- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The climate crisis fanatics don’t deny that they are quite happy to see “the end of modern life” as we know it. But get all shy when asked to confirm that is what they are happy to see happen.
Now we have Miliband with this seemingly unrestricted opportunity to make that hope real. Not everyone here is a member of the Labour Party, or even a supporter, but I sincerely doubt many of the climate crisis fanatics will protest this governments green plans. As a long term party member, I can assure everyone that the overwhelming majority of the Labour Party are in ecstatic mode about the parties plans.
It is really unnecessary to argue if the policies the government is now pursuing will work. The proof of this green pudding is about to be tested, to the last scrape of custard off the plate…_
Michael:
– “You seem to be advocating the end of modern life?”
The laws of nature aren’t up to me. They’re not up to you either. Actions have consequences. Modern life is heading for a crash; my preferences make absolutely no difference.
What I am advocating for is facing facts and taking action to soften the blow.
DiggerUK:
– “I can assure everyone that the overwhelming majority of the Labour Party are in ecstatic mode about the parties plans.”
That’s because there are only Starmerites left, isn’t it? Didn’t two thirds of the membership leave or get thrown out after Corbyn was sabotaged?
Wishful thinking, fantasy and ignorance confer zero protection from physical law. Old age seems a popular protection; suiting oneself and dumping the consequences on the young. If they protest, call’em fanatics and lock’em up. You seem well suited to Starmer’s red Tory party, DiggerUK.
The Starmtroopers are firmly in control, but they are not the only ones still here, neither will they be here for ever.
The faction that has gone is mainly the Momentum mob. Whether or not they were pushed or jumped, it is not a lot for me to cry over.
The faction I am saddest to see out are the pro Palestine comrades, but inside or outside the Labour Party, Palestine lives on.To say that I am suited for Starmers party is a limp ad hominem. I am in their sights, but I am smart enough not to give them the bullet to out me.
Your nasty comment that seeks to justify taking benefits from and apportion blame for societies ills on oldies like me, is ageism and ignorance at it’s crudest.
The drive to Decarbonize/NetZero policies is a folly of historical proportions. It is by their own hubris that the climate crisis fanatics will hoist themselves. If I can’t win the argument today, then I will just have to wait until the fanatics lose painfully tomorrow. I would prefer not to have to see the pain with which these policies will be implemented, nor the societal disaster that will happen when they are shown to be a search for fantasy solutions to a fantasy crisis…_
DiggerUK, you are playing God, claiming it’s just fine to increase the atmospheric concentration of a biologically vital compound, already 50% up. That’s everyone’s air, DiggerUK, not just yours to abuse as you wish – and by ‘everyone’, I mean all species, the whole complex web of life, not just humans. Humans are dependent upon that web of life; disrupt it, and we disrupt ourselves. But you, DiggerUK, are not going to have to live with the consequences, at least not for as long as most. Your denial of the obvious is thereby rendered more ugly.
I’ll remind you that Palestine Action and Scientists’ Rebellion share a founder.
It is looking like wind farms may not be the answer, after all.
We know that the blades are not recycled, just landfilled or just dumped in deserts.Efficiency of wind turbines drops off, a lot, as they age, particularly with the new more massive types.
Michael:
– “Efficiency of wind turbines drops off, a lot, as they age, particularly with the new more massive types.”
That is not what Prof. Hughes report found. There is no way it could have discovered such a thing, because that wasn’t even the sort of data it was examining. It is merely the way Paul Burgess misrepresented it.
Michael, I don’t want to have to spoon feed you; you should have worked this out for yourself. Paul Burgess is far from being an unbiased observer; if you look through his older videos you’ll see he’s a climate science conspiracy theorist who claims that scientific temperature data has been fabricated, and that should have prompted some scepticism from you.
We’ve been making so little progress for so long; could we concentrate on this one example until we get it sorted out? It’s a good opportunity because Burgess links to Hughes’ report, so the whole thing – the original source, and its misrepresentation – is there in full for all to see, and both are fairly short and specific.
I have read through most of the report. It’s quite dense. The load factor is a comparison of the amount of power generated over a period of time divided by the maximum amount of power that could have been generated by any given wind turbine’s rated capacity had everything been optimal (wind, mechanical operation etc) expressed as a percentage. At least I think so.
