how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

you are both right and wrong with your simplistic view that CO2 runs the climate.

I'm not sure who you mean here, but I am sure no one believes that CO2 "runs" theclimate - THAT is simplistic.

But most scientists believe is that AGW plays a role in altering the climate. That does not mean that the sun or orbital path of the earth do not also alter the climate.

You can find scientists on both sides of the argument. Which side is telling the truth?

Research Maurice Strong to find the father of global warming. No he wants your land and food.

It's about controlling people and making money. PERIOD

And that is my biggest fear. The numbnuts who cut and paste scientific sounding words from websites--they almost NEVER link them you understand--and it is obvious from their subsequent comments that they have zero understanding of anything they posted--nevertheless feed the fires of those who desperately want AGW to be a fact. I even see the comments of oil companies getting on board. They have too much integrity to really buy into the AGW religion, but they will mention something about what they are doing to lessen CO2 and other green house emissions.

I recently asked a high ranking oil company person about that on their website and are they really buying into the whole CO2 acceleration meme. His reply was "Oh hell no. And what we're doing isn't going to help much if at all. But the government is paying us lots of millions of dollars for green energy technology and if we don't do it, our competitors will."

So from T Boone Pickens to GE to hundreds of other groups and corporations over the country, billions and billions of dollars are up for grabs. If the government is going to shovel out the money anyway, who would say they don't deserve a piece of that pie, most especially when they have paid in massive taxes with little or nothing returned from those?

Pickens by the way got out of he wind energy business when government subsidies became harder to come by and he was losing his shirt. He said it just isn't economically feasiable at this time, will never be as efficient as oil and gas, and produces nowhere near the paying jobs that oil and gas produce. He is now wheeling and dealing with Congress in hopes of snagging $28 billion in subsidies to develop more and better uses of natural gas. But he doesn't think much of Obama's energy policy. Says there isn't one actually.

Pickens is just the tip of the iceberg on all this. You are absolutely right. The evidence is coming out all the time that it has never been about saving our climate. It has always been about money, power, and control.
 
I recently asked a high ranking oil company person about that on their website and are they really buying into the whole CO2 acceleration meme. *His reply was "Oh hell no. *And what we're doing isn't going to help much if at all. *But the government is paying us lots of millions of dollars for green energy technology and if we don't do it, our competitors will."

So you have personal experience that the oil companies lie....

And you believe the one he says is a lie is the truth..

Doesn't this sound a lot like the Jodi Arias trial? *

"Are you lying now, or were you lying before? *Which are we suppose to believe?"

So basically, your admitting that you lie all the time and have no problem with it because you "know" you have a good reason...

Holly crap. *Talk about hypocracy. *No wonder you are so convinced that everyone is lying. *Like a drug addict thinks every one does drugs...
 
Do you ever read what you write Itfitzme? Does that worry you? It should.

P.S. Please point to the exact phrase in my post that indicates that the oil companies lie. Your taking a phrase out of my post that changes the meaning is dishonest and possibly illegal. Just so you know.
 
Do you ever read what you write Itfitzme? Does that worry you? It should.

P.S. Please point to the exact phrase in my post that indicates that the oil companies lie. Your taking a phrase out of my post that changes the meaning is dishonest and possibly illegal. Just so you know.

Do you read your own?
 
Fox -

I even see the comments of oil companies getting on board

Actually, it's been more than 10 years since any oil company denied climate change - including those who have no interests at all in biofuels. How do you explain that? BP, Chevron, Shell and Mobil all admitted the impact of their business activity on the climate at the time the science became undeniable.

btw. Most research into biofuels has not been funded by governments, but by the oil companies themselves, and at massive cost. They see what you do not - that there is life beyond the internal combustion engine as we know it.
 
Fox -

Pickens by the way got out of he wind energy business when government subsidies became harder to come by and he was losing his shirt. He said it just isn't economically feasiable at this time, will never be as efficient as oil and gas, and produces nowhere near the paying jobs that oil and gas produce. He is now wheeling and dealing with Congress in hopes of snagging $28 billion in subsidies to develop more and better uses of natural gas. But he doesn't think much of Obama's energy policy. Says there isn't one actually.

