Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I hate to tell you this, but the primary reason for nuclear not getting the go ahead is that the utilities don't want to invest that kind of money in very expensive power.
So you want massive gubmint subsidies for money-losing nuclear power, just to be PC?
We reason-based people reject your cult voodoo socialist economics.
The lower 48 states just had the warmest winter (Dec-Jan-Feb) on record.
State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
Back in the real world, the real balloon/radiosonde data shows the same rate of warming at the surface data. Note that the satellite data on this plot is from before the RSS 4.0 corrections, and now the satellite data matches the surface and balloon data.
So how did Skook's source lie? By cherrypicking very old data with known colossal calibration problems.
Back in the real world, the real balloon/radiosonde data shows the same rate of warming at the surface data. Note that the satellite data on this plot is from before the RSS 4.0 corrections, and now the satellite data matches the surface and balloon data.
So how did Skook's source lie? By cherrypicking very old data with known colossal calibration problems.
Why do your graphs deviate from the original data? You selling altered and "more accurate" bull shit now? Now NOAA is altering the balloon data sets to match their lies... you guys never cease to amaze me.. No lie or fraud is to great to use to promote your liberal agenda of populace and people control..
That is extremely retarded, Toad-the-Parrot. You obviously have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. And you are so obviously too stupid to understand the information you are quoting.Having trouble reading Todd?
"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"
Having trouble reading, Crick?
or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle
This "amortization" figure is not discussing the break even point in DOLLARS.
I don't care if the energy needed to build and run the stupid windmill is generated by the stupid windmill in 5.5 months.
I care that it takes 40 years for the windmill to pay for itself, but it only lasts 25 years.
That is extremely retarded, Toad-the-Parrot. You obviously have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. And you are so obviously too stupid to understand the information you are quoting.Having trouble reading Todd?
"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"
Having trouble reading, Crick?
or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle
This "amortization" figure is not discussing the break even point in DOLLARS.
I don't care if the energy needed to build and run the stupid windmill is generated by the stupid windmill in 5.5 months.
I care that it takes 40 years for the windmill to pay for itself, but it only lasts 25 years.
"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"
It only takes a few months for an operational wind turbine to produce enough energy to pay for itself completely - for its construction materials, the labor costs, the energy consumed in producing it, and for its eventual decommissioning and disposal - ....not your fraudulent braindead denier cult myth of "40 years for the windmill to pay for itself".
That is extremely retarded, Toad-the-Parrot. You obviously have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. And you are so obviously too stupid to understand the information you are quoting.Having trouble reading Todd?
"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"
Having trouble reading, Crick?
or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle
This "amortization" figure is not discussing the break even point in DOLLARS.
I don't care if the energy needed to build and run the stupid windmill is generated by the stupid windmill in 5.5 months.
I care that it takes 40 years for the windmill to pay for itself, but it only lasts 25 years.
"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"
It only takes a few months for an operational wind turbine to produce enough energy to pay for itself completely - for its construction materials, the labor costs, the energy consumed in producing it, and for its eventual decommissioning and disposal - ....not your fraudulent braindead denier cult myth of "40 years for the windmill to pay for itself".
You lying little dumb fuck. The systems you are linking to are not utility systems, they are very small, and very expensive systems.That is extremely retarded, Toad-the-Parrot. You obviously have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about. And you are so obviously too stupid to understand the information you are quoting.Having trouble reading Todd?
"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"
Having trouble reading, Crick?
or in other words how long it takes a wind farm to produce the volume of energy that it consumes over its entire lifecycle
This "amortization" figure is not discussing the break even point in DOLLARS.
I don't care if the energy needed to build and run the stupid windmill is generated by the stupid windmill in 5.5 months.
I care that it takes 40 years for the windmill to pay for itself, but it only lasts 25 years.
"This figure also takes materials, production, construction, operation, maintenance, dismantling and recycling into account"
It only takes a few months for an operational wind turbine to produce enough energy to pay for itself completely - for its construction materials, the labor costs, the energy consumed in producing it, and for its eventual decommissioning and disposal - ....not your fraudulent braindead denier cult myth of "40 years for the windmill to pay for itself".
Liar. 20 years to pay back a commercial wind generator.
