"Earth Getting Mysteriously Windier"

[elfismiles]

twaz awefully wendi to-day and the past few here in tejas.

[crikkett]

"Earth Getting Mysteriously Windier"

I blame network news

[WakeUpAndLive]

.

The argument that preventing power outages with wind means we need to keep coal or gas plants running reminds me of the false dichotomy between coal and nuclear. Such concerns would be rendered moot through a mix of different renewable and ecological forms of power production.

Solar roof panels + solar plants producing hydrogen + ocean-wave capture hydropower + wind + secondary biomass (of shit and waste) + geothermal. All in a new smart grid.

Not all of these can go out very often at the same time, and then, so what? We also have blackouts under the present system.

In the cities, build light rail, create covered bike lanes and redesign to cut commuting needs. Convert buildings to cut down on heating costs. End the empire (biggest waste of energy of all). Stop subsidizing agribusiness corn-for-meat and put that into subsidies for more localized, organic agriculture using modern means to raise density. It's all technologically doable today. You could throw a couple of hundred billion saved off the war machinery into Apollo projects for developing the various technological wild-cards.

The only "problem" is that it would take an enormous investment and many years of full employment to install enough of these facilities and convert the infrastructure. You'd also have to fund giant new departments at the universities to educate the new specialists. All of which, of course, is not a problem at all, except to the economic libertarians. All this is the solution to the economic depression. There is no downside, except to the balance sheets of certain currently dominant institutions that rely on monopoly power over highly centralized forms of energy production, run by fools who care only about their own pecuniary interests, to the point of killing their own grandchildren.

.

You know those cartoons where they would wake up a sleeping individual with a bucket of water....every time I read your posts it feels like I just got hit with that bucket of cold water.


In regards to the wind, I was always curious if our actions affected wind...I almost found it impossible to think our air displacement wasn't having at least some effect on windiness.

Nice one crikkett lol.

[MacCruiskeen]

Any excuse:



Le Pétomane:

Some of the highlights of his stage act involved sound effects of cannon fire and thunderstorms, as well as playing "'O Sole Mio" and "La Marseillaise" on an ocarina through a rubber tube in his anus.[2] He could also blow out a candle from several yards away.[1] His audience included Edward, Prince of Wales, King Leopold II of the Belgians and Sigmund Freud.[3]

[TVC15]

It takes RE magnets to make those wind turbines.

Rare Earth mining ain't pretty:


China: China’s dilemma: how to mine rare earths whilst protecting reserves and the environment

The world accused China of unfair trading practices when it cut back rare earths exports. However, Beijing does face a major environmental crisis and the prospect of declining reserves. Now it must make production environmentally friendly and eliminate illegal trade by criminal gangs.

Tuesday, March 15, 2011 By Asia News

Beijing – A carpet of black dust covers what once were fields of corn and wheat. A 10-kilometre wide tailing lake of polluted brownish water stands nearby and could poison the Yellow River. Local levels of radioactivity are higher than average and residents are dying from cancer. Welcome to Baotou, Inner Mongolia, a city sitting on rich deposits of rare earths, whose production has spelled death and destruction for so many of its residents.

Inner Mongolia accounts for about 87 per cent of China's total proven reserves of rare earths. Beijing has developed the resource, supplying until recently 97 per cent of the world’s rare earths needs. It has done so however without protecting the environment.

Rare earths are a group of 17 chemical elements that are essential to modern high technology goods in sectors like electronics, nuclear production and alternative energy machines (hybrid cars and wind turbines), telecommunications and the airspace industry...

...Baotou has luxury hotels, high-end restaurants, trendy bars and upmarket saunas that cater to a new breed of entrepreneurs, making fortunes out of the global scramble for rare earths. However, just a few kilometres away, people have to wear masks to protect themselves from a black dust that makes them cough and poisons their lungs. Street vendors sell masks at two yuan a piece.

Perhaps hundreds of local workshops are involved in refining the minerals using acid and a mixture of chemicals. The toxic waste generated by the process is then discharged 24 hours a day in the nearby tailing lake, seven million tonnes of it a year in all.

A kilometre from the lake and eight from Baotou lays the village of Dalahai. Five more villages are cluster nearby. They are all known as cancer villages because the local rate of cancer is many times the national average. Stomachaches are commonplace and people start losing their teeth when they are just 35 or 40 years of age.

A local resident, Jia Yunxia, told the South China Morning Post that the government promised them compensation, but that he had not received a single yuan and cannot afford moving elsewhere.

