Jeff, where are you getting your information? Your statements are in direct conflict with pretty much everything i have read on wind energy.
Who did the study? Was the study based off a subsidized price? Where were the turbines in the study located?
More Global Cooling/Warming/Change hoax.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Jeff, where are you getting your information? Your statements are in direct conflict with pretty much everything i have read on wind energy.
Who did the study? Was the study based off a subsidized price? Where were the turbines in the study located?
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Margaret Thatcher World Leader on Global Warming.....
In 1990, Margaret Thatcher emerged as one of the first world leaders to champion climate science, issuing a call to action to fight manmade global warming at the Second World Climate Conference hosted at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
She lavished praise on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then in its infancy, and laid out the conservatives' case for environmental stewardship in the face of climate change. "I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster," she said. "It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later."
Apparenty later when she stopped being a Scientist and realised she was a Consevative Politician, she then changed her view.
So, not only was Newt Gingrich strongly in the Global warming camp, even the "Scientist" Margaret Thatcher knew the truth............
But that was before they discovered that their voters perfered that they lie about it!
We all have our priorities!
In 1990, Margaret Thatcher emerged as one of the first world leaders to champion climate science, issuing a call to action to fight manmade global warming at the Second World Climate Conference hosted at the Palais des Nations in Geneva.
She lavished praise on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, then in its infancy, and laid out the conservatives' case for environmental stewardship in the face of climate change. "I see the adoption of these policies as a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster," she said. "It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later."
Apparenty later when she stopped being a Scientist and realised she was a Consevative Politician, she then changed her view.
So, not only was Newt Gingrich strongly in the Global warming camp, even the "Scientist" Margaret Thatcher knew the truth............
But that was before they discovered that their voters perfered that they lie about it!
We all have our priorities!
Last edited:
Just like Bush was given bad intel on Iraq, Thatcher, and all of us, were given lies about Global Warming/Cooling/Change. She was quick on her feet and adopted to reality, unlike the liberal world.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Nice try!
Mr Fechter is known for just making up stories!
In just two sentences, he told two lies!
She was a scientist who was one of the very first to recognise and understand the problem. You say she got "bad intel", well that is another lie! Any, as you say "BAD INTEL" came from her!
She was a scientist, as a "scientist" she saw the problem for what is is a was one of the first to call for action!
See below!
"In 1990, Margaret Thatcher emerged as one of the first world leaders to champion climate science, issuing a call to action to fight manmade global warming at the Second World Climate Conference hosted at the Palais des Nations in Geneva".
**********************
You can lie about history all you want, but no one believes your lies!
BushII was not given "bad intel" about Iraq, any bad Iraq "intel" came from the Bush White House!
Last edited:
And many a scientist used to think the world was flat Jim, until real science and actual proof, made it clear that the earlier science and widely held belief, was, in fact, WRONG!
I used to swear my 'little man' was 11 inches long, until some kind sole proved to me that cms were not inches!
I used to swear my 'little man' was 11 inches long, until some kind sole proved to me that cms were not inches!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim, read post #423......Sigh.
more insanity...
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...#ixzz2S3dXlE7f
Dem resolution warns climate change could push women to ‘transactional sex’
"...Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to "transactional sex" for survival.
The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.
"Soon, insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health," it says.
Climate change could also add "workload and stresses" on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries..."
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-actio...#ixzz2S3dXlE7f
Dem resolution warns climate change could push women to ‘transactional sex’
"...Several House Democrats are calling on Congress to recognize that climate change is hurting women more than men, and could even drive poor women to "transactional sex" for survival.
The resolution, from Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) and a dozen other Democrats, says the results of climate change include drought and reduced agricultural output. It says these changes can be particularly harmful for women.
"Soon, insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy, and poor reproductive health," it says.
Climate change could also add "workload and stresses" on female farmers, which the resolution says produce 60 to 80 percent of the food in developing countries..."
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Deleted.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Pete,
So you are saying that the actic ice has not changed, please explain this.