Payback Period - Iowa Energy Center
How Wind Power Works
Implementing a small wind turbine system for your own needs is one way to guarantee that the energy you use is clean and renewable. A residential or business turbine setup can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $80,000. A large-scale setup costs a whole lot more. A single, 1.8-MW turbine can run up to $1.5 million installed, and that's not including the land, transmission lines and other infrastructure costs associated with a wind-power system. Overall, wind farms cost in the area of $1,000 per kW of capacity, so a wind farm consisting of seven 1.8-MW turbines runs about $12.6 million. The "payback time" for a large wind turbine -- the time it takes to generate enough electricity to make up for the energy consumed building and installing the turbine -- is about three to eight months, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
That pretty well shuts down the bloviating idiots.
How Wind Power Works
Implementing a small wind turbine system for your own needs is one way to guarantee that the energy you use is clean and renewable. A residential or business turbine setup can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $80,000. A large-scale setup costs a whole lot more. A single, 1.8-MW turbine can run up to $1.5 million installed, and that's not including the land, transmission lines and other infrastructure costs associated with a wind-power system. Overall, wind farms cost in the area of $1,000 per kW of capacity, so a wind farm consisting of seven 1.8-MW turbines runs about $12.6 million. The "payback time" for a large wind turbine -- the time it takes to generate enough electricity to make up for the energy consumed building and installing the turbine -- is about three to eight months, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
That pretty well shuts down the bloviating idiots.
I love how they quantify payback in terms of energy rather than dollarsHow Wind Power Works
Implementing a small wind turbine system for your own needs is one way to guarantee that the energy you use is clean and renewable. A residential or business turbine setup can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $80,000. A large-scale setup costs a whole lot more. A single, 1.8-MW turbine can run up to $1.5 million installed, and that's not including the land, transmission lines and other infrastructure costs associated with a wind-power system. Overall, wind farms cost in the area of $1,000 per kW of capacity, so a wind farm consisting of seven 1.8-MW turbines runs about $12.6 million. The "payback time" for a large wind turbine -- the time it takes to generate enough electricity to make up for the energy consumed building and installing the turbine -- is about three to eight months, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
That pretty well shuts down the bloviating idiots.
The "payback time" for a large wind turbine -- the time it takes to generate enough electricity to make up for the energy consumed building and installing the turbine -- is about three to eight months, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
Energy in, energy out..........
Overall, wind farms cost in the area of $1,000 per kW of capacity, so a wind farm consisting of seven 1.8-MW turbines runs about $12.6 million.
How long does it take to generate enough electricity to pay back the $12.6 million?
why aren't they free?How Wind Power Works
Implementing a small wind turbine system for your own needs is one way to guarantee that the energy you use is clean and renewable. A residential or business turbine setup can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $80,000. A large-scale setup costs a whole lot more. A single, 1.8-MW turbine can run up to $1.5 million installed, and that's not including the land, transmission lines and other infrastructure costs associated with a wind-power system. Overall, wind farms cost in the area of $1,000 per kW of capacity, so a wind farm consisting of seven 1.8-MW turbines runs about $12.6 million. The "payback time" for a large wind turbine -- the time it takes to generate enough electricity to make up for the energy consumed building and installing the turbine -- is about three to eight months, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
That pretty well shuts down the bloviating idiots.
The OP of this thread concerns a very important and significant event....for many reasons. The denier cult/fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers don't like it when the significance of these kinds of milestones are widely disseminated and discussed.
A couple of denier cult trolls, Toad-the-Parrot and Empty Skull, have spent most of their time on this thread trying desperately to derail it....starting in about post #24 with a diversion to wind power....and I am embarrassed to admit, I kind of got sucked into their off-topic drivel.
So...back on topic....(and I will no longer respond on this thread to anything off-topic....start your own thread, denier cult retards, for your own deranged topics that have nothing to do with reaching this +2 degrees C. point for the first time).
The mercury doesn’t lie: We’ve hit a troubling climate change milestone
The Boston Globe
Bill McKibben
March 05, 2016
Thursday, while the nation debated the relative size of Republican genitalia, something truly awful happened. Across the northern hemisphere, the temperature, if only for a few hours, apparently crossed a line: it was more than two degrees Celsius above “normal” for the first time in recorded history and likely for the first time in the course of human civilization.
