Global Warming Actually Still Accelerating - no "lull"

[flacaltenn]

I largely agree about wind. I think its of limited use - except in countries with exceptional wind resources, such as Denmark.

Todd -

I knew you wouldn't be able to admit it. You're not that kind of poster.

Not EVEN in Denmark.. NOT EVEN OFF-shore.. Middlegrunden is an Off-shore danish wind park.. You can follow each turbine daily at --- http://www.middelgrund.com/

What are their 2MWatt turbines producing right now??? \

T11 4.4 956 139.7
T12 4.5 916 134.0
T13 4.7 1,176 191.4
T14 4.4 1,460 156.5
T15 4.6 748 143.6
T16 4.7 1,256 161.5
T17 5.0 2,752 179.0
T18 4.9 988 154.3
T19 5.0 3,468 200.4
T20 4.3 4 61.3

Last number is the POWER output in KWatts.. T18 is producing 0.154Mwatt for a 2.000Mwatt investment..

THIS is how Danish off-shore wind produces energy..

Less than 8%?
Does than mean it's still cheaper than coal?

Wind junkies have a lot of problems with basic math and science.

You just have to buy about 20 times the power you need and ...... whoops.. That don't fly either does it?

 

[PMZ]

There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.

If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.

But, nobody does. So mankind solves problems. We consider risk/benefit, we look at alternatives and we act. With much more success than failure. We learn from our mistakes. While they shudder, paralyzed by negativity.

The way things have always been.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.

If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.

But, nobody does. So mankind solves problems. We consider risk/benefit, we look at alternatives and we act. With much more success than failure. We learn from our mistakes. While they shudder, paralyzed by negativity.

The way things have always been.

We consider risk/benefit,

If only you did.

 

[PMZ]

Has anyone else noticed progress here? The deniers have given up denying AGW and are now denying sustainable energy.

Denying AGW requires the denial of science while sustainable energy denial denies engineering, venture capitalism, and mankind's demonstrated ability to progress.

Bottom line? I can't imagine how conservatives benefit mankind. They are a 100 percent liability. Easiest path for them but worse than useless for us.

Just for the record --- THIS POST got you put back in ignore..

You're the dude who has 105 pages of bragging about how you know all this and the solutions are obvious if only Rush would overdose and FlaCalTenn had a stroke..

But all you got is more preaching? Don't feel you need to CRUSH ME with facts on renewables and the dozens of GREAT IDEAS on that HUGE list of alternatives you're packing???

Get off my screen....

You make it sound like being ignored by you is a bad thing. I can't imagine why it would be.

 

[PMZ]

There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.

If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.

But, nobody does. So mankind solves problems. We consider risk/benefit, we look at alternatives and we act. With much more success than failure. We learn from our mistakes. While they shudder, paralyzed by negativity.

The way things have always been.

We consider risk/benefit,

If only you did.

Actually what I do is of no consequence. What scientists in general do, engineers, venture capitalists, energy businesses, government regulators, they're the ones running with the ball. Nobody is paying any attention to Rush's army of ignorance, heads firmly entrenched in the ground, imaginations set on stunned, all with a propensity for inaction.

You have no solutions to offer so you are irrelevent to our future.

Progress will empower the future, not worry. Knowledge will lead us there, not ignorance. Investment will guide us, not certainty. But, don't worry. We won't leave you behind.

 

[Saigon]

We consider risk/benefit,

If only you did.

If you are considering costs, how is it that you did not know how expensive coal is?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We consider risk/benefit,

If only you did.

If you are considering costs, how is it that you did not know how expensive coal is?

I knew it was cheaper than wind.
Why didn't you?

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

As I said at the time - I would never have thought you would have the integrity to admit that you were wrong.

Is it any wonder you find it so difficult to understand this topic?

I think not.

 

[westwall]

I posted it yesterday. Are you blind? An orphan hole is an abandoned well. Also, some call abandoned strip mines orphan holes. But abandoned wells are primarily what you are referring to. And by the way, since you obviously missed out on that conversation, the EPA and the states have spent millions of dollars plugging them (when it should have been the responsibility of those who drilled them in the first place). Now, do you have any comment on my post, above? Or are you just glad to see me?

Ahhh, yes finally you got it on the second try. Orphan Holes have always been the appellation given to abandoned strip mines. Those have been a blight on the planet for well over a century and there is no one around to fix them. This is one place where government can do a good job.

Either answer is correct. But why are you whining about strip mines and simultaneously whining about alternative energy? And why are you insisting that the government provide corporate welfare to irresponsible mine operators when the law is very clear with regard to who is responsible for reclaiming those lands?

Because the irresponsible mine owners responsible for the orphan holes are long dead. Most have been dead for 50 years or more. There is no record of ownership for the vast majority of them. That's why it is proper for the government to clean them up. They were paid royalties and taxes by the original mine owners after all.

It sucks, but it IS reality. And, more to the point...we would actually be GETTING SOMETHING for our collective money. Unlike the AGW fraudsters who have been pocketing billions of taxpayer dollars and so far the taxpayer has received exactly what for their investment?

