Jim Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a lot of attention for his claim that the Bush administration was censoring his views supporting man-made global warming. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Republican officials are calling for an investigation into whether Alan Carlin, a senior analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency, was censored for expressing doubts about global warming. Carlin was forbidden by his boss from having “any direct communication” with anyone outside of his office regarding his criticisms of global warming claims.
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
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
165 Comments
Since the data shows that global temperatures have risen and fallen, and Carlin says they have only fallen, it’s clear why Carlin’s report was rejected, because it didn’t match the science.
So where’s the controversy? Oh yes, from the party that continues to reject science and is like this woman, who thinks the planet is 6,000 years old:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/07/06/arizona-is-6000-years-old/
The problem seems to be though is that Carlin is a economist for the EPA not a scientist let alone one with one in the environment. They seem to let that little tidbit fall by the wayside. Guess they would hate to see whether it was based on credible facts instead of someone with a hobby.
Whatever….payback’s a biotch.
Typical crybaby, whiney, quitter Republican pap.
Another GW thread. How original. This calls for a couple dozen cut and paste posts from Hank and Cosmos.
I think the earth, goes through warming and cooling cycles, with or without people here.
People probably only play a small factor in climate change.
Maybe we can call it, Human Enhanced Cyclical Climate Change.
Idk
Climate change is only part of the equation.
Fossil fuel corporations have focused on it like a chihuahua nipping at ankles. In the process they’ve helped the media and politicians lose track of the real problem.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource.
Most of the oil in the world is situated beneath nations that aren’t that interested in the general welfare of the United States.
There are plenty of alternative technologies that can power civilization without spewing pollution into the atmosphere.
“Clean Coal” is not one of those technologies.
Global Warming Legislation is not about ’saving the environment’, it’s about a new way to tax and control the masses.
“…a new way to tax and control the masses.”
As opposed to the old way through incorporated religions?
“ANTI” offers –
“Global Warming Legislation is not about ’saving the environment’, it’s about a new way to tax and control the masses.”
I gotta love that “…control the masses” part.
Cap & Trade is nothing but taxpayers’ incentives for “Clean Coal” technology all you CONs have been ballyhooing for the past ten years.
The nation that rids itself of (what George WMD Bush called “…America’s addiction to oil…” will dominate in the 21st Century.
Just as stone tools served humankind well until someone came up with bronze; just as civilization progressed for a long time until someone came up with steel; fossil fuels have served us well for a while.
But there’s something better.
But there’s something better.
Then why do you have to tax industry out of business?
If “there’s something better ” where is it? Why isn’t it in full use?
But there’s something better.
================================
Blueberry farting unicorns?
A water-proof grass hut?
Genocide?
Carlin’s report is goat droppings. . .
‘Bubkes‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/
There are plenty of alternative technologies that can power civilization without spewing pollution into the atmosphere.
“Clean Coal” is not one of those technologies. – Monkey
————–
You must mean nuclear energy. Nukes are the only source that could produce enough energy to replace coal fire plants. Wind, solar are just supplements. So if we are really concerned about CO2, why aren’t we moving forward on them? Could it be because, like cigarretes, there is big money in taxing?
The global warming promoting website RealClimate.org, is under fire yet again from a prominent scientist for presenting incorrect climate information. Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for “erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.” Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate’s claim that warming was “progressing faster than expected” with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice.
In his article titled “Real Climate’s Misinformation”, Pielke also chastised readers of Real Climate for blindly accepting the incorrect climate claims promoted on the site.
“Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position,” Pielke Sr. wrote.
Realclimate.org, a website which much of the mainstream media has relied on for climate science developments, has come under increasing criticism and scrutiny from scientists. Real Climate’s lead blogger and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was harshly criticized for some of his scientific claims in January 2009. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt’s “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”
The latest scientific woes by RealClimate.org were rebutted point by point by Pielke on June 20, 2009.
I read Cosmos’ link, something I don’t usually do. But give Cosmos the science guy the benefit of the doubt. After all, it’s from his favorite source, realclimate.org. If you had any doubt as to whether this is real science site or more a AGW political site, read the last line in the story he linked.
“If I were the authors, I’d suppress this myself, and then go for a long hike on the Appalachian Trail…”.
soldevvb,
Thank you for posting more bubkes at 9:16 am.
‘More bubkes‘
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/
outlander,
That’s wise of you to criticize the messenger (RC), since you can’t refute their message.
June Global Temperatures Drop Again, 8 Year Downtrend Continues
Refute the message cosmo. And realclimate has been proven time and time again to be a political unscientific lying rag. Bully for you for sticking by it.
Oh yeah, that message…
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg
But there’s something better.
The power of positive thinking does not apply to energy and economics.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Government is trying to create the need for an mass transition away from fossil fuels by handicapping the intrinsic advantage of Coal and Oil’s high energy content.
The only way to do this is to tax that which has a competive market advantage to favor that which is inefficient.
The end result is higher costs for energy and lower disposable income. Just what you need to get the economy back on track.
soldevvb,
You should try to understand short-term trends.
outlander posted July 7, 2009 at 9:13 am
Nukes are the only source that could produce enough energy to replace coal fire plants.
——————-
Did you get that from a pro-nuclear source?
Higher energy efficiency would allow shutting down some coal-fired plants, at a lower cost than building new (expensive) nuclear plants.
“ANTI” suggests –
“Blueberry farting unicorns?
A water-proof grass hut?
Genocide?”
Well, of course those are the easy answers.
But some of us think through the problem a little deeper.
cosmos
You should try to understand short-term trends.
Well, of course those are the easy answers.
But some of us think through the problem a little deeper.
=======================================
Well pull your thumb out an go on and explain this energy source that is better than coal/oil economically, efficiently, and environmentally.
an=and
Regular wants more soup.
cosmos_originally
Posted July 7, 2009 at 9:34 am | Permalink
soldevvb,
You should try to understand short-term trends.
_______________________________________________________________
What is your definition of a long term trend cosmo?
ANTI
Posted July 7, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Well pull your thumb out an go on and explain this energy source that is better than coal/oil economically, efficiently, and environmentally.
____________________________________________
Not that you will understand…but God does fit that description.
How do billions of hearts keep beating?
What is their source of energy?
The secret is in my name.
cosmos wants more soup.
Oil won’t run out. Oil is just biodegradable matter, that has been under pressure for thousands upon thousands, maybe millions of years.
We might get so low on oil, to the point it won’t be a good source of energy anymore. But that Earth is in a constant state of producing, petroleum sludge. All petroleum sludge is, compressed matter, dead animals, trees, from hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago.
I do agree, it would make sense to find a better, more renewable source of energy, pollution can’t be good for anybody.
But I’m still very skeptical just to how much affect humans are contributing to climate change. Like I said, the Earth goes through cyclical climate changes with or with out humans. We probably just contribute a little bit to it.
I also have not doubt, the Human affected Global Warming claim, will be used to profit off people, and tax more business to the point of death.
stomata?
Last sentence, not = no
geez, I’m off my grammar today.
“But that Earth is in a constant state of producing, petroleum sludge.”
that = the, ugh……
I also have no doubt, the Human affected Global Warming claim, will be used to profit off people, and tax more business to the point of death.
In Europe, they have already proven that “they” will profit from people.