That’s important because the governments of the world have set two degrees Celsius as the must-not-cross red line that, theoretically, we’re doing all we can to avoid. And it’s important because most of the hemisphere has not really had a winter. They’ve been trucking snow into Anchorage for the start of the Iditarod; Arctic sea ice is at record low levels for the date; in New England doctors are already talking about the start of “allergy season.”
This bizarre glimpse of the future is only temporary. It will be years, one hopes, before we’re past the two degrees mark on a regular basis. But the future is clearly coming much faster than science had expected. February, taken as a whole, crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … January. January crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … December.
In part this reflects the ongoing El Nino phenomenon — these sporadic events always push up the planet’s temperature. But since that El Nino heat is layered on top of the ever-increasing global warming, the spikes keep getting higher. This time around the overturning waters of the Pacific are releasing huge quantities of heat stored there during the last couple of decades of global warming.
And as that heat pours out into the atmosphere, the consequences are overwhelming. In the South Pacific, for instance, the highest wind speeds ever measured came last month when Tropical Cyclone Winston crashed into Fiji. Entire villages were flattened. In financial terms, the storm wiped out ten percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, roughly equivalent to fifteen simultaneous Hurricane Katrina’s.
This was followed by a few months of the highest wind speeds ever recorded in our hemisphere, when Patricia crashed into the Pacific coast of Mexico. And it joins all the other lines of misery: the zika virus spreading on the wings of mosquitoes up and down the Americas; the refugees streaming out of Syria where, as studies now make clear, the deepest drought ever measured helped throw the nation into chaos.
The messages are clear. First, global warming is not a future threat — it’s the present reality, a menace not to our grandchildren but to our present civilizations. In a rational world, this is what every presidential debate would focus on. Forget the mythical flood of immigrants — concentrate on the actual flooding.
Second, since we’re in a hole it’s time to stop digging — literally. We’ve simply got to keep coal and oil and gas in the ground; there’s not any other way to make the math of climate change even begin to work. There is legislation pending in the House and Senate that would end new fossil fuel extraction on America’s public lands. Senator Sanders has backed the law unequivocally; Secretary Clinton seemed to endorse it, and then last week seemed to waffle. Donald Trump has concentrated on the length of his fingers.
No one’s waiting for presidential candidates to actually lead, of course. In May campaigners around the world will converge on the world’s biggest carbon deposits: the coal mines of Australia, the tarsands of Canada, the gasfields of Russia. And they will engage in peaceful civil disobedience, an effort to simply say: no. The only safe place for this carbon is deep beneath the soil, where it’s been for eons.
This is, in one sense, stupid. It’s ridiculous that at this late date, as the temperature climbs so perilously, we still have to take such steps. Why do Bostonians have to be arrested to stop the Spectra pipeline? Anyone with a thermometer can see that we desperately need to be building solar and windpower instead.
In a much deeper sense, however, the resistance is valiant, even beautiful. Think of those protesters as the planet’s antibodies, its immune system finally kicking in. Our one earth is running a fever the likes of which no human has ever seen. The time to fight it is right now.
I love how they quantify payback in terms of energy rather than dollarsHow Wind Power Works
Implementing a small wind turbine system for your own needs is one way to guarantee that the energy you use is clean and renewable. A residential or business turbine setup can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $80,000. A large-scale setup costs a whole lot more. A single, 1.8-MW turbine can run up to $1.5 million installed, and that's not including the land, transmission lines and other infrastructure costs associated with a wind-power system. Overall, wind farms cost in the area of $1,000 per kW of capacity, so a wind farm consisting of seven 1.8-MW turbines runs about $12.6 million. The "payback time" for a large wind turbine -- the time it takes to generate enough electricity to make up for the energy consumed building and installing the turbine -- is about three to eight months, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
That pretty well shuts down the bloviating idiots.
The "payback time" for a large wind turbine -- the time it takes to generate enough electricity to make up for the energy consumed building and installing the turbine -- is about three to eight months, according to the American Wind Energy Association.
Energy in, energy out..........
Overall, wind farms cost in the area of $1,000 per kW of capacity, so a wind farm consisting of seven 1.8-MW turbines runs about $12.6 million.
How long does it take to generate enough electricity to pay back the $12.6 million?
It's just one more way to obfuscate the facts
The OP of this thread concerns a very important and significant event....for many reasons. The denier cult/fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers don't like it when the significance of these kinds of milestones are widely disseminated and discussed.
