WIND POWER. Is it time for some honesty?

[wanlock dod]

Hi Dorts,

Thanks for your reply, and appologies that this is now straying some way form the original post. There is actually much that we agree on. I certainly share your skepticism that the earth will warm to levels never before seen, although I do believe that the rate of change could place greater stresses on ecosystems than they have experienced in similar global cycles.

It is the desire for definitive proof that makes me suspicious of your discussions, as (to my mind at least) science is about likelihood, probabilities and confidence, but there is never really any definitive proof. Thus I would accept that the range of projections for future climates includes some situations where cooling is actually preduicted to occur. However, it seems to me that the consensus view for many of the projections is that some degree of further warming is likely, and that it is likley that this is influenced by anthropogenic acitivities.

It begins to sound as though you are confusing an absence of (definitive) evidence for (definitive) evidence of absence, and I think that this is essentially the point on which we disagree.

A further issue that I would ask you to ponder is that if you are going to wait until definitive proof of mans influence on climate arives (whatever that may be), you may find that it is too late for you to realistically do anything about it. Would this be a good situation to be in? Obviously it is unlikely to occur in your (or my) lifetime, but would you wish to impose such a situation on your grandchildren, or their grandchildren?

There is currently a similar situation in chemical regulation where a substance that might reasonably be expected to become widely distributed and taken up by animals across the globe would be banned without any evidence of actual damage, simply because of the difficulties of dealing with the problem retrospectively and reversing any damage.

In my opinion the potential risks associated with being wrong outweigh the uncertainties associated with the conclusion. I would certainly value your thoughts on that issue.

Back to the chemicals examples, would you knowingly use a chemical that might be a carcinogen, perhaps in a handwash or shampoo, if there was no evidence for adverse effects in humans. Would that position change depending upon whether there were studies that showed no effects, or simply no data (you don't worry about what you don't know).

Cheers,

Dod

[Dorts]

Dods, I agree that we should apologise to anyone coming to this thread thinking it is a continuation of the one I started some time ago, as we have 'drifted' somewhat from that. But as there are only the two of us at present perhaps it will be acceptable.

I must first make it clear that I accept that there has been warming in the latter part of the 20th. century, but as has been shown many times, any warming that there has been has not been exceptional; a total of 0.45c over the 100 years to 2000, since when there has been a slight cooling.

Actually there have been two warming periods and two cooling periods during that time. And during that period of 100 years CO2 has risen from around 280 ppm to 380 ppm, (historically very low levels). A steady increase in CO2 but no steady increase in temperature. In fact levels of CO2 in the past have been 20 times greater than today but with temperatures very similar.

One reason for this is that the Earth cools itself mainly by emitting infrared radiation into space. Greenhouse gases reduce this cooling. CO2, a weak greenhouse gas, has only one significant absorption band for this infrared, at 15 micron. But the band is already saturated. All of the 15 micron radiation leaving the Earth’s surface is already absorbed. So adding more CO² has a small and diminishing effect.

'Standard Radiation Heat Transfer' shows that the direct effect of doubling the amount of CO² in the air from the present levels would increase the global temperature about 1°C.

But there is of course the very contentious issue of 'feedback', (response to change), and I believe that it would be negative, (countering the change), and so the actual temperature increase would be much less than 1°C.

There are probably many factors that control our climate, such as clouds, sunspots, universal radiation, the earths magnetic field, ocean currents, solar winds, winds in the upper atmosphere etc., (none of which are yet included in any of the major 'climate models')!

As for the risks, I see no risks, only political hype. I don't mind people believing that world temperatures will rise by 6c. or in the seas rising 7 metres by 2050 because Al Gore said so, so long as they understand that their belief is based on an unreliable, manipulated, politically motivated science.

As for the 'consensus of scientific opinion', well actually no-one has yet asked the scientific community, despite what we have been led to believe. Scientific theories are never proven by a show of hands, no matter how scientifically esteemed those expressing their views are. If it were otherwise, the Earth would still be considered flat and space travel impossible. It is so often those who go 'against the flow'; independent and original thinkers, who are usually responsible for our most meaningful advances in science.

The belief in GW is slowly being eroded, but it isn’t the sceptics who are to blame, it's the climate scientists themselves, who have destroyed their own credibility by hyping global warming and cheating the scientific process.

In my lifetime I have seen the climate cool, warm, cool, warm, and cool again. That's what our climate does with great regularity. As a horticulturalist I believe a little more CO2 would be very good for this world and I am not alone with that thought, and I actually look forward to the day that we actually get some Global Warming 'cos before long as sure as 'eggs are eggs', the now overdue next Ice-age will be along and then we will be after every ounce of fossil fuel we can lay our hands on.