However, the only ones who are profiting are the energy companies like oil, gas and coal who are allowed to raise their prices to achieve record setting profits.
Expect the same results in the U.S. When your gas and electric bill goes up 500 percent in the few years, if the Cap and Trade/Warmer bill passes, there will be only the ‘Henny Penny’s’ to blame for the huge increases in cost and less efficiency.
This is so out of Karl Rove’s playbook: attack the other guy’s perceived strengths. In the case of the EPA, the most public face of strength was the image of fighting the Bush administration’s censorship of actual science done at the agency.
This crank was obviously convenient and willing to play along.
Yawn. . .
“ANTI” rebuts with –
“… pull your thumb out an go on and explain this energy source that is better than coal/oil economically, efficiently, and environmentally.”
I’m the biggest champion of “Clean Coal” you’ll ever find, “ANTI.”
I also am in favor of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
But none of them are real.
Reality, albeit a limiting factor, sometimes enters into the equation.
Monkeyhawk
Posted July 7, 2009 at 10:15 am | Permalink
====================
So you have nothing…That is what I thought.
I say build more wind generators close to all offices of politicians of whatever stripes… That will ensure we will never run out of power!! :-)
I’m the biggest champion of “Clean Coal” you’ll ever find, “ANTI.”
I also am in favor of the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
But none of them are real.
Reality, albeit a limiting factor, sometimes enters into the equation.
I remember grinning during the presidential campaign, when Obama shrewdly compared “clean coal” technology to the moon landing. It would, indeed, take that degree of research commitment and funding to make it happen. The coal industry, of course, ignores that reality, and pretends that “clean coal” already exists.
Whatever the issues with alternative energy technologies (and, since the fossil fuel industry has controlled the research agenda for decades, there are plenty), they do at least, as Monkeyhawk points out, exist, and work, right now.
Comparisons with other power sources
“Generally, a nuclear power plant is significantly more expensive to build than an equivalent coal-fueled or gas-fueled plant. However, coal is significantly more expensive than nuclear fuel, and natural gas significantly more expensive than coal — thus, capital costs aside, natural gas-generated power is the most expensive. Most forms of electricity generation produce some form of negative externality — costs imposed on third parties that are not directly paid by the producer — such as pollution which negatively affects the health of those near and downwind of the power plant, and generation costs often do not reflect these external costs.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
If “there’s something better ” where is it? Why isn’t it in full use?
*****
It’s called “infrastructure.” It’s pretty hard to ramp up a new technology given that the old technology is already in place.
Take solar or wind power for home use. This small scale technology could be cost effective if home owners could sell the electricity they aren’t using at a reasonable price to the utilities.
SO, the utilities make sure they can’t.
And btw, I’m not against using nuclear as a stop-gap until something better can be developed. What we should be doing is going full-speed into nuclear FUSION.
If “there’s something better ” where is it? Why isn’t it in full use?
******
History is replete with technologies that were carefully guarded lest they fall into enemy hands. The ancient Israelites for instance had no means of or knowledge of making iron, so they were at a big disadvantage to the philistine invaders who did have it.
There are plenty of alternative technologies that can power civilization without spewing pollution into the atmosphere. – MH
Whatever the issues with alternative energy technologies (and, since the fossil fuel industry has controlled the research agenda for decades, there are plenty), they do at least, as Monkeyhawk points out, exist, and work, right now. – Rage
Really? What are they? Remember – they have to be economically viable in that they are able to be at least competitive with current energy sources, or at least not significantly more expensive. They have to provide not just current energy needs, but expected needs as power needs continue to increase. They must be able to work with, at least in part, the current infrastructure. And they have to not bring massive externalities of their own.
Oh – and they have to actually be possible under the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
Good luck.
Personally, I have to be a realist. And I don’t see anything (or a realistic combination of anything) aside from nuclear power (and it has its own externalities) that can meet those requirements.
GMC–
In the last couple of years, volatility in prices and instability in the supply of energy, combined with the urgency of climate change have led to the large-scale deployment of renewable energy. Among these, wind is the fastest-growing source with an average annual growth rate of 29% over the last ten years. In 2008, the global wind power generating capacity reached 121 gigawatts (GW). This represents a twelve-fold increase from a decade ago, when world wind-generating capacity stood at just over 10GW. Being an emerging fuel source a decade ago, wind energy has grown rapidly into a mature and booming global industry. Furthermore, the power generation costs of wind energy have fallen by almost 50%, moving closer to the cost of conventional energy sources. The future prospects of the global wind industry are very encouraging and it is estimated to grow at an annual rate of 22% over the next few years to reach 390GW by 2015.
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/997423/wind_power_profile_of_norway_2009
*****
Goshdarnit! If only we lived in a windy state! (heavy sarcasm)
GMC70 posted July 7, 2009 at 10:53 am
They have to provide not just current energy needs, but expected needs as power needs continue to increase.
———————–
Actually, (and posting again) higher energy efficiency can significantly reduce current, and future energy needs.
Cosmos –
Not to rain on your parade, and not to deny the need for being efficient. But if you think we can “efficient” our way into the future, and use less, you’re living in a fantasyland. Power needs WILL increase. That’s a fact, and it will not go away.
“Wind Turbine Market Opportunities
For the last ten years world wide wind turbine sales have grown approximately 29% annually. Wind power is now the world’s fastest growing source of energy. For the next twenty years it is expected to expand at double-digit rates. In 2008, 25,000 megawatts (MW) of turbines were installed bringing world wide capacity to 120,000 MW. Modern wind turbines are selling for around $1.5 million per MW. At the price, over $100 billion in wind turbine technology is expected to be sold in 2013.”
http://www.windharvest.com/windmarket
Lots of new jobs, and new income from alternative energy sources… Takes a lot less time to build/develope Wind Farms, than to build Coal Plants or Nuke Plants…
Nuclear power plants only provide BASE power amounts… not total… see below…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
“Power needs WILL increase. That’s a fact, and it will not go away.”
That must be one of those pound the table arguments attorneys are famous for. Because here are some actual . . . uhm . . . facts:
refrigerators use 40 of the power that they did 10 years ago
modern cars use far less gas than older models, hence “cash for clunkers” to get the gas guzzlers off the road
recycling a single aluminum drink can saves the energy equivalent of watching TV for three hours
compact floruoescent bulbs put out the same light with about 1/3rd the watts
LED lighting in stop lights and exit lights etc is saving cities thousands in energy costs
heat pumps using the ambient temperature of the ground (56 degrees year round) can cut heating and cooling costs to 1/4th of what they were previously
Oh – and they have to actually be possible under the laws of physics as we currently understand them.
As I understand it, cost and scalability are the issues with alternative technologies.
The laws of physics are hardly an impediment. Indeed, in the case of wind and solar power, dynamos and the photovoltaic effect are hardly the stuff of science fiction.
That’s doubly ironic, as research into future implementation of green techologies quite obviously depends upon a firm understanding of such laws. Duh.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=grassoline-biofuels-beyond-corn
CapnAmerica
Posted July 7, 2009 at 11:14 am | Permalink
“Power needs WILL increase. That’s a fact, and it will not go away.”
That must be one of those pound the table arguments attorneys are famous for. Because here are some actual . . . uhm . . . facts…
—————————————————-
Are you talking about the US or the world?
You’ve got two countries (India and China) accounting for more than a third of the world’s population that are starting to industrialize.