Oh yeah, higher energy rates, higher taxes and nothing else. Sounds great....

 

[westwall]

THere's a proposed project off Scotland(?) where the plan is to section off a 4mile squared section of sensitive marine bay. ACTUALLY FUNKING Wall it off like a dam with a sluice gap. And THAT is considered a cutting edge efficient Tidal Design. That's worse than mountain top mining for carp sake..

I think you need to check your sources.

Read the quote in my footer AGAIN.. Why is it that you don't believe what people tell you?

Is it because you lie a lot --- or are woefully misinformed on the topics you choose to champion??

THey are gonna DAM OFF a large portion of coastal habitat.. THAT'S what a reliable Tidal power project looks like..

IT'S a fu-king ENVIRONMENTAL SCAR on the landscape..

Just like mountain-top mining... Only MORE species die....

He's an automated, uniformed, ignorant, drone. What do you expect, a reasonable informed conversation? From one of them?

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

Have you EVER got ANYTHING right on this board?!

I have never come across any poster on any forum so desperate to score points - and so prepared to sacrafice facts to do so. Really...you just post any drivel at all, won't you?

A Maori curse does not mean the project has stopped. As someone who claimed to have lived in NZ might be expected to know, negotiations with tangata whenua always take place when a makutu is in place. The curse has no legal standing. The project is continuing as of May 2013.

You might also want to learn the difference between the Kaipara Harbour and the Cook Strait. They are two entirely unrelated projects, a thousand miles apart.

The Maori are CORRECT to curse this project.. ANYONE in touch with the environment would.. You Eco-Frauds are making excuses like blood-thirsty savages for the carnage that you are willing accept to see your flaccid wet dreams get built.

The problem isn't just killing a few snapper.. Plenty of snapper in New Zealand. The problem is HABITAT DESTRUCTION. Because those stations have the potential to completely WIPE OUT local populations of certain fish and crustaceans.. And KEEP them wiped out.. You should be ashamed -- but you're too arrogant.. As evidenced in your 1st sentence reply to WestWall..

Take responsibility for your mistakes occasionally.. Builds character..

Can't, it's a drone...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

As I said at the time - I would never have thought you would have the integrity to admit that you were wrong.

Is it any wonder you find it so difficult to understand this topic?

I think not.

Your unreliable wind power is cheaper than coal?

It shouldn't require subsidy, if that were the case.

Keep trying.

 

[westwall]

There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.

If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.

But, nobody does. So mankind solves problems. We consider risk/benefit, we look at alternatives and we act. With much more success than failure. We learn from our mistakes. While they shudder, paralyzed by negativity.

The way things have always been.

The problem is you idiots cause more damage than the things you wish to replace. MTBE, as mandated by you fools, has caused more environmental damage in 15 years than the oil companies have managed to do in 100 years.

It is those sorts of environmental catastrophes that we are trying to prevent. You're just to stupid to realize it....

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Wind IS cheaper than coal. Period.

Nothing to do with subsidies.

Why not go and check, as you are more likely to believe what you find yourself.

I'm not a big supporter or wind myself, but I'd still prefer to stick to facts when evaluating it.

 

[orogenicman]

There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.

If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.

But, nobody does. So mankind solves problems. We consider risk/benefit, we look at alternatives and we act. With much more success than failure. We learn from our mistakes. While they shudder, paralyzed by negativity.

The way things have always been.

The problem is you idiots cause more damage than the things you wish to replace. MTBE, as mandated by you fools, has caused more environmental damage in 15 years than the oil companies have managed to do in 100 years.

It is those sorts of environmental catastrophes that we are trying to prevent. You're just to stupid to realize it....

The truth of the matter is that MTBE was a compromise with the petroleum industry. It was the least expensive way to increase the oxidation of pollutants in the exhaust of automobiles. The petroleum industry heavily promoted it for this purpose because for them it was a waste product of the refinery process. Getting the government to adopt THEIR plan was a big financial win for them. It wasn't until it got into the ground water from THEIR leaking underground storage tanks that the real problem with MTBE became apparent. It doesn't easily break down once it is released into the environment because there are no microbes that can readily digest it. And so California banned it, and many other states have since followed. It was a case of good intentions (on the part of the government) having a bad result. Believe me, they've learned from that mistake.

 

[westwall]

There is nothing that riles conservatives as much as action does. All they think of is failure. They're consumed with risk.

If anyone paid any attention to them progress would grind to a halt.

But, nobody does. So mankind solves problems. We consider risk/benefit, we look at alternatives and we act. With much more success than failure. We learn from our mistakes. While they shudder, paralyzed by negativity.

The way things have always been.

The problem is you idiots cause more damage than the things you wish to replace. MTBE, as mandated by you fools, has caused more environmental damage in 15 years than the oil companies have managed to do in 100 years.

It is those sorts of environmental catastrophes that we are trying to prevent. You're just to stupid to realize it....