I have no fears for my latest one year old grandaughter, bless her, and hope she has a warm and comfortable life.

As I have said before Dod, I look forward to the day when 'the truth will out' .
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Dorts -

I tried to PM you with this but your site appears to be blocked. Steve Connor, the science editor of the Independent, and physicist Freeman Dyson have had an exchange of e-mails. Dyson is one of the few top grade scientists to be a thorough-going sceptic about anthropogenic climate change. Many people thought he should have shared the Nobel prize awarded to Richard Feynman for work on quantum physics, so he can certainly not be lightly dismissed. Connor strongly supports the consensus position, and is a very level headed knowledgeable man. If you google "independent" and go to the on-line paper, scroll down to the bottom of the first page and put Freeman Dyson in the search box you should find the letters. If you can't find them, get in touch. I have kept the hard copy and will gladly send it to you. Dyson hasn't made me change my mind, but he has made me take a hard look at my own stance.

Ric

Edited to add, the letters are flagged up on the first page. They are also on Facebook.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Dorts -

I tried to PM you with this but your site appears to be blocked. Steve Connor, the science editor of the Independent, and physicist Freeman Dyson have had an exchange of e-mails. Dyson is one of the few top grade scientists to be a thorough-going sceptic about anthropogenic climate change. Many people thought he should have shared the Nobel prize awarded to Richard Feynman for work on quantum physics, so he can certainly not be lightly dismissed. Connor strongly supports the consensus position, and is a very level headed knowledgeable man. If you google "independent" and go to the on-line paper, scroll down to the bottom of the first page and put Freeman Dyson in the search box you should find the letters. If you can't find them, get in touch. I have kept the hard copy and will gladly send it to you. Dyson hasn't made me change my mind, but he has made me take a hard look at my own stance.
Ric

Hi Ric. Thanks for trying to get hold of me, (I have never got around to 'un-blocking myself).
Yeh, I saw the 'email debate' between the two of them a couple of days ago. (They've been doing the rounds on most of the climate blogs, which I follow daily.)

http://www.independent.co.uk/environ...o-2224912.html

Yes, Conner follows the 'typical warmist line' along with his paper, the Independent, of which Dyson rightly said, "I wish that The Independent would live up to its name and present a less one-sided view of the issues".

I agree, Dyson is perhaps the world’s greatest living theoretical physicist, and his views should certainly be considered.
I of course agreed with his common sense approach to this debate and all he says, and I particularly enjoyed this retort to Connor.

"You complain that people who are sceptical about the party line do not agree about other things. Why should we agree? The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing.

With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist."


I say "Here!, Here!" to that Professor Dyson.
All the best
Dorts.

[smeesue]

Originally Posted by Fauna

I' sure i read something recently that there was going to be rethink on using windfarms...saying that they are a total waste of rescources and environmentally damaging. I know I read it in relation to China and the Rare earth materials...for the life of me i can't find it agian.

It's very damaging; I think I might have read the same article, and I was hopping mad about it then, and still am now. The damage being done (not just in China) in processing and manufacturing these componants is, I think, irriversible - and absolutely irresponsible. The fact that we're then sold these items as 'environmentally friendly' and 'green' is despicable - and a lie.

Here's the google search result, the first article, from the DM, is the first one I read, and there's plenty more out there too -http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=six+mile+lake+of+toxic+sludge +in+china&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_g c.r_pw.&fp=53fd2b5286cafcf7

[smokeyjofencing]

We have had solar hot water tubes for the last three years, it was one of the best things we ever did.

Yes we had a grant, but at the time of contacting the solar company to book them to do the job, we didn't know there were grants available.

Our collectors today are at 116.4 Celsius. Even in winter we get free hot water, it's great. It saves on our energy bills big time. I also own shares in a 2turbine wind farm, it generates electricity for a small Welsh community and we also get a dividend each year. There have been no wildlife accidents and there is no noise from the 2 turbines at all.

People who go on about hating renewable energy should try living next to a nuclear waste dump!

[smokeyjofencing]

Originally Posted by smeesue

It's very damaging; I think I might have read the same article, and I was hopping mad about it then, and still am now. The damage being done (not just in China) in processing and manufacturing these componants is, I think, irriversible - and absolutely irresponsible. The fact that we're then sold these items as 'environmentally friendly' and 'green' is despicable - and a lie.

Here's the google search result, the first article, from the DM, is the first one I read, and there's plenty more out there too -http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&q=six+mile+lake+of+toxic+sludge +in+china&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_g c.r_pw.&fp=53fd2b5286cafcf7

What??? and burning coal, gas and building nuclear reactors are less damaging?

Whatever we use these things have to be built. I would rather live next to a turbine than the Japanese nuclear power plant, sorry dead, radiation leaking plant!