Increase in energy use has been proven in the European economy since the 1990s. As GMC stated, the demand for energy is going up, not down.
I will once again list just some of the many benefits of green energy expansion…
Just in Wind power >>>>
Jobs for engineers and electricians that design the gentle giants…
Jobs for the meterologists who work in the field of “site location”(which accounts for most of the time needed for construction)
Jobs for the factory workers that build the turbines(former auto and aircraft plants can be adapted to building the propellers at the least, and most likely the entire tower assembly…
Jobs for the truckers who transport the disassembled product to the sites….
Jobs for the construction crews that put them up….
The electrical Linemen who string the wiring to the grid-connection points, as well as wiring between the individual generators on the “farm”….
Maintenance and technical crews who make necessary repairs…
SALES personnel who sell the generators to various clientele….
LOTS of jobs… and with the 20%+ increase in the use of wind energy per year, these jobs wont be going away any time soon!!
And this is just in the developing WIND power industry….
Chas makes a point? with:
“Nuclear power plants only provide BASE power amounts… not total… see below…”
_____________________
So wind turbines/solar panels that operate with 30-40% efficiency are providing “total” power? What point are you trying to make with “BASE” vs “total”?? Do nuke plants have to have wind/solar as back-up, or do wind/solar plants have to have fossil fuel (nat gas) as back-up?
Since nuke plants run 24/7, they could EASILY provide “total” power. Since you can’t store electricy, remind me again how wind/solar pulls off 24/7.
As for the cost of any alt, would the $65B dumped into the Dept of Energy for just the ‘09/’10 budgets serve a better purpose in building whichever alt you prefer, or continuing to fund the agency started in the 70’s with the sole mission of “making us energy independent”?
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/10budget/Content/ApprSum.pdf
“You’ve got two countries (India and China) accounting for more than a third of the world’s population that are starting to industrialize.”
That’s right.
And they are emulating US. They aspire to our lifestyle.
We would need the resources of four planet Earths to accommodate that. We have just the one. THEREFORE, the logical thing for US to do is lead the world in a more ecologically sustainable direction. We simply have no other sane choice. This does not mean our lifestyle has to degrade. But it DOES mean that it must change.
Electricity Demand
Rate of Electricity Demand Growth Slows, Following the Historical Trend
Electricity demand fluctuates in the short term in response to business cycles, weather conditions, and prices. Over the long term, however, electricity demand growth has slowed progressively by decade since 1950, from 9 percent per year in the 1950s to less than 2.5 percent per year in the 1990s. From 2000 to 2007, increases in electricity demand averaged 1.1 percent per year. The slowdown in demand growth is projected to continue over the next 23 years (Figure 54), as a result of efficiency gains in response to rising energy prices and new efficiency standards for lighting, heating and cooling, and other appliances.
In the reference case, electricity demand increases by 26 percent from 2007 to 2030, or by an average of 1.0 percent per year. The largest increase is in the commercial sector (38 percent), where service industries continue to lead demand growth, followed by the residential sector (20 percent) and the industrial sector (7 percent). Population growth and rising disposable incomes increase the demand for products, services, and floorspace, and ongoing population shifts to warmer regions increase the use of electricity for space cooling.
From 2007 levels, electricity demand increases by 36 percent in the high growth case, to 5,323 billion kilowatthours in 2030, compared with an increase of 16 percent in the low growth case, to 4,518 billion kilowatthours in 2030. Plug-in electric hybrid vehicles are not expected to reverse the trend of slowing growth in electricity demand, which increases by only 0.1 percent for every 1 million PHEV-40 vehicles in operation.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/electricity.html
Facts, Capn? There they are. Best-case: 16 percent growth by 2030. Worst-case: 36 percent growth.
So nevermind. Go back to fantasyland. Go back to wishing will make it so.
Wind power? It’s marginal. It will always be marginal. It’s intermittant, and often not available in the places it’s most needed, requiring huge transmission infrastructure. Many of the places who do need it either don’t have the wind resource to harvest, or don’t want the towers to spoil their precious view (re: Kennedy) – even here, on the prairie, it took a huge fight with those who believed the turbines would spoil the view to get the wind farm out by Beaumont up and running.
In other words, wind may provide a stopgap. And in some places, it may provide significant power. But it will not be significant part of a national power grid.
From the source above, again. Note, too, the realistic potential for solar power:
The potential for growth in electricity generation from wind power depends on a variety of factors, including fossil fuel costs, State renewable energy programs, technology improvements, access to transmission grids, public concerns about environmental and other impacts, and the future of the Federal PTC for wind, which is scheduled to expire at the end of 2009. Other renewable technologies are guaranteed a tax credit for an additional year. In the AEO2009 reference case, generation from wind power increases from 0.8 percent of total generation in 2007 to 2.5 percent in 2030 (Figure 60). Generation from biomass, both dedicated and co-firing, grows from 39 billion kilowatthours in 2007 (0.9 percent of the total) to 231 billion kilowatthours (4.5 percent) in 2030. Generation from geothermal facilities also increases but at such a slow rate that it does not gain market share. Current assessments show limited potential for expansion at conventional geothermal sites. Enhanced geothermal development remains economically infeasible.
The principal reason for the robust growth of renewable electricity generation in the end-use sectors, which is included in the totals above, is the EISA2007 renewable fuels mandate. Biorefineries producing cellulosic ethanol use residues from the biomass feedstock for electricity production. Generation from biomass comprises nearly 80 percent, or 91 billion kilowatthours, of end-use renewable electricity in 2030. Solar technologies in general remain too costly for grid-connected applications, but demonstration programs and State policies support some growth in central-station solar PV, and small-scale, customer-sited PV applications grow rapidly [97].
You can rely on pie-in-the-sky fantasy if you like, Capn. The rest of us must live in the real world, where the laws of physics – and economics – actually apply.
“The rest of us must live in the real world,”
I speak con. Let me translate.
There IS only one way to think! There IS only the way that we do things now! Do not bother me to think about anything else. It makes my head hurt!
DFB — the article I linked to explains BASE power much better than I can… Try reading it… Many alternative energy sources require back-up from other sources… But the more alternative energy sources we use… nuke, wind, solar…. the less of fossil fuels will be required…
AS TO China and India… Both countries are very innovative… I would be very surprised if either of them didnt begin development of major alternative energy sources very soon…. They dont have all of that “big oil/gas” heritage to work around…. They are like a book in process… Watch for them….
IF we keep on progressing in alternate energy sources, it only means we become less and less on foreign oil….
DFB, anything else you can come up with that’s WRONG with alternative energy??? Or are just being disagreeable by your nature??
BTW, Wind energy is also 24/7 — like Coal, Nat. Gas, and Nuke… I also think we have a LOT of research to be done on geo-thermal and hydro-electric power sources… not to mention we are only scratching the surface on solar, and hydrogen fuel cell, and multiple forms of hybrid energies… Check out what Brazil, for one, has been doing in their use of bio-fuels, and bio-diesel… most interesting….
You can rely on pie-in-the-sky fantasy if you like, Capn. The rest of us must live in the real world, where the laws of physics – and economics – actually apply.
Actually, GMC, the push for alternative energy sources is driven by hard-edged realism. Our current energy model is unstable and extremely expensive. Even when oil is cheap, the associated environment damage (including AGW)–to say nothing of inconvenient wars and other foreign-policy entanglements–adds up. And the hard fact is that fossil fuels are, by definition, a limited resource.