This is from Pickens website:

America is the Saudi Arabia of wind. According to a 2007 Department of Energy study, building out our wind capacity in the Great Plains - from northern Texas to the Canadian border - would produce 138,000 new jobs in the first year, and more than 3.4 million new jobs over a ten-year period, while also generating as much as 20 percent of our needed electricity.

No discussion about America’s energy future is complete without including wind energy. From Jay Leno putting a windmill atop his garage, to huge wind farms like those in Sweetwater, Texas, wind is a clean, abundant source of energy for America.

Wind | Pickens Plan

Can you explain why his statement says almost exactly the opposite of what you claimed?
 
2012--
oilman t. Boone pickens made a statement on msnbc's morning joe wednesday that should make every green jobs advocate including barack obama, al gore, and van jones sit up and take notice.

"i've lost my a--" in wind power. This came moments after he said, "the jobs are in the oil and gas industry in the united states" (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary):

Read more: t. Boone pickens: 'i've lost my a--' in wind power - 'the jobs are in the oil and gas industry' | newsbusters

Didn't spend much time on the Pickens site Saigon linked as my virus protection sent up an immediate warning that I shouldn't proceed there.
 
Last edited:
Fox -

The quotes I posted above were updated in June 2013.

Here is more from his site:

From an environmental standpoint, electricity generation is the largest industrial source of air pollution in the U.S. and demand for electricity continues to grow. The United States produces six billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. By 2030, this number could reach 6.75 billion metric tons. 40 percent of CO2 emissions are generated by the electric power sector.

Wind power generates no emissions, and displaces carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that would otherwise be emitted by fossil fuel-fired electric generation. The clean generation provided by wind capacity installed through 2008 will displace approximately 44 million tons of carbon dioxide annually. One megawatt-hour (MWh) of wind energy produced reduces CO2 emissions by roughly 1,200 pounds. A single 1.67-MW turbine produces over 5,000 MWh of electricity, and so each turbine reduces CO2 emissions by over 3,000 tons.

- See more at: Wind | Pickens Plan

Do you think you may have misunderstood his position?
 
Your website is suspect Saigon. I doubt it is Pickens website. I don't doubt what I heard him say in his own words in that video I posted.

Or this:
Yesterday, Pickens announced he was cutting his order of wind turbines from General Electric by more than 50%. Pickens was set to be delivered 687 wind turbines, but now he will only receive 300. All 687 turbines were originally slated to be installed in Texas at Pickens' proposed 1,000 megawatt wind farm.

After suspending the project indefinitely, Pickens said he would re-locate the turbines at smaller wind farms. Apparently the wind farms are much smaller than orginally estimated.

Furthermore, as Pickens' enthusiasm for wind power dwindles, his support for natural gas continues to heat up. Yesterday, Pickens also explained that he is far more interested in natural gas than wind energy because it is cheaper and offers more consistent output. Pickens went as far to say, "You have only one resource in America that will compete with oil, and it's natural gas."
- See more at: Is T. Boone Pickens a Wind Energy Charlatan?

And again Saigon I recommend that people avoid the link you posted and you should run a virus scan. My virus protection said it was a bad site.

Here is the authentic site of the Pickens Plan. Good luck on finding much on wind energy there:
Pickens Plan | It's time to stop America's addiction to OPEC oil. T. Boone Pickens has a plan.

Edit: Okay I did find that page you posted here so it is from his legitimate website. He probably forgot it was there when he was still wheeling and dealing in wind turbines. But he has obviously dropped wind energy from the Pickens Plan as of the last couple of years, at least for the foreseeable future.
 
Last edited:
Fox -

Your website is suspect Saigon. I doubt it is Pickens website. I don't doubt what I heard him say in his own words in that video.

Well, if is not his site, I think he might want to call his lawyers.

I don't see any contradiction myself in Pickens reducing his order for turbines now, or for relocating some turbines, and his understanding that wind will be vital in future. That is the way the market works some times, particularly with newish technologies.

He probably forgot it was there when he was still wheeling and dealing in wind turbines.

Possibly - but I think a more likely explanation is that you simply rushed to judgement. As far as we know Pickens remains committed to wind energy, and will probably remain so as long as the future for wind looks as strong as it is right now.