The truth of the matter is that MTBE was a compromise with the petroleum industry. It was the least expensive way to increase the oxidation of pollutants in the exhaust of automobiles. The petroleum industry heavily promoted it for this purpose because for them it was a waste product of the refinery process. Getting the government to adopt THEIR plan was a big financial win for them. It wasn't until it got into the ground water from THEIR leaking underground storage tanks that the real problem with MTBE became apparent. It doesn't easily break down once it is released into the environment because there are no microbes that can readily digest it. And so California banned it, and many other states have since followed. It was a case of good intentions (on the part of the government) having a bad result. Believe me, they've learned from that mistake.

Of COURSE they did. It was a pain in the ass, and expensive for them to remove so they convinced the libtard enviro idiots that it was the bee's knee's and the libtards obliged.

We warned them about the caustic nature of MTBE and how it was potential carcinogen and they ignored us.

Who was right? We conservationists. Who was wrong.....YOU were....

 

[orogenicman]

The problem is you idiots cause more damage than the things you wish to replace. MTBE, as mandated by you fools, has caused more environmental damage in 15 years than the oil companies have managed to do in 100 years.

It is those sorts of environmental catastrophes that we are trying to prevent. You're just to stupid to realize it....

The truth of the matter is that MTBE was a compromise with the petroleum industry. It was the least expensive way to increase the oxidation of pollutants in the exhaust of automobiles. The petroleum industry heavily promoted it for this purpose because for them it was a waste product of the refinery process. Getting the government to adopt THEIR plan was a big financial win for them. It wasn't until it got into the ground water from THEIR leaking underground storage tanks that the real problem with MTBE became apparent. It doesn't easily break down once it is released into the environment because there are no microbes that can readily digest it. And so California banned it, and many other states have since followed. It was a case of good intentions (on the part of the government) having a bad result. Believe me, they've learned from that mistake.

Of COURSE they did. It was a pain in the ass, and expensive for them to remove so they convinced the libtard enviro idiots that it was the bee's knee's and the libtards obliged.

We warned them about the caustic nature of MTBE and how it was potential carcinogen and they ignored us.

Who was right? We conservationists. Who was wrong.....YOU were....

Who is "we? No one had given it a second thought until California tried to clean up MTBE from leaking tanks, and then banned it for use in gasoline in California. You Republicans cannot claim that. You had nothing to do with it. In fact, it was your bosses in the petroleum industry that wanted to add it to gasoline in the first place.

Oh, and speaking of carcinogens, it's odd that you would mention MTBE as a carcinogen (particularly as it is not a known human carcinogen - MTBE) and yet have nothing at all to say about benzene (one of the most carcinogenic substances known to man) having replaced methyl lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline since at least the late 1980s and is still in there.

 

[Abraham3]

The truth of the matter is that MTBE was a compromise with the petroleum industry. It was the least expensive way to increase the oxidation of pollutants in the exhaust of automobiles. The petroleum industry heavily promoted it for this purpose because for them it was a waste product of the refinery process. Getting the government to adopt THEIR plan was a big financial win for them. It wasn't until it got into the ground water from THEIR leaking underground storage tanks that the real problem with MTBE became apparent. It doesn't easily break down once it is released into the environment because there are no microbes that can readily digest it. And so California banned it, and many other states have since followed. It was a case of good intentions (on the part of the government) having a bad result. Believe me, they've learned from that mistake.

Of COURSE they did. It was a pain in the ass, and expensive for them to remove so they convinced the libtard enviro idiots that it was the bee's knee's and the libtards obliged.

We warned them about the caustic nature of MTBE and how it was potential carcinogen and they ignored us.

Who was right? We conservationists. Who was wrong.....YOU were....

Who is "we? No one had given it a second thought until California tried to clean up MTBE from leaking tanks, and then banned it for use in gasoline in California. You Republicans cannot claim that. You had nothing to do with it. In fact, it was your bosses in the petroleum industry that wanted to add it to gasoline in the first place.

Oh, and speaking of carcinogens, it's odd that you would mention MTBE as a carcinogen (particularly as it is not a known human carcinogen - MTBE) and yet have nothing at all to say about benzene (one of the most carcinogenic substances known to man) having replaced methyl lead as an anti-knock agent in gasoline since at least the late 1980s and is still in there.

According to the IARC of the WHO, MTBE is not carcinogenic.

Additionally, from the Wikipedia article on MTBE: Advocates of both sides of the debate in the United States sometimes claim that gasoline manufacturers have been forced to add MTBE to gasoline by law. It might be more correct to say they have been induced to do so, although any oxygenate would fulfill the law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Wind IS cheaper than coal. Period.

Nothing to do with subsidies.

Why not go and check, as you are more likely to believe what you find yourself.

I'm not a big supporter or wind myself, but I'd still prefer to stick to facts when evaluating it.

Wind IS cheaper than coal. Period.

How can you say that when the examples in post #832 hardly reached 10% of their capacity, period.

You should try running your computer on one, we'd miss your posts, that's for sure.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

I can say that because I have prices here from FIVE different energy markets which all say that wind is cheaper than clean coal.

Do you want to see them?