In short, GMC, you are ignoring the costs of not acting, as well as the potential of undeveloped technologies.
Obstacles aside, it is insanity and global suicide to pretend that our fatally-flawed energy model cannot be revised. Pessimistic assumptions aside, we have no choice.
In all likelihood, it will be extremely difficult, but the scientists working in the field well understand the gravity of the challenges–and the consequences of failing.
GMC70 posted July 7, 2009 at 11:05 am
Not to rain on your parade, and not to deny the need for being efficient. But if you think we can “efficient” our way into the future, and use less, you’re living in a fantasyland.
—————————-
Please try to copy/paste where I said/implied that “we can “efficient” our way into the future”.
I said that “higher energy efficiency can significantly reduce current, and future energy needs.”
Lower energy demand makes renewables and alternatives more feasible.
And higher energy efficiency is cheaper (and faster) than building expensive new nuclear plants.
“Since nuke plants run 24/7, they could EASILY provide “total” power. Since you can’t store electricy, remind me again how wind/solar pulls off 24/7.” [DFB]
This is exactly why the Nuke plants cant provide total power… Even operating 24/7, they cannot produce enough power FAST enough, to provide total power… Since they, like wind farms, are alternative sources, naturally then need fossil fuel backups… BUT… the more of them that are available(Wind/Nuke/Solar/etc.) the LESS dependent we are on fossil fuel sources…
THAT is the point…
ALSO — Nuke plant construction runs 4 – 6 years per plant… SOME still take 10 years…
Wind farms take about 18 months…
DFB makes the point that electricity cannot be STORED…
I would submit to DFB, that is only because we have not developed means of storage… yet… We are innovative people… We have good scientists and other research people… we have a long history of inventors….
We WILL develope a method of storage for electricity… And my guess would be within the next 20 – 30 years maximum…
Remember — less than 200 years ago, it took months to get a letter from New York to London or Paris… Now?? With email, its only a matter of seconds!!
One hundred years ago, the automobile was looked at as a passing fad… nothing could be better than horses and trains… Some cities had laws against motor cars in the city limits… it spooked the horses…
When is the last time you have seen a horse drawn delivery truck in Wichita?? My mother used to talk about them… but she was born in 1909, too…
In the ‘Warmer’ bill passed by the House of Representatives they want companies to store co2.
However, there is no effective technology to do so in mass quantities and none is being developed that has a viable future.
To show the dishonesty of the Democratic Party, they will impose fines (taxes and fees) on companies who don’t store co2, even though the technology doesn’t exist to do so.
Liars all, in the Democratic Party…
CON-think (which seems more and more to be an oxymoron) just doesn’t quit.
CONs were the ones who told us back in the day unleaded gasoline would ruin civilization.
CONs were the ones who told us who told us Iraqi oil would finance George WMD Bush’s little adventure in the Middle East.
CONs turn a phrase such as “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” which is true to a degree. But “Absence of evidence certainly is an indication of…absence of evidence.”
No matter, to the CONs.
They believe it.
That settles it.
Objections to alternative energy are on the level of laws still on the books in many communities requiring every automobile to be preceded by a guy waving a red flag up the road.
“It seemed to make sense at the time.”
Reg…
RE: storage of CO2…
Tell that to the massive soft drink industry…
Chas, Chas, Chas…”wind is 24/7″…wow…guess that’s why they rate it at 30-40% efficient..or maybe why NO grid can handle more than 20% generation from wind/solar due to the grids requirement for just in time delivery, and well, mother nature’s whims at when the wind blow/sun shines.
Now as for things you left out of your pro-wind propaganda rant..sure, plenty of things you left out:
1. Wind gets a 2 cent/khw subsidy to make it just barely more expensive than coal/gas. Who pays for subsidies again?
2. We’ve had 2 rate hikes of about $120M in the last 6 months from Westar, both of which sited costs in meeting mandates for wind.
3. Nukes can be built where the demand is, vs trying to generate it all in the MW and transport it to the coasts, eliminating the need for all the interstate lines, that greenies throw a fit about too. Btw, you actually lose energy the farther you transmit electricity.
4. From the folks on your side firing from the back of the column…wind turbines kills migrating birds & explodes bat lungs! And the noise & vibrations they give off create sound polution for nearby homes.
5. Funny how you claim it creates so many jobs, but never seem to do all the math in terms of jobs lost in other areas due to the govt choosing a winner & loser.
6. Since in your world, China’s so innovative and just working to follow in our leadership footsteps in alts, why is it again they signed a 20 yr deal with Russia to build a pipeline from Russia to China to deliver fossil fuels? Or why is it they’re running around places like Sudan/Myanmar/etc buying up exclusive oil rights again? Russia shooting flags down to claim territory to drill on in the Arctic?
7. I understand “base” perfectly well. You should actually read up on the difference between base & peak loads. Repeating my comment that alts require fossil fuel back-up to cover their gaps in base & peak load doesn’t suggest that somehow you’re making a point, you’re making mine for me!
Nobody’s arguing that mandating alts reduces our use of fossil fuels. But remind me again how many kwh’s we import from the Middle East? Huh, weird, none. So skipping straight to “eliminating oil imports” from your windmill pitch is illogical.
Flux capacitors would eliminate imported foreign oil too, and are just as realistic as wind turbines doing it.
MonkeyHock blathers once again, writing meaningless tripe.
RE: storage of CO2…
Tell that to the massive soft drink industry…
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
Huuuuuuuuugh
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
Holy crap I haven’t laughed that hard in DAYS !!!!!
MH — Do you remember that disjointed law that used to be in the Kansas statutes??? It said: When two trains meet, neither shall go, till the other has gone.” It has now been moved into an archive of “dead” laws… but still preserved for posterity… LOL
Ya Sol, but you see the size of the can and the amount of liquid needed to store billions of metric tons per day. :)
“Regular” resorts to name-calling again –
“MonkeyHock blathers once again, writing meaningless tripe.”
And your specific refutations are…?
So cos, 8 years of cooling is a short term trend. What is a long term trend?
The costs of mid-east wars would have to be considered, when evaluating the true costs of alternative energy.
Chas posts: “I would submit to DFB, that is only because we have not developed means of storage… yet… We are innovative people… We have good scientists and other research people… we have a long history of inventors….”
_________________
If we could store electricity, about half the existing power plants in our nation could go down and your windmill fantasy would be a complete waste of time.
So riddle me this oh wizard of the windmills…if storage has been a problem since the invention of the grid…and scientists have been trying to figure out storage ever since…what in the H makes you believe that they’ve been waiting for guberment to give them the green light in inventing it??
But lets take it a step further. What’s the “thing” holding up making all electric cars a reality? Huh, electric storage, otherwise known as batteries!
Again…I’m holding out for flux capacitors, because all they’ve had’em in movies, just need Obama to tell science it’s ok to invent them now.
One cannot refute absurdity MonkeyHock, just hope it goes away.
In short, GMC, you are ignoring the costs of not acting, as well as the potential of undeveloped technologies.
Yes, Rage, I’m aware of the costs of failure to act; setting aside AGW for the moment, there are significant economic and environmental costs to our current energy production infrastructure. True enough.