The Yellow River runs only 10 kilometres south from the tailing lake. In 2005, official studies by experts like Xu Guangxian, former president of the Chinese Chemical Society, found that the area is tainted with thorium, a source of radioactive contamination in the Baotou area and the Yellow River, which provides drinking water for 150 million people. The results were kept from the public for years.

http://www.speroforum.com/a/50316/China ... nvironment

[freemason9]

shit, you should feel it here in the midwest.

constant, and strong.

more so in the last 5-6 years, i guess.

[Wilbur Whatley]

I've lived in central Maryland for more than 50 years, and there is no doubt whatsoever that it has gotten MUCH windier over the last 10 years, especially the last 5 years.

In addition to that, for decades we almost never got tornados here, but they've gotten to be fairly common.

[JackRiddler]

TVC:

All forms of energy generation come with their own disasters. That doesn't free us from making distinctions. Did anyone here say there's a perfect solution? Rare earth mineral mining is dirty, but better they be mined for wind turbines than electronic toys powered by coal that's also being mined. Especially since, I don't know, but something about the name tells me they're... not abundant.

.

[Stephen Morgan]

Solar roof panels + solar plants producing hydrogen + ocean-wave capture hydropower + wind + secondary biomass (of shit and waste) + geothermal. All in a new smart grid.

Desirable, although requiring a total redesign of the national grid. Also, wind and shit aren't terribly useful. Shit doesn't contain a high enough density of energy, wind isn't reliable enough. Also, household wate incineration has a tendency to release masses of toxic gases into the atmosphere. All that plastic and that. Sifting the toxic stuff out massively increases the price.

Also, you forgot increased efficiency. And traditional hydro-electric, I know it disrupts riverine ecosystems, and micro-hydro. And heat recycling with sterling generators.

Not all of these can go out very often at the same time, and then, so what? We also have blackouts under the present system.

Blackouts are currently as a result of either a failure of the system or a market manipulation, I don't know how people would react to their becoming a built-in part of the system. Although, with a diverse range of renewables that needn't be so. Could be more reliable than the current system, with a more distributed power network. OF course that would also reduce the centralised economic power of the power monopolies.

In the cities, build light rail, create covered bike lanes and redesign to cut commuting needs. Convert buildings to cut down on heating costs.

Aerogel insulation, all new building to have alumino-silicate foundations, micro-CHP, etc.. Yes.

End the empire (biggest waste of energy of all). Stop subsidizing agribusiness corn-for-meat and put that into subsidies for more localized, organic agriculture using modern means to raise density.

Not sure about that. America produce much more than it consumes, so much that it exports it and destroys third world grain markets for local consumers, if you stop feeding it to animals and raise density both will simply make that worse, as well as increasing prices for protein-based food stuffs. LEading to an increased demand for scarce wild protein, like fish. And a jump in inflation for foodstuffs for the poor at a time of low and unreliable wages. BEtter would be for the US to implement and export tax on foodstuffs and divert some of its subsidies to funding West African grain production, Central American fruit production, etc., on the condition that at least a certain amount go on wages to local workers. Undue some fo the damage done previously.

It's all technologically doable today. You could throw a couple of hundred billion saved off the war machinery into Apollo projects for developing the various technological wild-cards.

I often find it amazing what is possible to do today, what is done in some places but isn't widely accepted. Ignorance is the enemy, I think.

The only "problem" is that it would take an enormous investment and many years of full employment to install enough of these facilities and convert the infrastructure.

We don't need to do it Stalin-five-year-plan style. We've got all these nuke and coal plants, no point wasting the investment, as they all have scheduled shut-down dates anyway. No rush. Best to make do with what's already there where possible. OTOH, we could just get into more debt for it. Debt is always available to the state, for wars for example, might as well put it to good use. That's how corporations fund capital investments, right?

You'd also have to fund giant new departments at the universities to educate the new specialists.

I don't think there's much difference from an engineering point of view between working in a coal plant and a geothermal plant, say.

All of which, of course, is not a problem at all, except to the economic libertarians. All this is the solution to the economic depression.

Redistributing wealth is the solution to the economic depression.

There is no downside, except to the balance sheets of certain currently dominant institutions that rely on monopoly power over highly centralized forms of energy production, run by fools who care only about their own pecuniary interests, to the point of killing their own grandchildren.

Well, they're probably fucking them, might as well kill them too.

[Stephen Morgan]

Only when producing. The problem with wind-power is that there are periods when it produces no power at all, at which times other production methods have the be used.

All other forms of electricity generation also suffer outages, only renewables get noticed. Our children will comes to terms with 'not always on', and will save themselves much wasted capital and resource consumption.

I think people are unlikely to leap at the prospect of an unreliable electricity supply. Businesses even less so. Hospitals and other public facilities also. Especially as it isn't necessary. It's not renewables that are unreliable. Geothermal energy is extremely reliable. Hydroelectric, too. Solar isn't constantly producing, but is at least quite predictable. Wind, on the other hand, is easily the worst option, not least because those time when it is coldest coincide with those time when there is least wind.

