from it.
GSSheridan you have been busted wide open on every aspect of your posts here.You have become so shrill and nasty on this issue that it MUST be personal.
It’s IMPOSSIBLE to prove that new coal-fired plants are needed, simply because they aren’t.In fact, efficiency and renewables could easily eliminate the need for some EXISTING coal plants.
UCS has some good explanations. Note that Minnesota’s PUC has recognized the importance of adding in future carbon taxes.http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/carbon_risk.html
The costs of coal are rising, due to railroad costs, and other factors.http://www.appanet.org/newsletters/ppmagazinedetailarchive.cfm?ItemNumber=12430&sn.ItemNumber=2108It’s cheaper to save electricity than produce it,’Electric Efficiency’http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid321.php
And if you think that RMI is some wacko “liberal” group, read the bios of Amory Lovins, et al. They do real-world work, consulting, and research.http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid166.php
cosmos – I never used the term air-cooled – get off that kick. I’m not going to explain the process to you again. Reread what I already wrote. Do the math – if it takes 29,000 acre feet to fill initially – and only need 8,000 per year thereafter – what is happening to the remaining 21,000?
Tri State is consumer owned, Sunflower, is the Coop that would run the plants.
I’m sure the consumers have been notified that this plant will be more efficient than the one in Holcomb right now.
As far as I know – the decision rests with KDHE. It’s up to them to determine whether or not the plants will adhere to the pollution regulations. I don’t think the water usage is a factor, since these are not new rights – simply ones that were transfered.
JR – farmie certainly DID cast aspersions on the Professor. First she claims he is a ‘good’ guy, but then she adds:
“….But he did NOT do this study in his role as a professor or as a university researcher….”
What the Hell is that supposed to mean? Farmie can’t stand it that her lies were exposed by the guy, so she tries to suggest he’s putting out a BIASED report. That would make him a sell-out.
That’s just pathetic.
JR – do you realize that California has had rolling blackouts for years now?
Just because you want Eastern KS and Colorado to have the same shortage, doesn’t mean anyone else does.
And talk about being ’shrill’ – you had the arogance to go after my father. What kind of person does that unless they are desperate?
Since cows are one of the largest man-induced contributors to global warming – I want you to PROVE we need BEEF. Go ahead – PROVE IT.
Talk about math challenged….
“Reread what I already wrote. Do the math – if it takes 29,000 acre feet to fill initially – and only need 8,000 per year thereafter – what is happening to the remaining 21,000?”
Hee hee hee no wonder she thinks the Sierra Club is lying when they use Sunflowers own water usage figures.
Real slow for you dear.
It is 8000 acre feet PER TOWER. And there are THREE towers, which brings direct usage of water to 24,000 acre feet PER YEAR. The other six thousand feet account for leakage and indirect usage.
Can you read what OTHERS say? I mean, we see that you dont read what YOU say, but how about SUNFLOWER’S OWN DAMN FIGURES!!!!!
Woof. And as a member of one of the owner cooperative, no, no one has communicated to the investors about the local coop’s investment, much less that the investment isnt needed.
And silly sherri, this is a statement of fact, not a shot at Ralph.
“”….But he did NOT do this study in his role as a professor or as a university researcher….”
He didnt. It is a fact. Why try to turn it into something else? MANY university professors do private consulting outside their university duties. And they get paid for it. Nothing wrong with that.
It is, as VT mentioned, always a good idea to ask who is paying the piper before applauding the tune.
Heheheheheehehheeheheheheheheh
Laughable, really, the length some people will go to “save face” when they have so clearly been proven wrong.
With their own words.
hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehh
Morning KFG.The mother-in-law died yesterday.It’s going to be a long week.
Oh, Tracy, I am so sorry. I just asked about your Dad on another thread. Please tell the wife and daughter we are so sorry. And you too Tracy.
Yes, I know the funeral dance all too well. It will be a long week.
You and your family are in our thoughts. If I were closer, I’d bring over some fried chicken and ‘tater salad.
Or broccoli rice casserole. In Texas, we used to call that the “death dish” ’cause if you had a death in the family, immediately, fifteen broccoli rice casseroles would arrive at your door :)
Hey, ya gotta laugh a little!