This is the change in minimun, median arctic ice 1982 to 2008! The loss of arctic ice seems to be accelerating.
No I didn't say that! What I'm saying is the arctic ice along with temperature fluctuates and if you look carefully at the graphs in my post you will see that both temperature and ice are following their normal or average pattern of fluctuation.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
That depends on what you read. If you read coal industry (and I'm not opposed to coal, it's an important part of base load generation) studies they'll make absurd claims about hidden costs in wind that don't exist.
You can start here:
Cost of electricity by source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Installed cost of wind is about the same as coal, in the middle of the various types of natural gas generation, and less than nuke (which I also think is an important energy source).
The anti wind stuff is crazy. Wind energy is cheap, and fills a good niche in covering peak load requirements in a grid. Most think that modern grids can operate with 20-30% of their power coming from wind, numbers that some of our European friends have already hit.
Now, solar is a different story. The storage tech just isn't there and the per kilowatt hour cost is through the roof. Just not viable at this poin.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
So as I understand this, your opposition to wind is not really based on economics, it's based on the government forcing an aesthetically not so pleasing power source on you. Ok, fair point I guess. I find wind turbines far less offensive aesthetically than nuclear cooling towers (which I also think are a key part of the grid), or coal plant smokestacks, but to each his own.
The fact is that in the US anyway, and in many European countries, the numbers for wind work. Installed cost is on par or less than alternative sources, and wind is clean with no real demob costs (like nuke and coal).
It will never be able to provide total base load power, but 20-30% of a grid's needs? Yes, and that has already happened in some countries.
The anti-wind stuff is hard to fathom, although at least you are honest abou just not liking the look of turbines.
Jeff, you repeatedly state that Wind is a good way to cover peak loads. I have explained that this cannot be relied upon as the wind has to be blowing at the times we reach peak demands. You simply cannot expect the system to cover peak demand with something that cannot be switched on immediately the load is called for. Unless you have some secret up your sleeve that I am not aware of. Please qualify your statement.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Yeah, I'll qualify my statement. Wind in many places provides BOTH decent coverage for base load and peak loading. It's actually BETTER than I originally suggested.
People a lot smarter than me have looked at this and determined that wind can provide about 20-30% of the power for a modern grid. The interconnect techology and the ability to shift the input to the grid to the area producing the power quickly has accelerated rapidly over the last ten years, such that the problem you identify is not really a problem if you have an array of turbines in a variety of places.
In fact, the real problem with wind in the US right now is OVERPRODUCTION which is causing either (a) the development of long transmission lines to wheel power generated in wind rich areas to other parts of the country or (b) huge downward pressure on electricity cost rates.
You have a very limited understanding of how modern electrical grids work. Do some reading and get back to us.
People a lot smarter than me have looked at this and determined that wind can provide about 20-30% of the power for a modern grid. The interconnect techology and the ability to shift the input to the grid to the area producing the power quickly has accelerated rapidly over the last ten years, such that the problem you identify is not really a problem if you have an array of turbines in a variety of places.
In fact, the real problem with wind in the US right now is OVERPRODUCTION which is causing either (a) the development of long transmission lines to wheel power generated in wind rich areas to other parts of the country or (b) huge downward pressure on electricity cost rates.
You have a very limited understanding of how modern electrical grids work. Do some reading and get back to us.
And thats about it. I really don't like them which is a nonsense argument against having them but my gut tells me it's not about a serious alternative here in the UK but about the artificial tax incentives offered to spurious 'wind companies' who's provenance in many cases, is quite suspect.
This is my kind of alternative power generation:
Dinorwig Power Station Snowdonia
Regretfully, it is the only one of it's kind in the UK, as as soon as it was completed, the 'dash for gas' began. It filled a gap in the then Nuclear generation scheme but has been largely now overtaken. It is an astonishing scheme though, and I do believe there are others in the North American continent built on similar lines and was designed & built at such a time when innovation was king.
There is one heck of a lot more to be done with hydro-electric schemes and wave action. This is what I want to see come forward. It is not an opinion based on anything more than my gut reaction.