I'm personally more of a fan of a tidal/nuclear mix as the main sources of energy, but even so - wind has its place.
 
Last edited:
Wind power.. Sounds great, now why not mention that average maintenance costs of a windmill system is roughly 10-20% of the initial startup costs. So a reasonable windmill for your home power needs would be around $30,000 very conservatively. So maintenance would be roughly between 3000 to 6000 a year.

LOL, I would have to be paying over $250 a month for electricity all year round to match that cost of maintenance alone. And that does not include any form of insurance I'd have to pay for, and any incidentals or storm damage to the system.

Yes what a brilliant plan...ROFL.
 
Last edited:
This might be a good time to review energy costs:

Advanced Coal 140 (per MWH)

Coal NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132

Biomass 120

Nuclear 112

Advanced Coal 112

Convention coal 99.6

Wind 96.8

Hydro 89.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this shows why most experts consider coal to be an outmoded technology, and why nuclear, wind, tidal, hydro and natural gas are considered to be the main fuels of the 21st century.

Tidal is not priced here, but pilot programs in Scotland, Korea, New Zealand and China suggest that it may become the cheapest source of energy available.
 
This might be a good time to review energy costs:

Advanced Coal 140 (per MWH)

Coal NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132

Biomass 120

Nuclear 112

Advanced Coal 112

Convention coal 99.6

Wind 96.8

Hydro 89.9

Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this shows why most experts consider coal to be an outmoded technology, and why nuclear, wind, tidal, hydro and natural gas are considered to be the main fuels of the 21st century.

Tidal is not priced here, but pilot programs in Scotland, Korea, New Zealand and China suggest that it may become the cheapest source of energy available.

Nice numbers but the fact it was for "Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017" seems to change things a bit.. LOL,dude are you even capable of honesty anymore?

Estimated Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources, 2017

Conventional Coal 99.6
Advanced Coal 85 112.2
Advanced Coal with CCS 140.7
Natural Gas Fired
NG: Conventional Combined Cycle 68.6
NG: Advanced Combined Cycle 65.5
NG: Advanced CC with CCS 87 92.8
NG: Conventional Combustion Turbine 132.0
NG: Advanced Combustion Turbine 105.3
Advanced Nuclear 112.7
Geothermal 99.6
Biomass 83 120.2
Wind1 34 96.8
Solar PV1,2 156.9
Solar Thermal1 251.0
Hydro1 89.9

That's from your link socko.. Why not cite the full list instead of cherry picking?

And the funny part is the numbers are not only estimated but do not reflect actual costs of wind power.It does not reflect insurance. it's a huge tower with big spinning blades and not only a fire hazard but a big airborne fire hazard. Not to mention the damage it can do to birds, and the habitat destruction such wind farms will entail. Oh yes insurance will be a problem. Also where is the maintenance costs? It's meaningless list generated to sell a product..
 
Last edited:
Gslack -

I'm not sure why you re-posted what I had already posted, but either way - it seems you do understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, and that is the main thing.
 
Gslack -

I'm not sure why you re-posted what I had already posted, but either way - it seems you do understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, and that is the main thing.

Socko we can all see I posted the list as it was on your link, and you edited a version for your post..

You're pathetic, now your quote editing carries over to things you grab from other sites as well. nice work..
 
Gslack -

Providing you understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, that is the main thing.

btw. Try and stick to the topic. No one is interested in your constant abuse, accusations and name-calling. The next will be neg-repped.
 
Last edited:
Gslack -

Providing you understand that your previous post about wind power was wrong, that is the main thing.

btw. Try and stick to the topic. No one is interested in your constant abuse, accusations and name-calling. The next will be neg-repped.

Oh grow up ya big crybaby. You cherry-picked numbers, we all see it and your dishonesty in regards to quoting posts and quoting web pages is obvious.

What you did is dishonest, and when you refuse to quote people you respond to or edit their quotes is another example of this. And all the neg-repping, whining, and crying to mods will not change that.

Want me to stop calling you out for your dishonest behavior? Fine, then stop being dishonest here crybaby.

PS. and no my previous post is not wrong. Your list is deceptive and what's worse is the way you cherry-picked the numbers shows your deception in it's presentation.
 
Last edited:
Gslack -

Let's try again.