[Manders]

Oil is running out, bio-renewables will compete with food, nuclear fuels are very limited on a global scale, hydrogen fuel cells are a big joke. There is no single answer, only a mix of nuclear, coal, LNG and green technologies can meet the long term energy demands.

look at the price of oil over the last ten years and project forward, all energy prices are pegged to the price of oil to some extent, so in relative terms current subsidies will lessen in the future.

[Sigrunn]

Here is a decent article recently showing that all these so called costs of renewable’s are actually far less than under fossil fuels. By 2020 house hold energy bills are expected to rise by around £1,250 per annum and approx £110 of that will be from green energies. So 80% will be from nuclear and fossil fuels. Seems the dogma of “it costs far too much” isn’t completely accurate. Lets be fair here, politics has ruined this as large energy companies want nuclear as it makes far more profit.

BBC News - Low-carbon technology 'will not mean big bill rises'

The fact is renewable, over their life time, are the cheapest alternative. You can’t charge an increase on wholesale for wind or the sun light can you? They have their draw backs as when there is low wind then you get low energy output and so on.

Part of the problem in the UK is that our population is far too high. We waste more electricity than 1/5th of the globe generates. Part of the future should be cutting back on the waste of energy this country uses. As an example, how many large buildings and churches are light up like Christmas trees at night when there is no one using these buildings? Hardly an efficient way to using our resources.

I’m afraid that until we start being practical regarding energy, then it will keep on rising in cost and waste. It will continue to get worse.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Sigrunn

Here is a decent article....

You seem to be easily convinced. – Taking these attention grabbing headlines at face value is very naive. The credibility of such headlines become less valid when you actually read the whole of the document from which they purport to be representing.

The article states that "their "best estimate" was that green policies would add £110 to bills per household in 2020".


But, take these snippets – quoted verbatim from the document:-

For domestic electic bills they say:-
“Domestic standard retail electricity prices were 12.6 p/kWh in 2010”.

“We project an electricity price of 17.8 p/kWh in 2020; this is a 5.2 p/kWh (40%) increase on 2010 levels. Of the increase, 1.5 p/kWh is due to the increasing wholesale energy (i.e. gas) prices, 0.5 p/kWh is due to increasing transmission and distribution costs, and 3.0 p/kWh is due to increasing low-carbon policy costs”.

We see a "green" increase of 3.0p on a price of 12.6p i.e. an increase of 27.5%

For electrically heated households they say:-
“For customers on a standard tariff, and assuming consumption of 11,800 kWh, bills would be around £1,500 in 2010, rising to £2,100 in 2020. This increase reflects the rising cost of low-carbon measures (around £400) and rising costs of wholesale gas and transmission and distribution (around £200)”.

We see a "green" increase of £400.00 on a bill of £1500.00 – i.e. a 26.66% increase.

“For customers on a non-standard tariff….. bills would average around £1,100 in 2010 (i.e. similar to those for the typical dual-fuel household) and rise to £1,620 in 2020”.

A total rise of £520.00. Which, (the breakdown of the rise is not given, but if we assume will be arrived at by a 2/3 - 1/3 breakdown, as per the example for standard tariff above), will amount to £346.66 reflecting the rising cost of low-carbon measures, and £173.33 for rising costs of wholesale gas and transmission and distribution.

We see a "green" increase of £346.66 on a bill of £1100.00 – i.e. a 31.5% increase.

So, to summarise. The estimated effects solely attributable to green policies are:-
Domestic electricity cost up by 27.5%
Domestic electricity (standard tariff) heating cost up by 26.66%
Domestic electricity (non-standard tariff, i.e. off-peak) heating cost up by ~31.5%
All, as extrapolated directly from the Committee on Climate Change’s own figures, directly as a result of, (in their own words), “the rising cost of low-carbon measures”.

Yes, if you start muddying the waters, by saying that people can use less energy, they can install loft insulation, cavity wall insulation, double glazing, draught exclusion measures, use smart meters to monitor consumption, – all of these measures and more, being artificially included in the CCC’s conclusions, then you can quite easily argue (because there is no possible way to prove otherwise) that the increase might be £110.00 – but all of those measures are optional. 27% to 31% is the actually estimated impact on the price of the bills.
And if you happen to live in an all electric house 27 or 31% will be far more than £110.00.

On a personal note, I might just add that I would grudgingly accept those sorts of rises, if the technology being installed was the most efficient of the available low carbon alternatives.

But having quantities of grossly inefficient wind power (far in excess of what the national grid can take without affecting security of supply) inflicted upon us, and then having to pay again to finance the fossil fuelled back-up plant that will be needed to cover that inefficiency, is indeed a bitter pill to swallow.

Regards,
Mike.