A couple of denier cult trolls, Toad-the-Parrot and Empty Skull, have spent most of their time on this thread trying desperately to derail it....starting in about post #24 with a diversion to wind power....and I am embarrassed to admit, I kind of got sucked into their off-topic drivel.
So...back on topic....(and I will no longer respond on this thread to anything off-topic....start your own thread, denier cult retards, for your own deranged topics that have nothing to do with reaching this +2 degrees C. point for the first time).
The mercury doesn’t lie: We’ve hit a troubling climate change milestone
The Boston Globe
Bill McKibben
March 05, 2016
Thursday, while the nation debated the relative size of Republican genitalia, something truly awful happened. Across the northern hemisphere, the temperature, if only for a few hours, apparently crossed a line: it was more than two degrees Celsius above “normal” for the first time in recorded history and likely for the first time in the course of human civilization.
That’s important because the governments of the world have set two degrees Celsius as the must-not-cross red line that, theoretically, we’re doing all we can to avoid. And it’s important because most of the hemisphere has not really had a winter. They’ve been trucking snow into Anchorage for the start of the Iditarod; Arctic sea ice is at record low levels for the date; in New England doctors are already talking about the start of “allergy season.”
This bizarre glimpse of the future is only temporary. It will be years, one hopes, before we’re past the two degrees mark on a regular basis. But the future is clearly coming much faster than science had expected. February, taken as a whole, crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … January. January crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … December.
In part this reflects the ongoing El Nino phenomenon — these sporadic events always push up the planet’s temperature. But since that El Nino heat is layered on top of the ever-increasing global warming, the spikes keep getting higher. This time around the overturning waters of the Pacific are releasing huge quantities of heat stored there during the last couple of decades of global warming.
And as that heat pours out into the atmosphere, the consequences are overwhelming. In the South Pacific, for instance, the highest wind speeds ever measured came last month when Tropical Cyclone Winston crashed into Fiji. Entire villages were flattened. In financial terms, the storm wiped out ten percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, roughly equivalent to fifteen simultaneous Hurricane Katrina’s.
This was followed by a few months of the highest wind speeds ever recorded in our hemisphere, when Patricia crashed into the Pacific coast of Mexico. And it joins all the other lines of misery: the zika virus spreading on the wings of mosquitoes up and down the Americas; the refugees streaming out of Syria where, as studies now make clear, the deepest drought ever measured helped throw the nation into chaos.
The messages are clear. First, global warming is not a future threat — it’s the present reality, a menace not to our grandchildren but to our present civilizations. In a rational world, this is what every presidential debate would focus on. Forget the mythical flood of immigrants — concentrate on the actual flooding.
Second, since we’re in a hole it’s time to stop digging — literally. We’ve simply got to keep coal and oil and gas in the ground; there’s not any other way to make the math of climate change even begin to work. There is legislation pending in the House and Senate that would end new fossil fuel extraction on America’s public lands. Senator Sanders has backed the law unequivocally; Secretary Clinton seemed to endorse it, and then last week seemed to waffle. Donald Trump has concentrated on the length of his fingers.
No one’s waiting for presidential candidates to actually lead, of course. In May campaigners around the world will converge on the world’s biggest carbon deposits: the coal mines of Australia, the tarsands of Canada, the gasfields of Russia. And they will engage in peaceful civil disobedience, an effort to simply say: no. The only safe place for this carbon is deep beneath the soil, where it’s been for eons.
This is, in one sense, stupid. It’s ridiculous that at this late date, as the temperature climbs so perilously, we still have to take such steps. Why do Bostonians have to be arrested to stop the Spectra pipeline? Anyone with a thermometer can see that we desperately need to be building solar and windpower instead.
In a much deeper sense, however, the resistance is valiant, even beautiful. Think of those protesters as the planet’s antibodies, its immune system finally kicking in. Our one earth is running a fever the likes of which no human has ever seen. The time to fight it is right now.
....(and I will no longer respond on this thread to anything off-topic....
Yeah, your stupidity was amusing.
The OP of this thread concerns a very important and significant event....for many reasons. The denier cult/fossil fuel industry propaganda pushers don't like it when the significance of these kinds of milestones are widely disseminated and discussed.