Again, sorry to hear the news. We missed you too yesterday.
It was unexpected and quite merciful.I’m just fine, but my wife is a different story.Thanks for the condolences.
heheheheheheheh
“JR – do you realize that California has had rolling blackouts for years now?”
Uh, I think that was proven during the enron trials to be a creation of enron.
So… since gee sherri has been shilling for enron, ken lay, and ken lay’s speech writer, it should come as no surprise that she would use California’s rolling blackouts to prove ken lay’s speech writer’s points.
Wingnut meme alert!
CA – an interesting situation. Republican governor Pete Wilson pushed through legislation that required PG&E to divest all of its generating capacity. They then had to purchase power on the merchant market for re-sale. As a result, it became easy to manipulate the market as CA-generated power was shipped out-of-state.
Republican Wilson acknowledged that the legislation was flawed when he signed it but left that mess for his successor.
It is also what got his successor canned and ahnold put in his place!
A two-fer for the repukes. They gave money to kenny boy to channel to georgie boy, and then took back the governor’s seat early when Davis couldnt fix Wilson’s mess.
And don’t forget that PG&E’s execs cleaned up and their employees got the shaft.
Just like enron’s execs and employees and pensioners.
Just like Westar’s execs and pensioners.
Do we see a trend here?
GSheridan
YOU grow more contemptible and embarrassing…with each post.Notice how alone you are dear? Even Paul Rosell has bailed on you.
I bagged on your Dad? Yup. I wouldn’t if he had WORKED in a strip mine. Everybody has to work somewewhere.
But you PROUDLY bragged that your pop was PRESIDENT of a strip mine!
Now that is telling about him AND his daughter!!
You’re a shill for fossil fuels sheri. Admit it.
Or don’t. Everyone already knows it anyway.
OR keep putting lies up and we’ll keep using you for a pinata.
“JR-do you realize the California has had rolling blackouts for years now?”
Uh huh. I and others already mentioned Enron political chicanery.
Bring us a link showing a RECENT rolling blackout dear.
Bring us a power study showing the need for this plant!
GSheridan,
“Do the math – if it takes 29,000 acre feet to fill initially…”
Okay, if the “water” part of the power plants cover an area = 10 acres, that’s a column of water 2,900 feet high to “fill initially”.
That’s over 1/2 MILE high!!29,000 acre-feet = 9,451,100,000 gallons
D@mn thirsty little thing, to “fill initially”…?
You never used the term “air-cooled”, BUT you described an air-cooled heat exchanger system.
GSheridan: “I’m sure the consumers have been notified that this plant will be more efficient than the one in Holcomb right now.”
Have they been notified that end-use efficiency would be cheaper, and faster, than building new coal plants?Warned about future carbon taxes?Warned about future coal cost increases?
farmie, CA had rolling blackouts as recent as 2005, Texas had them last year.
Educate yourself. You’re becoming an embarrassment with your erroneous claims.
Calling the Professor ‘biased’ was a desperate measure from a desperate woman whom the Professor showed for the liar she is. Deal with it, sweetie. As usual – just because you CLAIM to be right – doesn’t mean you are anywhere near the truth.
Maybe we need to go statement by statement showing at every turn how the good Professor totally trashed your goofy comments. lol
JR – I asked you to prove that we need to eat beef?
Rise to the challenge – or crawl back under your rock.
Do you REALLY think I care of a band of librats agrees with me? Get a clue. It’s folks like YOU who need moral support from others just like you. That just makes you weak. You probably think discussion on a board like this actually matters in the real world. Oh wait – I forgot – this board IS your world.
“Do you REALLY think I care of a band of librats agrees with me? Get a clue.”
Jeez, Gee Sure, do ya feel STRONGLY about this? Librats? Wow!
I am going to tell Farm Grrl on you!
“Do you REALLY think I care of a band of librats agrees with me? Get a clue.”
Jeez, Gee Sure, do ya feel STRONGLY about this? Librats? Wow!
I am going to tell Farm Grrl on you!
GSheridan,
“do you realize that California has had rolling blackouts for years now?”
Please answer this question.