I am not quite sure if the denominator max load accounts for varying wind conditions over the time period concerned. Also, how are wind speeds estimated. The report does go into some of those ,er, difficulties.You can never have 100% load factor as the wind ain’t gonna blow at optimal speed all the time. Nevertheless, load factors have decreased over time, the amount of power generated by any given turbine/wind farm decreased over time compared to day one.
The report suggests some factors. Wind speeds varying. Mechanical failure, time to repair/more downtime. Deterioration of the turbine blades. They suggest that perhaps the industry is reluctant to re-power (fit new turbine blades) on older machines because the would need replacement anyway. They also say that it couldn’t be accurately worked out what the cause was from the data they had to interrogate.
Whilst I agree Clark, “efficiency” of a wind turbine is not falling the given output of an individual turbine or of wind farms is falling over time which kinda amounts to the same thing whatever the reasons are.Here are two papers, ten years apart, that show very similar findings.
Considering the many moving parts and the environment that wind turbines operate in, it is only to be expected that performance declines. All similar reports show that from 20 years onwards it can be expected that the turbine will need replacing. 25 years seems to be the expected use by date.
I too am “far from being an unbiased observer”, but they do seem to rhyme with the observations of Mr. Burgess, or do I need to change my spoon…_
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378779621004764
I know a little of the wind farm industry as I have a relative, in Scotland, who is one of two maintenance crew at a wind farm. The way this chap tells it, quite often one is off-line for a while.
They have to turn off electricity and lock the turbine, before the door will open, then they have to climb up best part of 300 feet – both of them.
Each turbine has its own tool kit in the nacelle.
One man does the work, while the other watches him.
As there are just two workers on each wind farm, if several go down, they can only work on one at a time.
I don’t know but I guess they wouldn’t do more than two or three per day.
The wind turbines are designed to have a working life of fifteen to twenty five years, other than the concrete base, all components have the same life expectancy.
So, when a decision is made to turn them off, they will be shut down – on mass.
If the new choice is to replace the turbines, they could only replace like for like, on the same concrete foundations.
Well, they would be unwise to install new turbines 50% taller, as that would not have been in the spec for the concrete bases. The roads and switch/control rooms could be reused, possibly. I expect after twenty five year the perimeter fence would need replacing. So, say after twent five years, the turbines are taken down and scrapped, the blades go to landfill.
So, even if the same site and same bases and infrastructure is re-used there would be at least twelve months with no electricity going to the grid.
It could be done more gradually, with one taken out at a time. Then a new turbine erected in its place but I do no think this is how it will be done.Grit is in the air, maybe it sometimes comes from the Sahara, maybe it comes more locally but grit is most certainly in the air. Grit, wind, rain, hail, snow, bird strikes, bird poo. Even lichen. All these elements degrade the ability of the blades to act at maximum efficiency.
Remember it is the blades catching the wind, that makes the motor spin and allows the generation of electricity, so if the Aerodynamics of the blades are in any way infringed, then there will be less force applied to the turbines motor.
These events are cumulative. So it would be top be expected, just as far as the blades are involved, that efficiency would decrease over time.QUOTE u.s.a.
“Wind farms are plagued with underperformance compared to manufacturer predictions. Capacity factors have been overestimated by 10% to 30% [8]. However, overprediction is difficult to
characterize. Culprits range from nonoptimal siting, misunderstood wind resource, and even political atmosphere. One possible aerodynamic explanation is blade roughness caused by erosion (sand,
salt, and hail), foreign deposits (insects, ice), or coating spallation, illustrated in Fig. 1.1. Each
harms performance by decreasing the section maximum lift and lift-curve slope and increasing drag
[58]. Insect roughness was observed to cause a 25% decrease in energy production [11]. Similarly,
erosion has been observed to result in 20% or greater loss in energy capture and can affect blades
that have been operating for as little as two-to-three years[6, 35]. Blade erosion now accounts for
6% of all wind turbine related repairs ”
https://energy.sandia.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/LEE_Ehrmann_SAND2017-10669.pdfYes, wind turbines are heavy maintenance and limited performance and longevity. The small multi blade turbine that is common in rural USA would be a better option for individual homes but impractical in a city or town setting.
Here’s a little thought exercise for you Michael over the weekend. Did you ever read Edward Bellamy’s ‘Looking Backward’ from the link I posted? Never mind.