The support offered for wind by the government ought to be a clue, along with the big investments from BP and so on. Big government money at the same time the government are extending the lives of coal and nuclear stations and trying to build new nukes. Meanwhile, other renewables get nothing, or much less than wind. Ought to tell you something: wind is just a government teat for the fuckers to suck on.

As it can take several days to cycle up a gas turbine plant,

False, curious since the truth is widely known & easily checkable..

Gas fired power plants of Steam and Gas fired power plants have a startup time of, respectively, less than one hour and two hours. http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2010/06 ... y-markets/

I'm not sure what you think that shows.

this means that as long as there is a possibility of a windless period in the next few days you need to keep the gas plants going, even if you don't need the power they're generating, meaning wind power is of absolutely no use at all.

Just like cash is useless because you sometimes use a credit card?

Cash is obtainable for its face value. If I had to put in some large capital investment to be able to use cash, and then would only be able to use it at times decided at random, I'd probably stick with the debit card.

[Stephen Morgan]

And what’s this? On a bitterly cold day, with demand close to maximum, at the time of writing, we have just gone a full 24 hours where the UK’s wind turbines have provided barely ONE TWENTIETH of their notional capacity, their output never once rising to as much as even a tenth of their capacity throughout the day and thus contributing nothing but uncertainty to the nation’s supplies.That’s the trouble: cold snaps frequently coincide with periods of very little wind. But never mind: we shall all be paying handsomely for ever more of these highly subsidised white elephants, with an ever greater dependence on the supposedly unreliable gas imports for backup when the wind lets us down.
-- Private Eye, back at christmas

[wintler2]

I think people are unlikely to leap at the prospect of an unreliable electricity supply.

Oh well then, lets keep fighting wars over a diminishing supply of stuff that has destabilised the climate.

Businesses even less so. Hospitals and other public facilities also.

Two words: managed .. demand.

Especially as it isn't necessary. It's not renewables that are unreliable.

All complex systems are ultimately unreliable.

Geothermal energy is extremely reliable.

Not true, for the scale of supply you are talking about. I don't think there is a single grid-connected geothermal>electricity power plant in the world in the gigawatt scale, starter size for business as usual. Do a little research on the Aus startup Geodynamics for a typical story of great theory, in practice not feasible.

Hydroelectric, too.

False, eg. california

Solar isn't constantly producing, but is at least quite predictable. Wind, on the other hand, is easily the worst option, not least because those time when it is coldest coincide with those time when there is least wind.

Making heat with electricity is not very clever, better housing would be much better fix.

The support offered for wind by the government ought to be a clue, along with the big investments from BP and so on.

Here we go, 'business and government are involved, ergo its bad' - plays well with the gallery but makes no sense at all.

As it can take several days to cycle up a gas turbine plant,

False, curious since the truth is widely known & easily checkable..

Gas fired power plants of Steam and Gas fired power plants have a startup time of, respectively, less than one hour and two hours. http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2010/06 ... y-markets/

I'm not sure what you think that shows.

It supports that gas/methane fired plants, whether steam-driven gen sets or turbines, can be powered up in hours, not days as you claim. I'll bet you cannot find a ref to support your claim, it is just so far from the truth. Luckily it is easy to admit error, and it builds trust and confidence!

this means that as long as there is a possibility of a windless period in the next few days you need to keep the gas plants going, even if you don't need the power they're generating, meaning wind power is of absolutely no use at all.

Just like cash is useless because you sometimes use a credit card?

Cash is obtainable for its face value. If I had to put in some large capital investment to be able to use cash, and then would only be able to use it at times decided at random, I'd probably stick with the debit card.

Generating a lot of electricity is a big deal, you ever been to a coal mine or a hydro dam? What do you reckon the capital investment is for this?

[Stephen Morgan]

I think people are unlikely to leap at the prospect of an unreliable electricity supply.

Oh well then, lets keep fighting wars over a diminishing supply of stuff that has destabilised the climate.

I think it's best to stick to tried and true techniques.

Businesses even less so. Hospitals and other public facilities also.

Two words: managed .. demand.

I do like a bit of rationing. I'm not sure what sort of changes you want to make, forbid pensioners from using heating in winter? Forbid shops from lighting their products? Forbid me my long warm showers? Put up energy prices as a form of wealth-based rationing to disincentivise usage? Cause random power cuts to encourage people to reduce their reliance on the energy grid? 'Cos I was watching a programme about that on the telly the other day, and they ended up time-travelling back to kill the super computer behind it.

Especially as it isn't necessary. It's not renewables that are unreliable.