‘California Electricity: Facts, Myths, and National Lessons’ (PDF-550k)http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/U01-02_CalifElectricity.pdf“HOW could a California electricity system that met a 53-GW peak load in summer 1999 fail to meet a 29-GW peak load in January 2001?‚Äì Yes, there was a hydro drought (‚Äì5 GW), some plants were down, etc…‚Äì But half the capacity didn’t disappear!”
India has lots of glaciers.
India’s top glacier scientist doubts Al Gore and the Global Warming fanatics:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1925164,0008.htm
GSheridan,
“CA had rolling blackouts as recent as 2005, Texas had them last year.”
You need to educate yourself.CA’s 2005 blackouts were caused by the failure of a key transmission LINE, due to a faulty sensor — NOT by a lack of plant capacity.
The TX blackouts were caused by unusually high demand during a heat wave — more efficient A/C’s, insulation, radiant barriers, etc is a much cheaper/faster solution than BILLIONS of $’s for a coal plant, FOUR YEARS from now.
And it’s HOT enough in TX without more GHG’s from more coal plants!
PAUL ROSELL,
‘world glacier monitoring service’http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/
GSHeridan
I askded YOU to provide figures that showed that this plant was needed.
I think I’ve asked that about a dozen times now
Still waiting…….
But SINCE I will be kept waiting…
And SINCE instead of answering you swing brickbats.
I’ve my own to swing.
This blog is my “world”?
Mon sheri?
That means not much coming from a woman who rises at the wee hour of 4:29 AM to shill for fossil fuels!
But SINCE I will be kept waiting…
And SINCE instead of answering you swing brickbats.
I’ve my own to swing.
This blog is my “world”?
Mon sheri?
That means not much coming from a woman who rises at the wee hour of 4:29 AM to shill for fossil fuels!
JR – if you got your panties in a bunch over my 4 AM posting – you’re really going to flip out over today’s.
You’re making excuses. First you asked if there were any demand issues – now you claim you need numbers. Forget it. You’re here all day – YOU do the research. BTW – why are you here all day? Don’t you work?
I don’t have the time you do to post. I have early mornings, an occasional lunch and a rare evening.
Cosmos – it doesn’t matter WHAT caused either of the blackouts – farmie wrongly stated there hadn’t been any.
But from your own admission – TX did not have the supply to cool their citizens. There’s the proof JR wanted – but he’ll just stick his head right back in the sand. Ostrich syndrome, you know.
WSClark – go ahead – tell farmie – she tucked her tail between her legs and slunk away from this thread when the good Professor showed her for the liar she is.
No sherri, I left this thread because you bore me little girl. And it clearly does no good to post facts, since you dont read your own posts.
And I knew there would be many more opportunities for you to show yourself for the dumb ass shill that you are.
So yeah, heheheheheh. You have this thread all to yourself. Just the way you like it.
GSheridan.
Are you really deluded enough to think that you have performed well on this thread?
Seriously.
LOL,
That’s right – if you can’t stand the heat – slither on out of the kitchen.
Gosh GSheridan
Those blackouts you cite must be a real problem!
One would think you could bring us all sorts of proof of them.
One would think there would be studies and charts and PROOF that we need this power plant.
GO find it will you?
CAN you?
You don’t seem qualified to discuss energy issues.
You made the insane claim that Holcomb “takes 29,000 acre feet to fill initially” — that’s water 10 acres square and over 1/2 MILE high!!
You described Holcomb as an air-cooled system — it is evap-cooled.
In response to J R’s demand question, you replied that “California has had rolling blackouts for years now” CA’s blackouts, in ‘00-01, and ‘05 were NOT caused by a lack of capacity.
You seem to be a fossil-energy shill, UNABLE to understand that the CHEAPEST and FASTEST way to “produce” electricity is with end-use EFFICIENCY. NEGA-watts.
You seem to think the ONLY solution is big, centralized, multi-BILLION $ coal-fired plants, that take 4 years to build, and require expensive upgrades to the grid.
You ignore the carbon tax, and AGW issues. A poll by a utility said 75% of people in a COAL mining region would pay extra $ for wind-farm electricity.