Imagine being sent back 250 years in our Time Machine with all the knowledge you’ve gained in your life in these present times. People think you’re an angel so they call you Michaelangelo and your wisdom is revered. What are you going to tell them? Coal is now being mined in significant measures in many countries but they haven’t quite cottoned onto oil yet.
Aside from castrating Ed Milliband’s great, great, great grandfather, what else would you do as the leader of the world on the cusp drinking the poisoned chalice?
Shibboleth,
thank you an interesting proposition, unfortunately, Gutenberg had already invented the printing press in the mid fourteen hundreds. The Americas were entered in the very late fourteen hundreds, the genie was then out of the bag.
The modern World had started. The River Wey Navigation was started in Southern England in the early sixteen hundreds.
In my view consumerism, really took off when the potteries sprang up, with adjacent canals, Kaolin from South Devon barged around the coast and canaled in.
People had dressers made and displayed their ceramics for their friends to gawp at in admiration and envy.
Tea, coffee, chocolate and sugar brought in from overseas.
A whole new concept of conspicuous consumption had evolved.So what would you say? This is your big chance – you’re not having to persuade the masses from indulging in the excess; that hasn’t manifested yet although desire has always been a curse. Ask Eve.
No, your task is much more straightforward. Construct an argument to guide humanity away from the threats we now see as an extinction transition. It’ll be interesting to see how much you have absorbed, but instead of asking questions, offer some (plausible) solutions that might help. They won’t solve anything but you never know, it might just help someone.
Shibboleth,
one big idea was Diesel. much of the World, now runs on Diesel. Rudolf Diesel envisaged Diesel oil being made from vegetables.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oil_fuel
At this time there may have been two and a quarter billion people alive.
I am not sure what the latest guess is, maybe seven and three quarter billion.
So maybe three or four times as many people now inhabiting the World.
If we had gone flat out for Diesel by using vegetables, there would have been much less land for growing food for people to eat.
Possibly, this would have kept the human population in check?
I don’t think Clark could object to using vegetable Diesel Oil for fuel.
So, you could have had an almost equivalent modern World but with less people.
The opposite of this notion was, The term “Green Revolution” was first used by William S. Gaud, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), in a speech on 8 March 1968.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_BorlaugMaking more food able to be produced from the same area of land.
Now this sounds good, however it is mostly what has allowed the human population to increase.
While that of itself, may not be bad, advertisements ( U.S.A.) encourage people to buy stuff they did not know they needed or wanted.
In conclusion, I would ban television, ban advertising and ban highly processed foods.
It all goes back to Gutenberg, and the ability to spread ideas.
Ideas are dangerous.Shibboleth:
“Aside from castrating Ed Milliband’s great, great, great grandfather…”That made me chuckle out loud today. I hope it did you too Michael.
“In conclusion, I would ban television, ban advertising and ban highly processed foods.”
I agree with that except for banning TV even though I stopped watching terrestial TV in the early 2000s. TV could have been a medium for information as well as entertainment. Like all resources for information they have been usurped. The internet is corrupted by advertising now yet we still have an oasis like this here blog. I know where you are coming from Michael but maybe the ban hammer needs to fall somewhere earlier in the process.
Most of the wind turbine is metal.
Metal is recyclable.
Would it be possible to make the wind turbine blades from metals?I think blades were first made from metals such as steel and aluminium but because these materials are heavy it required more wind energy to get them to start spinning and sustain them spinning. It also limited the length they could make the blades.
Doubling the blade length increases the swept area (thus power output) by four times because the area of the circle is proportional to the radius squared. That drives the trend to make the blades as big as possible. I don’t think blades from metal could be light enough or stiff enough at these huge sizes. Perhaps they could be made but they’d be so heavy they wouldn’t perform. That’s my limited understanding. I’m no structural or materials engineer.Al–Li alloys are primarily of interest to the aerospace industry for their weight advantage
Mixing two per cent Lithium ( the lightest metal) with Aluminium, produces a light strong metal.
But at wot cost?“The Future of Energy
Why wind and solar are the energy past, not future
Isaac Orr and Mitch Rolling
Oct 26, 2024”
https://energybadboys.substack.com/p/the-future-of-energy“In conclusion, I would ban television, ban advertising and ban highly processed foods.“
So, out of the Time Machine and you inform the peasants you are going to ban TVs, advertising and crap food! Don’t fancy your chances making any progress, but at least Ed will be much relieved this weekend.