A couple of denier cult trolls, Toad-the-Parrot and Empty Skull, have spent most of their time on this thread trying desperately to derail it....starting in about post #24 with a diversion to wind power....and I am embarrassed to admit, I kind of got sucked into their off-topic drivel.
So...back on topic....(and I will no longer respond on this thread to anything off-topic....start your own thread, denier cult retards, for your own deranged topics that have nothing to do with reaching this +2 degrees C. point for the first time).
The mercury doesn’t lie: We’ve hit a troubling climate change milestone
The Boston Globe
Bill McKibben
March 05, 2016
Thursday, while the nation debated the relative size of Republican genitalia, something truly awful happened. Across the northern hemisphere, the temperature, if only for a few hours, apparently crossed a line: it was more than two degrees Celsius above “normal” for the first time in recorded history and likely for the first time in the course of human civilization.
That’s important because the governments of the world have set two degrees Celsius as the must-not-cross red line that, theoretically, we’re doing all we can to avoid. And it’s important because most of the hemisphere has not really had a winter. They’ve been trucking snow into Anchorage for the start of the Iditarod; Arctic sea ice is at record low levels for the date; in New England doctors are already talking about the start of “allergy season.”
This bizarre glimpse of the future is only temporary. It will be years, one hopes, before we’re past the two degrees mark on a regular basis. But the future is clearly coming much faster than science had expected. February, taken as a whole, crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … January. January crushed all the old monthly temperature records, which had been set in … December.
In part this reflects the ongoing El Nino phenomenon — these sporadic events always push up the planet’s temperature. But since that El Nino heat is layered on top of the ever-increasing global warming, the spikes keep getting higher. This time around the overturning waters of the Pacific are releasing huge quantities of heat stored there during the last couple of decades of global warming.
And as that heat pours out into the atmosphere, the consequences are overwhelming. In the South Pacific, for instance, the highest wind speeds ever measured came last month when Tropical Cyclone Winston crashed into Fiji. Entire villages were flattened. In financial terms, the storm wiped out ten percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, roughly equivalent to fifteen simultaneous Hurricane Katrina’s.
This was followed by a few months of the highest wind speeds ever recorded in our hemisphere, when Patricia crashed into the Pacific coast of Mexico. And it joins all the other lines of misery: the zika virus spreading on the wings of mosquitoes up and down the Americas; the refugees streaming out of Syria where, as studies now make clear, the deepest drought ever measured helped throw the nation into chaos.
The messages are clear. First, global warming is not a future threat — it’s the present reality, a menace not to our grandchildren but to our present civilizations. In a rational world, this is what every presidential debate would focus on. Forget the mythical flood of immigrants — concentrate on the actual flooding.
Second, since we’re in a hole it’s time to stop digging — literally. We’ve simply got to keep coal and oil and gas in the ground; there’s not any other way to make the math of climate change even begin to work. There is legislation pending in the House and Senate that would end new fossil fuel extraction on America’s public lands. Senator Sanders has backed the law unequivocally; Secretary Clinton seemed to endorse it, and then last week seemed to waffle. Donald Trump has concentrated on the length of his fingers.
No one’s waiting for presidential candidates to actually lead, of course. In May campaigners around the world will converge on the world’s biggest carbon deposits: the coal mines of Australia, the tarsands of Canada, the gasfields of Russia. And they will engage in peaceful civil disobedience, an effort to simply say: no. The only safe place for this carbon is deep beneath the soil, where it’s been for eons.
This is, in one sense, stupid. It’s ridiculous that at this late date, as the temperature climbs so perilously, we still have to take such steps. Why do Bostonians have to be arrested to stop the Spectra pipeline? Anyone with a thermometer can see that we desperately need to be building solar and windpower instead.
In a much deeper sense, however, the resistance is valiant, even beautiful. Think of those protesters as the planet’s antibodies, its immune system finally kicking in. Our one earth is running a fever the likes of which no human has ever seen. The time to fight it is right now.
....(and I will no longer respond on this thread to anything off-topic....
Yeah, your stupidity was amusing.
Your trollish determination to derail the thread with your idiotic off-topic quibbles about renewable energy sources was disgusting.....and very moronic.
Try dealing with the facts presented in post #153 for a change, Toad-the-Parrot.....or are you afraid to face reality?