But I’m realistic about technology. Unless there is some fundamental restructuring of the laws of physics as we currently understand them (possible, but not something we can rely on or plan for), for the foreseeable future fossil fuels ARE our energy source. Certainly continuing research should be done. Certainly we can be more efficient.
But the “clean, energy independent US” cosmos dreams of is simply not realistically possible, given curent technology and its realistic development (absent some unforeseeable earthshattering discovery), in the next 30-40 years. And we have to live in the world we have, not world we wish existed. Chas, for example, in the post right above as I write, fantasizes about being able to store electricity. He relies on inventions as yet unknown. I hope he’s right, but I’ll not bank on it.
BTW, Chas, we CAN store electricity – either as potential energy (most commonly in lakes behind dams) or in batteries. Battery technology, however, has its own problems, both as a practical application matter and in its own environmental impacts.
“Remember — less than 200 years ago, it took months to get a letter from New York to London or Paris… Now?? With email, its only a matter of seconds!!”
______________
You just keep making my point for me, Chas. The reason we e-mail now, is because a better way was invented and destroyed the old. It’s called “creative destruction”. We used to have phonographs and now we’ve got i-pods. Not because guberment mandated it and “someone will just figure it out”, but because a better mousetrap was built.
Govt mandate/policy is subject to change and ideological whims. I’m all for alts. The global energy mkt is a multi-trillion $ pot of gold for anybody who builds a better mousetrap. But you’re selling that trillions of $’s aren’t enough incentive..they’ve been waiting on mandates/policies to get filthy rich. Funny too, because the greenie battle cry always involves some form of business bashing and evil corporate greed.
The problem with alternative energy sources is cost, especially here in Kansas. Kansas has some of the cheapest electricity in the country.
We talk about solar power for your home. Get an estimate on what that will cost. The ROI (return on investment) would be 20 years plus, even if you could sell power back to the grid. Even if your utilities doubled, maybe tripled, the initial investment would kill you financially to fit your home with solar power.
Wind? That’s ok if you live out in the country, but if you’re a city dweller, the restrictions make wind power unusable. A wind generator has to be tall enough to get up where the wind is. You can’t put up a tower that’s tall enough to fall on your neighbor’s house.
Solar power is a great thing, but the technology is still poorly developed and the cost is going to have to come way down before it’s usable in a residential setting.
GMC70 posted July 7, 2009 at 12:17 pm
But the “clean, energy independent US” cosmos dreams of is simply not realistically possible, given curent technology and its realistic development (absent some unforeseeable earthshattering discovery), in the next 30-40 years.
————————
GMC70,
Where did I post that we’d have a “clean, energy independent US” “in the 30-40 years”?
I said that “higher energy efficiency can significantly reduce current, and future energy needs.”
That higher energy efficiency is available today, with current technology.
Lower energy demand makes renewables and alternatives more feasible.
Higher energy efficiency is cheaper (and faster) than building expensive new nuclear plants.
cosmos chalks:
Higher energy efficiency is cheaper (and faster) than building expensive new nuclear plants.
Cheaper for whom?
Are you personally going to finance every building in the U.S. that needs high energy efficiency modifications?
XXX – Don’t rain on their fantasies with, uh . . . reality!!!
It’s just not fair! Besides, that’ll all change if The One just mandates the change. Remember: a teleprompter reading from The Obama can make it so!
Frankly, gov’t mandating these technologies is the worst way to go. In the current climate, government chooses winners and losers, not the marketplace. The winning technology will be decided not by economic success, but by political connections. In that environment, why should I poor billions into development unless I am assure of a return on my investment, not by building a better mousetrap, but by greasing the palms of the right political party? While that has always been so to a certain extent, it will become even more so the more gov’t gets involved in these sorts of economic decisions.
The more gov’t regulates business, the more corrupt gov’t will be. It’s inevitable, just as night follows day.
MunkeySpank-
Demoratss were the ones that wanted to keep slavery.
Demorats were the ones that wanted us to stay out of WWII.
Demorats nearly caused WWIII in the bay of pigs.
Demorats were the ones that got us IN to viet nam.
Demorats were the ones that gave us 12% unemployment.
Demorats let iran hold american hostages for years.
Demorats were the ones that gave us gas shortages.
Demorats told us California was falling into the ocean.
Demorats told us acid rain was giong to kill the earth.
Demorats told us eating an egg would kill us.
Demorats told us if we educated our teens, they wouldn’t get pregnant.
Dumorats told us if we educated our teens they wouldn’t get std s.
Demorats told us tobacco wouldn’t kill us.
Demorats now say “second hand” smoke kills us.
Demorats told us corporations are the evil enemy.
Dimorats then gave BILLIONS to corporations.
Dumorats tell us man is causing the earth to warm.
Dumborats tell us “taxing” us will fix it.
Dumbocrats tell us 95% of us won’t see a tax increase.
Dimorats tell us they have a “fix” or a “plan” when they mean “tax.”
Okie dokie then.
Thanks demorats, you certainly have helped the USA.
XXX
About a year ago I priced a complete wind system for my home. Delivery and installation included.
I found that the payoff ASSUMING 100 percent net metering return and using industry estimates for realistic run time was going to be close to 30 years. I doubt if the turbine would survive 30 years without at least one major rebuild.
Makes no sense. Yet I still get stupified stares from people who cant seem to believe it. I tell them to price it for themselves and show me their numbers. So far no one has.
Desperation defined:
Al Gore: Climate-Change Fight Like Battle Against Nazis
The former vice president said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change.
He also accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming to avoid difficult decisions.
Speaking at Britain’s Oxford University at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by the Times of London, Gore said, “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilization in World War II.”
He added, “We have everything we need except political will, but political will is a renewable resource.”
Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany.
________________________________________________________________
His “carbon credit” ponzi scheme must be in jeopardy.
Gore admitted that it was difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change was as urgent as the threat from Nazi Germany.
______________What a horses arse._________________
GMC70
Posted July 7, 2009 at 12:33 pm | Permalink
XXX – Don’t rain on their fantasies with, uh . . . reality!!!
_______________
GMC70, I know I’m being the wet blanket here, but I have some experience with this. I’ve done costing on both solar and wind, and the results are jaw-dropping. Something else….when you talk to companies that supply solar and wind systems, the conversation is over when they find out what we pay for power here in Kansas. They won’t even return your phone calls in most cases.
It takes a dimorat to see algores new clothes….
cosmos sees them…
It will take another generation or two.
But the kids are getting the message. We MUST better address how it is we relate to the Earth and its resources. I think we may well see a time when conspicuous consumption , long a taken for granted expression of American lifestyle, will actually be looked upon with disgust and disdain.
Just as it always should have been and used to be.
#
Heckler
Posted July 7, 2009 at 12:35 pm | Permalink
XXX
About a year ago I priced a complete wind system for my home. Delivery and installation included.
I found that the payoff ASSUMING 100 percent net metering return and using industry estimates for realistic run time was going to be close to 30 years. I doubt if the turbine would survive 30 years without at least one major rebuild.
Makes no sense. Yet I still get stupified stares from people who cant seem to believe it. I tell them to price it for themselves and show me their numbers. So far no one has.
________________________
Exactly, Heckler!