All you had to do was tell the story of the past two and a half centuries – you know the history and have personal experience with the end of civilisation, so a Looking Forward essay would have been very helpful, don’t you think? It might have worked too, but I suspect many others have tried to deliver similar messages and have been rebuffed and ignored. Ok next question, you’re back in 1775 and trying to explain what you mean and people are listening to you. Q: Do you stay or come back to 2024?
I wonder if it would better for our environment if we had vertical axis wind turbines.
One consequence of that choice, could be blade/wind catcher made of metal. They could be packed tight together, although they would not generate as much total output as these modern monsters, they might come to be more accepted by the populace, as less landfill for blades/ almost total recycling, less obtrusive.
There might come a time when the public do not want their environment strewn with monsters?new study:
“Rapid shift in methane carbon isotopes suggests microbial emissions drove record high atmospheric methane growth in 2020–2022”
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2411212121The German daily TAZ on this issue:
English translation:
“Too much methane in the atmosphere
Mystery of dangerous greenhouse gas solved
The concentration of methane in the atmosphere is increasing massively – why this is happening now seems to be clear. The consequences are serious.”German original
https://taz.de/Zu-viel-Methan-in-der-Atmosphaere/!6045201/excerpt:
“Not the first clue
The study now presented is not the first to come to this conclusion: a Chinese-American research team presented a study last year with a similar result : global warming stimulates the metabolism and proliferation of microorganisms, producing more methane. According to the measurements, a point has obviously been reached where global warming is fueling itself.
In addition to wetlands, permafrost is also a potentially large source of methane. Large parts of Siberia, Northern Europe, Northern Canada and Alaska are permanently frozen. However, global warming is causing the border to retreat further and further north , in some places by more than a hundred kilometers. The thawing soil releases plant remains that are decomposed by microorganisms – including into methane. At the beginning of 2022, a study concluded that permafrost in Scandinavia will disappear as early as the 2040s. The research team of the current study therefore recommends that the effects be better researched.”The Sino-US study:
“Recent intensification of wetland methane feedback”
by Zhen Zhang, Benjamin Poulter, Andrew F. Feldman, Qing Ying, Philippe Ciais, Shushi Peng & Xin Li
March 2023
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-023-01629-0Clark
In this interesting conversation on the US election campaigns there is however this short exchange about fracking – the three gentlemen agree that fracking now is much better than it was and that it in fact helps finance a technological turnaround to stop climate change. I was surprised about this apologetic notion – (in Germany at least the media are still against fracking) – and I don´t trust it.
Fang is good on domestic issues but to my knowledge has limited understanding of the big picture domestically or intern. relations.
In case see:
TC 47:00-49:00“The Election Final Sprint with HuffPost’s Daniel Marans”
https://www.leefang.com/p/the-election-final-sprint-with-huffpostsfrom transcript:
“(…)And when she goes on KDKA, the CBS affiliate in Pittsburgh, and they ask her repeatedly, what exactly changed in your mind about fracking?
She just said, well, my values have stayed the same. Right. And it doesn’t really get to – I mean she could – The knowledge that I have as a reporter who’s been to that region so many times as I could say right away, thank you for asking me that.
What I know now that I didn’t fully understand then is that this has actually speeded up our process toward energy independence. You don’t even need to talk about fossil fuels. It’s replaced coal. And by the way, I’ve been to Washington County and Beaver County and Allegheny and New and Wes Moreland,
and I know all of the thousands of hardworking union men and women who are employed in jobs that are affiliated with this field, who never had prospects like this when the steel industry had collapsed. That’s made an impression on me. I’ve healed that. That’s how I think about that.
I don’t know if it’s that she doesn’t have the voice in the room or that she simply is – uncomfortable improvising and therefore sticks to the script that she has rehearsed
but she can’t even just get a new script she doesn’t need to improvise that her aides could say here’s your answer on fracking right the technology has
demonstrably changed like the flaring technology to reduce the kind of methane leaks from fracking has improved like their technology is better too
And it’s being regulated better in Pennsylvania than it is in Texas.
(…)”