You seem UNABLE to see the many advantages of smaller, decentralized generation. It’s cheaper, faster, more reliable, more efficient, reduces strain on the grid (CA ‘05), etc.
My 12:24 PM post is to GSheridan.
written by Cosmos: “You don’t seem qualified to discuss energy issues.”
You qualifications are?
EPAMONITOR (JM?),
For one, I know that coal-fired plants do NOT “initially fill” with an amount of water = 10 acres square by 1/2 MILE high.
And feel free to criticize the qualifications of Amory Lovins, et al on energy issues,http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid166.phphttp://www.smallisprofitable.org/TheAuthors.html
HEARING ON ‘WARMING OF PLANET’ CANCELLED BECAUSE OF ICE STORM…
SAVE IT FOR A SUNNY DAY: Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ because of a snowstorm…
BDP fleet,
You (and Drudge) STILL haven’t figured out the simple difference between daily weather events, and long-term climate change?
GSheridan,
“- TX did not have the supply to cool their citizens. There’s the proof JR wanted – ”
But efficiency and other solutions are FASTER than building new coal plants, which take at least 4 or 5 years to build. And coal has other problems.
‘Business leaders form group to oppose coal plants’http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/2007/02/12/daily36.html“[Texas Business for Clean Air] leaders maintain that the proposal to build 16 coal-fueled plants FAILS to meet the state’s SHORT-TERM power needs, would ultimately lead to an ABUNDANCE of UNEEDED energy, and would HARM the environment and the state’s chances of getting federal FUNDING for highways, often dependant on the state’s airquality levels.”(emphasis added)
Two very relevant reports at http://www.westernresourceadvocates.org/energy/index.php
‘Tri-State co-ops rates will skyrocket to pay for new coal plants; WRA study helps ratepayers respond to unnecessary expansion’
‘Tri-State Coal Plants Costly And Not Needed’
GSheridan,
* Prominent TX business leaders do NOT want new coal-fired plants in TX.* Many other people in TX do NOT want new coal plants in TX.* Oklahoma does NOT want new coal plants in TX.
* John Kerry does NOT want new coal plants in TX.http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/sen-kerry-bill-halt-texas/story.aspx?guid=%7B97C40A5E-3D60-41B9-A652-CFDCB5B2D3D7%7D“Sen. John Kerry said Thursday he would soon introduce legislation that would prevent 16 planned coal-fired power plants from being built in Texas if they don’t include technology that would capture carbon dioxide.”
Do you have ANY examples of where coal plants are “needed”(sic), and WANTED…?
Geez Cosmos!
If you keep pounding stakes through GSHeri’s heart?
You’ll ruin more forests than the “Healthy forests initiative”!
And it won’t matter. Well to the reader it will so that’s important.
But to GShilly? She’ll just beat her chest, and throw excrement at the walls, and claim victory.
I call this thread in the name won in the name of cosmos, kansasfarmgrrl, and to a lesser degree, myself.
Sorry GSheridan :(
Better luck next rant.
Geez Cosmos!
If you keep pounding stakes through GSHeri’s heart?
You’ll ruin more forests than the “Healthy forests initiative”!
And it won’t matter. Well to the reader it will so that’s important.
But to GShilly? She’ll just beat her chest, and throw excrement at the walls, and claim victory.
I call this thread in the name won in the name of cosmos, kansasfarmgrrl, and to a lesser degree, myself.
Sorry GSheridan :(
Better luck next rant.
J R,
Wood stakes don’t work on shills… the only way is to cut off their funding.
GSheridan,
“- TX did not have the supply to cool their citizens. There’s the proof JR wanted – ”
You STILL haven’t proven the need for Holcomb’s expansion. And you can’t.
And ooops!! More coal-fired plants in TX could CAUSE severe restrictions to be imposed, CAUSING energy disruptions.
http://www.theeagle.com/stories/021707/texas_20070217047.php“If cities do not meet federal air standards, the federal government could cut off some of its $3 billion in annual highway funding to Texas and impose severe restrictions on residential and commercial energy useBecause those restrictions could disrupt business and industry, several business groups – like the Texas Business for Clean Air group – have joined the opposition to TXU and the coal plants.”