For some reason, a lot of people think that solar or wind power is a LITTLE more expensive. News Flash….The cost of these systems are on a magnitude that you need to have a strong heart when they give you the estimate. And as you point out, a system probably won’t last long enough to get the ROI.
As was stated upthread, it’s fossil fuel or nothing for the foreseeable future.
One cannot refute absurdity MonkeyHock, just hope it goes away.
LOL!
Monkeyhawk makes the case that since some so called “CON” said that oil from Iraq will pay for the war, therefore, every person that disagrees with AGW is a “CON”, likewise every “CON” is wrong and therefore, AGW is a FACT!
Do you all follow that rock solid, convincing defense of global warming by Monkeyhawk?
Liberal logic at its finest.
All you can do is laugh, enjoy and ignore as Regular as done.
The obvious answer is nuclear energy. It’s clean, safe, and the technology is available now. It would be relatively cheap if it weren’t for all of the lawsuits. We haven’t built a nuke in this country for decades and we’ve fallen behind most of the industrialized world.
It would be relatively cheap if it weren’t for all of the lawsuits.
Those greenies can’t even get out of their own way.
As I said upthread, scalability and cost are the issues.
Is the presumption, then, that these are insurmountable issues? Why, then, has the scientific community not reached such a consensus, and focused solely on, say, conservation, or cleaner fossil-fuel technologies?
Answer: Because materials science alone suggests the final word is not yet in.
Judging from the arguments here, though, perhaps straw is a useful renewable resource.
XXX wrote: “Solar power is a great thing, but the technology is still poorly developed and the cost is going to have to come way down before it’s usable in a residential setting.”
_____________
You’re exactly right. I’ve done quick estimates for having a completely solar powered house, and best I could tell, the math worked out to about $50K per every 2,000 sq ft, with virtually zero shot at a payback in less than 30 yrs, and even less of a shot at recovering the cost should you sell your home.
But what solar is actually up to speed on, is simple things like recharging handheld devices like cell phones, i-pods, laptops, cordless phones, Blackberries, etc. Those type devices are also a significant factor in the increase in demand for electricity globally (along with air conditioning being more prevalent in poorer countries). Domestically it adds to demand because most people leave their chargers plugged in all day, which draws a small amount of current. But a solar/ambient light recharging unit for a home would be cheap and easy and solve a lot of that demand issue economically for those devices. Then let the commercial scale technology catch up when it’s ready.
When we found out that freon and CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, Government acted to outlaw use of the substances.
Industry quickly adapted. They just needed someone to crack the whip for them. Business and industry are lazy and only devoted to the bottom line unless properly motivated.
When we found out that freon and CFCs were destroying the ozone layer, Government acted to outlaw use of the substances.
Industry quickly adapted. They just needed someone to crack the whip for them. Business and industry are lazy and only devoted to the bottom line unless properly motivated.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Is your LawnBoy electric junior? You going to pay extra carbon credits for using the electricity?
Blue Jay Has it right. Since fossil Fuel Energy is too cheap, all we need is for the government to make it about 5 times as expensive.
If the 2,000 sq. ft. home has an average electric bill of $50/month (just using my home as an example), and if that amount was raised just 300% to $225, per month, I would break even in 18 years by putting in a solar system if DFB’s calculations are correct.
Let’s all hope and pray that congress cracks the whip and dramatically increases the cost of fossil fuels so that sky high electricity bills make using alternatives more compelling. I would love to put 50K into a solar system, but my electricity rates are just too low!
Chas(said)
Posted July 7, 2009 at 11:31 am | Permalink
I will once again list just some of the many benefits of green energy expansion…
….none of which would be economically feasible without government subsidies. Just like ethanol.
RFL,
Let me offer you a deal on the Heat Pump 2020. It’s on sale now for $6500.00 and guaranteed to last until the year 2020.
Installation requires additional energy efficient duct work, insulation and thermo-electric monitoring stations (hooked up to the utility company).($2800.00) We will need to pour a concrete slab for the foundation and that comes with a $300.00 environmental assessment fee.
Also, to insure efficient electrical continuity, you will need a new, efficient circuit breaker control panel and high efficiency wiring for your home ($4200.00)
Heat deflecting exterior wall panels would be ideal for your location ($3900.00) and strongly recommended.
A backup generator that conforms to this model to insure uninterrupted usage, especially during those harsh winter temperature months ($1908).
Our premium anti-corrosion package is on sale ($495.00) It will prolong the life of your heat pump.
We also offer a maintenance contract which is strongly recommended as weather and external damage not directly caused due to the fault of the manufacture is not covered. ($720.00/year)
When can we sign you up? You’ll be glad you became an energy efficient customer by purchasing the Heat Pump 2020.
Act soon, the sale won’t last!
“Alan Carlin, a senior analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency”
It sounds as though Mr. Carlin needs to find a new line of work. The protection of the environment is SUPPOSED to be his job. Perhaps he would be happier (and more honest) as an industry lobbyist. Let him get paid on top of the table.
I posed a simple question and the simpletons reacted only in ire –
If “clean coal” is reality, Cap & Trade is a moot issue, right?
No Monkey, Cap & Trade wouldn’t become a moot point with clean coal.
Why?
Because it’s not the only thing that emits CO2 that is man-made or man-caused.
Man-made – examples
Concrete Plants
Transportation Industry
Man-caused
Agriculture
– Live stock
– Crops
– Fertilizer use
The CO2 Cap & Trade mongers, what to stick their finger in every orifice and diddle the finances out of every available purse and wallet.
what to stick = want to stick
“Regular” –
That must be why the concrete industry is leading the fight against Cap & Trade. (The fossil fuel industry is just along for the ride, right?)
Look: You tried to ridicule me a few days ago when I mentioned mountaintop mining in Appalachia. You’re not the brightest pencil in the deck when it comes to energy issues, “Regular.”
Then or now.
But I gotta love you CONs’ tenacity.
Like George WMD Bush, you’re pit bulls on the pantleg of opportunity.
And just as ridiculous.
I would say that Monkeyhawk has spent way too much time alone playing with his “kitty”, and that his brain has the consistency of canned tuna…
But I think he would take it all wrong.
Parkinson: Sunflower has support
http://www.gctelegram.com/news/Parkinson–Sunflower-has-support-7-7-09
DFB –
If you twist what I said any further, you will break your neck trying to keep up… Then again, maybe that might be a good idea… Hey, I got lots of rope you can use, if you need it…
“ANTI” contributes –
“I would say that Monkeyhawk has spent way too much time alone playing with his “kitty”, and that his brain has the consistency of canned tuna…
But I think he would take it all wrong.”
Well thank goodness you didn’t say it.
If you’d said it people would think you’re absurd.
Oh wait…
Told ya…
He’s so sensitive, that Monkeyhawk.
BTW, the increase in wind farms is increasing over 20% per year… And, XXX, I never even mentioned “personal” wind or solar sources… Dont know where that came in to the discussion…
None of the wind farms are projecting a ROI figure of anything close to 30 years… Read some of what I posted up thread… The construction time is minimal… Production back to the grid is FAST… Wind cant make up for fossil fuel plants… nor can nuclear… BUT, alternative sources can decrease the current levels of fossil fuel sources…
Also, check out T. Boone Pickens on some of his proposed uses of natural gas…
Personally, I think most of the griping about carbon use taxes is just a bunch of Hype from the Party of NO…
See above what I said about the vast number of jobs wind power has, and will continue to create over time…
It’s either to be found at greenjobs.com, or greenjobs.org…
Will wind farms employ over 4 million people. How about 2 million.