Based on the figures provided, is wind power cheaper than coal, nuclear or biomass?

btw. please don't forget to correct the fraudulent quote in you sig line!
 
The fact that you are not following along and REFUTING any of the true statements I've made puts you in the cheap seats. It is NOT a simple action-reaction as you are mindlessly parroting. Besides the dependence on complex (not well known) feedbacks to wreck havoc (in my previous post to you), you are wrong that CO2 is DIRECTLY tied to a specific temp rise..

I'll give you one more chance to find ANY error in this LAST ATTEMPT to educate you..

The CO2 forcing function is an exponential relationship built on concentration ratios.. It predicts an increase/decrease in the HEAT POWER working on the surface of the Earth.. It's units are in watts/m2. To get to temperature, as with any surface, you need to know the thermal properties. In GW theory this is called the elusive "Climate Sensitivity Number"..

This converts the watt/m2 into a surface temp delta. CURRENTLY, the literature shows a complete DISARRAY of agreement listing that number ANYWHERE from the low ones to the high fives... Probably because these idiots treat the entire GLOBE as having just one Climate Sensitivity number when it's obvious that's counter productive to modeling.

Point is --- YOU DON'T KNOW what temperature will do with CO2 forcing, you only know that the watts/m2 will increase by some amount. And when skeptics with a brain hear that
"the science is settled" -- while VITAL insights like this are still in doubt -- we're just not in the mood to be heckled for being skeptical...

There it is.. . Your last chance to nail me on "pseudo-science".. Go spend a couple months on Climate Sensitivity and CO2 forcing function and climate feedback mechanisms and get back to slice and dice me.. I'm scared and I'll wait under the bed...

BTW: Please toss that Occam razor out in the trash.. It's rusted and pitted all to hell.

The limits to your understanding get more obvious.

Any body in a vacuum. Radiant energy impinging on it. X watts in. What happens? It warms until watts out = watts in. Reduce the watts out. It warms again until energy balance is restored.

That's the whole story, sad for those who are inclined to push having to deal with reality out to the next generation. You loose.

We've screwed around with these diversions for over a decade in order to put off solving the problem. It has cost us billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and that cost will rise every year until the cause, burning fossil fuels, is substantially reduced.

Reality. The inconvenient truth. It cares nothing about what we want.






I really hate to point it out to you....but the Earths atmosphere doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unfortunately for you your cures are worse than the illness....but that's true of all collectivist cures, they don't really want to fix anything. They just want more power.

Not to mention that the words "Climate Sensitivity" or logarithmic CO2 forcing function didn't penetrate his ossified brain.. I should start negging people for being non-responsive , combative and rude, but I can't neg them for being pitiful and stupid..

Watts in/Watts out HAS NOTHING to do with the absolute TEMPERATURE of the object -- unless you know the thermal properties of those materials..
 
Fox -

Your website is suspect Saigon. I doubt it is Pickens website. I don't doubt what I heard him say in his own words in that video.

Well, if is not his site, I think he might want to call his lawyers.

I don't see any contradiction myself in Pickens reducing his order for turbines now, or for relocating some turbines, and his understanding that wind will be vital in future. That is the way the market works some times, particularly with newish technologies.

He probably forgot it was there when he was still wheeling and dealing in wind turbines.

Possibly - but I think a more likely explanation is that you simply rushed to judgement. As far as we know Pickens remains committed to wind energy, and will probably remain so as long as the future for wind looks as strong as it is right now.

I'm personally more of a fan of a tidal/nuclear mix as the main sources of energy, but even so - wind has its place.

Wind needs to have a 100% capacity backup generator (of some other technology) ready to go.. Which means that the COST of wind should include IDLING these REAL generators on Tuesday and THursday when the "Saudi of wind" is calm and windless. And you cannot turn off most of these backup generators on a moments notice. It's a grid nightmare for folks trying to predict whether a wind gust will sustain or leave a hospital in the dark 1/2 hour from now. An advanced civilization doesn't need to live with those costs and uncertainties.. Europe has SLASHED subsidies in wind after citizens saw the REAL COSTS of a MAYBE, PARTTIME energy supplement -- masquerading as an Alternative.

We should always follow their examples right comrade?
 

Forum List

Back
Top