Chas energy is important but is pales in comparison to the number of people out of work. They need jobs now!
Obama promised ’shovel ready jobs’ to get the stimulus passed. Where are they?
Deflect, deflect, deflect,….
No new jobs as promised, raising taxes as he said he wouldn’t, what exactly has this prez done besides run around the world apologizing for the American people.
Give me some positives so I can believe this prez is anything but ‘business as usual’.
Yep ANTI,
Those who refuse to listen to the warnings are going to take the hardest fall.
The wind industry has been blown over. Clipper Windpower is laying off 90 workers at its Ceder Rapids, Iowa, plant and cutting its production for 2009. Gamesa is laying off about 180 workers at its plant in Fairless Hills in eastern Pennsylvania. Even Vestas Wind Systems, the world’s No. 1 turbine maker, is reportedly seeing lowered demand for its products.
Large solar makers are feeling the same pain. Suntech Power, Day4 Energy, GT Solar, Emcore and Advanced Energy have announced layoffs, and still more have delayed or suspended new plants.
Yea, right… The claim is made that wind industry is laying off workers… Right, since the wind industry is increasing by more than 20% per year…
I posted links to that above… Where are the links to show lay-offs?? Hmmmm???
Chas
Posted July 7, 2009 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
Yea, right… The claim is made that wind industry is laying off workers… Right, since the wind industry is increasing by more than 20% per year…
I posted links to that above… Where are the links to show lay-offs?? Hmmmm???
=================================
http://earth2tech.com/2009/02/09/if-green-jobs-are-so-hot-where-are-they/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/business/04windsolar.html?ex=1391490000&en=f8856e8c97f53c3b&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg
World’s biggest wind turbine-maker says global downturn slashing demandGrowth projections 15% off for top wind-power manufacturer Vestas as global financial crisis strips back demand
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/21/windpower-downturn
Hmmmmmm….
Chas, just heard T Boone Pickens and he says wind power is not growing at the present time because they are unable to get financing.
Wind power isnt the ONLY solution to energy alternatives… but it is one of the most viable… There are many ways to reduce the need for increased use of fossil fuels…
BTW, do any of you gripe, b*tch, moan and complain about your car having catalytic converters?? Those were government requirements… as were seatbelts… and unleaded fuel… So, maybe you’re just cherry picking on alternative energies
Hud
Posted July 7, 2009 at 4:28 pm | Permalink
Chas, just heard T Boone Pickens and he says wind power is not growing at the present time because they are unable to get financing.
===============================================
I didnt say anything about Pickens and WIND power…. You gotta be so damned dumb all on your own, cause your level of stupidity shure couldnt be invented!!
If wind power isnt growing, like you all are LYING about… Then why are wind farms increasing by more than 20% per year???
I posted a link to that earlier… Try READING for a change… I get sick and tired of the party of NO that wont do anything but B*TCH!!!
BTW, do any of you gripe, b*tch, moan and complain about your car having catalytic converters?? -Chas
===================================
I Hate them…
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stated catalytic converters are a significant and growing cause of global warming, due to their release of nitrous oxide (N2O), a greenhouse gas more than 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.[7]
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:mCkme5SSSDMJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter+catalytic+converters&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Pickens calls off massive wind farm in Texas, considers Kansas as a potential location
Comments (2) Recommend (0)
By JOHN PORRETTO
AP Energy Writer
HOUSTON – Plans for the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle have been scrapped, energy baron T. Boone Pickens said Tuesday, and he’s looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines.
Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall – taller than most 30-story buildings.
“When I start receiving those turbines, I’ve got to … like I said, my garage won’t hold them,” the legendary Texas oilman said. “They’ve got to go someplace.”
“I didnt say anything about Pickens and WIND power…. You gotta be so damned dumb all on your own, cause your level of stupidity shure couldnt be invented!!”
Good Gosh, Chas. What is with all the name calling?
I did not disagree with you; I only passed on something I just heard on TV.
“he’s looking for a home for 687 giant wind turbines”
That is one large wind farm. How is he doing on getting wind power to the market?
Chas threatens:
“DFB –
If you twist what I said any further, you will break your neck trying to keep up… Then again, maybe that might be a good idea… Hey, I got lots of rope you can use, if you need it…”
______________
Such violent wishes from a “man of God”. But be careful, I know you like to brag about not giving away your party affiliation…comments like ”
I get sick and tired of the party of NO that wont do anything but B*TCH!!!” give it away.
Now, instead of some childish rant about wishing my neck would break, or that you could supply the rope, why don’t you show me what I twisted from a bubble of a brainfart you posted.
Funny too, you didn’t respond after your seizure about wind lay-offs to Anti’s links, care to go double or nothing on ethanol lay-offs?
As for your T Boone comment and nat gas…wait for it, one of your buddies will be by soon to explain to you that nat gas is fossil fuel…you’re getting off message, re-education will be required if you do not return to message…
How is he doing on getting wind power to the market?
___________________________________
Overhead transmission lines. Something else the Libs can cry about.
Hud asked: ” How is he doing on getting wind power to the market?”
He’s waiting on Sunflower to build the Holcomb plant since part of that deal was to build extra transmission capacity for wind (by all means not be confused with a subsidy for wind…) Of course part of their deal too, was to put in an algae bed system to absorb C02 and produce bio-diesel, part of the latest “clean coal” concepts.
I saw the same thing on Pickens, since wind power is priced relative to the most expensive fossil fuel alt nat gas, and nat gas is extremely cheap right now, wind’s economics are in the toilet again. Credit’s still tight as well, which is why Pickens likes the “green bank” they included in the House Cap & Trade bill, since it’s always smarter to bet taxpayer $’s on uneconomic projects when private industry doesn’t like the bet…
Here’s a thought: Think Pickens is primarily interested in making money for Pickens, and any “caring” for the environment comes strictly second?
Well DUH.
And he’ll get gullible governments to finance him, because after all, poor poor Pickens couldn’t possibly finance this kind of thing with private money. Sounds like the Obama administration better tee up another few billion to bailout another “poor person.”
But . . . you mean poor people didn’t get bailout money? I thought the Obama administration was all about “empathy” for those who are the have nots? No? Well, nevermind then . . . .
What this country needs is MORE FREE MONEY!
The only way we can get it – is to invent a new tax.
We can always fall behind the cry to save the environment. Let’s call it Cap and Trade!!!
Won’t do a dam thing to help the environment. It will cost a lot of people more money, increase costs, and the gubermint will have to bail out the poor with subsidies to PROTECT THEM from their government.
But it’s got a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?
NEW TAX!! NEW REVENUE SOURCE!!!
There can be no debate. WE NEED MORE FREE MONEY!!!
Cover up any disent. More better – be highly critical of those who dare to disagree. Shut them up. Ridicule them.
Great plan. Patent it.
Darn! Already invented!!!
Protect the planet…
Protect a flawed energy strategy, the status quo, and greedy people….
I’m going with the planet
AmWay nailed this one @ 8:53.
And if Government has to stifle Freedom of Speech to enact this scheme, then so be it.
“Pickens has already ordered the turbines, which can stand 400 feet tall – taller than most 30-story buildings.” [satatom]
Actually, MOST of the turbines stand 30 – 60 meters…(See Wiki) Not any higher than the large power transmission lines running from Wolf Creek, or Jeffrey Energy Center…
Detractors use that 400 foot height as just another SCARE tactic…
Chas KNOWS.
He read it on Wiki…..
“Detractors use that 400 foot height as just another SCARE tactic…” – Chas
You mean like how a naturally occuring gas like C02, which after a century of “industrialization”, has added .01% more C02 to atmosphere and it’s KILLING THE PLANET, and the polar bears, making the oceans rise hundreds of feet, causing cannibalism (gotta love Ted Turner..proof ANY idiot can “make it” here), making Cat 5 hurricanes as common as thunderstorms, nuttin’ but drought elsewhere, dogs & cats living together, it’ll be anarchy…you mean scare tactics like those? Here’s a list for you Chas of over 500 of them, so you can make sure you use all the proper scare tactics going forward.
http://www.churchofglobalwarming.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=42
DFB posted July 8, 2009 at 8:15 am
You mean like how a naturally occuring gas like C02, which after a century of “industrialization”, has added .01% more C02 to atmosphere . . .
————————-
DFB seems to believe that an increase from 280 to 380 units = “added .01% more”.
DFB also very incorrectly thought that CO2 is at about a 386 ppb level.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2009/07/do-the-wave-for-tiahrts-climate-change-analogy/#comment-615149
DFB is an example of the typical thinking(sic) abilities of an AGW science denier.
Chas still thinks he’s taken no position on AGW.
Yeah right!
Hey cosmo,
If an 8 year trend of falling temperatures is a “short term” trend, exactly what is your opinion of a long term trend?
Silly Denier. That would be 9 years.
#
SolDevVB
Posted July 8, 2009 at 9:35 am | Permalink
Hey cosmo,
If an 8 year trend of falling temperatures is a “short term” trend, exactly what is your opinion of a long term trend?
————-
Whatever it takes to validate the AGW theory. Nothing more and nothing less.
soldevvb posted July 8, 2009 at 9:35 am
Hey cosmo,
If an 8 year trend of falling temperatures is a “short term” trend, exactly what is your opinion of a long term trend?
————————–
soldevvb,
How many times do I need to explain it to you?
Explain your opinion? It is a simple question cosmo. But you have problems answering questions don’t you?
What, in your opinion, is a “long term” trend?
soldevvb posted July 8, 2009 at 10:22 am
What, in your opinion, is a “long term” trend?
——————
soldevvb,
Climate science and statistical analysis are not based on my “opinion”.
And I’ve already posted multiple times about the trend issue.
You failed to understand it all of those times, and I’m not going to waste my time re-posting it.
You failed to understand it all of those times, and I’m not going to waste my time re-posting it.
Translated:
My poop is weak. I’m outa here.
Poor little girl. It figures though. You never will answer a question. What a weak faith that can’t be questioned.
I’ll take a guess and say 30 years is what you use for a “trend”. The IPCC likes to start in the 70’s I believe. They like to catch the cooler years.
So a sub-trend that is ~1/4 – 1/3 of the “trend” in question is irrelevant to cosmo. How convenient.
And how convenient to pick such a short trend. If we are talking historical record, why would you pick such a short time period.
Why don’t you cut&paste some temperature data from say… the past 400,000 years?
soldevvb posted July 8, 2009 at 11:50 am
Translated:
My poop is weak. I’m outa here.
————————–
Reality:
soldevvb can’t understand even basic climate science. Or statistical analysis.
Why don’t you post data from 1992 to 1998? And from 1976 to 1990? And just draw a line between the start and end points.
cosmos,
Why do tree proxies for the 20th century don’t show any warming trends?
Or statistical analysis.
Gee, would that be like looking at the past 8 years?
8 years of cooling. Yeah I can see why that stains your panties cosmo.
soldevvb posted July 8, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Gee, would that be like looking at the past 8 years?
8 years of cooling. Yeah I can see why that stains your panties cosmo.
———————–
soldevvb,
Your false claims and ignorance are your responsibility, and don’t bother me.
Your false claims and ignorance are your responsibility, and don’t bother me.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuugh
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Oh how weak you have become.
Refute the down trend of the last 8 years.
Pa
The
Tic
soldevvb posted July 8, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Refute the down trend of the last 8 years.
——————-
I don’t have to “refute” your confusion.
I don’t have to “refute” your confusion.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
Huuuuuuuuuuuuuugh
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH
You can’t make this schit up!!!!
cosmo has a hard time with facts when they don’t support her religion.
Hey, whatya know..Cos posting more propaganda and all those silly little statements say “learn basics” before you approach the throne of Cos! You know, instead of providing any actual content.
But thanks for attempt at a twist with:
“DFB seems to believe that an increase from 280 to 380 units = “added .01% more”.”
Let’s see, there rocket surgeon…if 380 ppb = .038% of the atmosphere and 280 ppb = .028% of the atmosphere…the difference is…come on, Cos, gimme a drumroll….ok, I’ll wait for you to get your calculator out….no, you can’t use your “inquiry math”….huh, weird, just like I said, an increase of .01%…
Now, reminds me again, since yous neva wood answers thems bfour & cuz I’s keeps on fogettin’…can you put the factors that effect gluhbul temprchures in order of importenz?
a. Sun
b. water “vapour”
c. C02
d. methane/et al
soldevvb,
Thank you for proving my point at 1:54 pm.
Hey, cosmo!
pokepoke
pokepokepoke
poke
Let’s see, there rocket surgeon…if 380 ppb = .038% of the atmosphere and 280 ppb = .028%
What has her panties in a wad, DFB, is you are referencing ppb (billion) when CO2 is ppm (million).
Never mind that the percentage is correct, and the trace gas is insignificant.
When facts get in como’s way, she looks for any and everything else to get upset about.
She can’t even admit the fact that temperatures have been falling for the last 8 years. How unscientific of her. But then she just emulates her heroes al-Gore and Hansen. Lie about it or just ignore the inconvenient numbers, like the last 8 years.
Thank you for proving my point at 1:54 pm.
You’ve proven nothing except that you can not answer questions about science and you can not understand the fact that temperatures have been down trending for the last 8 years.
Thank you for proving your religion gets in the way of science and facts. Praise be.
Sol – oh I know. And what she didn’t include is where I recognized that error, and then proceeded to continue asking of the C02 in the atmosphere, how much was naturally there vs “man-made”…only after Regular posted the C02 ppb make-up did she start acting like she understood that question. She argued over and over how C02 was what mattered and that methane was “only” 1,700 ppb before then…but would never answer the question about which was more GHGish (ie, compare/contrast ALL the factors not just C02), until I pinned her down on the whole livestock burp/fart fiasco…only then, were they both suddenly important…just more lame postings like the one she posted to you about “proving my point at 1:54″…never address the points, just deflect, divert and declare “the debate’s over you AGW denier!”.
You got it about right brother.
Too funny. . .
‘“Supressed” Climate Report Cribbed From Patrick Michaels?‘
http://www.desmogblog.com/supressed-climate-report-cribbed-patrick-michaels
cosMo thinks his his Nazi-style socialist propaganda blog is credible.
Too funny….
Wow..so much more effective when you post the same link on every GW thread…