All complex systems are ultimately unreliable.

The human brain is the most complex system known to man, and last for decades with no external intervention with a rather low failure rate.

Geothermal energy is extremely reliable.

Not true, for the scale of supply you are talking about. I don't think there is a single grid-connected geothermal>electricity power plant in the world in the gigawatt scale, starter size for business as usual. Do a little research on the Aus startup Geodynamics for a typical story of great theory, in practice not feasible.

To put it in context, the entire wind power capacity of Britain, one of the main European wind generators, is less than two and a half gigawatts, from the entire nation (that's the never-reached theoretical capacity, I should say). One of the strengths of renewable power is its decentralised nature. Micro-hydro, solar-powered roofs, micro-CHP, all small scale. Smaller than geothermal, certainly.

Hydroelectric, too.

False, eg. california

So, referencing that chart, the trough during the low-point of a long drought in California, not an area I associate with reliable rain-fall, still produces more than a third of the total theoretical capacity.



That, above, is Britain's wind generating capacity over the winter. Horizontal axis is time passing, in units of half an hour, vertical is MW generated, up to the theoretical 2500 limit. Unreliable even from hour to hour.

Solar isn't constantly producing, but is at least quite predictable. Wind, on the other hand, is easily the worst option, not least because those time when it is coldest coincide with those time when there is least wind.

Making heat with electricity is not very clever, better housing would be much better fix.

True, as would CHP. Rebuilding housing stock, after all, is a rather capital intensive process which can be wasteful of embodied energy, especially as older houses often can't be comprehensively insulated. Using waste-heat, which is an inevitable product of steam-turbine based electrical generation, as used in coal/oil/nuclear/etc. power plants, is better in some circumstances.

The support offered for wind by the government ought to be a clue, along with the big investments from BP and so on.

Here we go, 'business and government are involved, ergo its bad' - plays well with the gallery but makes no sense at all.

Obviously it makes far more sense for BP to put money into something, contrary to their established modus operandi, which poses a long term threat to their gas supply business, right?

As it can take several days to cycle up a gas turbine plant,

False, curious since the truth is widely known & easily checkable..

Gas fired power plants of Steam and Gas fired power plants have a startup time of, respectively, less than one hour and two hours. http://www.energypolicyblog.com/2010/06 ... y-markets/

I'm not sure what you think that shows.

It supports that gas/methane fired plants, whether steam-driven gen sets or turbines, can be powered up in hours, not days as you claim. I'll bet you cannot find a ref to support your claim, it is just so far from the truth. Luckily it is easy to admit error, and it builds trust and confidence!

I could be wrong about that. Thought I read it in Private Eye, but perhaps not.

this means that as long as there is a possibility of a windless period in the next few days you need to keep the gas plants going, even if you don't need the power they're generating, meaning wind power is of absolutely no use at all.

Just like cash is useless because you sometimes use a credit card?

Cash is obtainable for its face value. If I had to put in some large capital investment to be able to use cash, and then would only be able to use it at times decided at random, I'd probably stick with the debit card.

Generating a lot of electricity is a big deal, you ever been to a coal mine or a hydro dam? What do you reckon the capital investment is for this?

YEs, but from a coal mine or hydro-plant I would have a more reliable and predictable supply. I've only actually been down a disused coal mine. Lots of those around here, no active ones though.

[wintler2]

So you're wrong about gas startup times, wrong about scalability of geothermal and reliability of hydro and geo, and cite 'a movie on the telly' and Private Eye as your sources. I'll shortly let your opinion have all the room it likes.


Renewables are better than fossil fuels & nukes because they aren't directly toxic to the biosphere. But they wont run business as usual; on currently built capacity, not even 5% of business as usual, and there may not be a whole lot more capacity built. The sooner we face that reality the more likely our greatgrandkids will have some direct experience of electricity rather than just stories.

[Stephen Morgan]

So you're wrong about gas startup times,

Could be.

wrong about scalability of geothermal and reliability of hydro and geo,

Definitely not.

and cite 'a movie on the telly' and Private Eye as your sources.

Neither of those were cited as sources. Well, Private Eye was in a concession.

I'll shortly let your opinion have all the room it likes.

Calm down.

Renewables are better than fossil fuels & nukes because they aren't directly toxic to the biosphere.

Well, manufacture of solar panels is highly toxic, building wind turbines causes damage to aquifers, although I'm not sure about the accusations of danger to migratory birds. The main damage from fossil fuels is CO2 output.

But they wont run business as usual;

Just need to build some more.

on currently built capacity, not even 5% of business as usual, and there may not be a whole lot more capacity built.

What probably will be built is lots more nukes, probably more coal and gas, especially as the supply of coal is enough to provide a very long term and cheap supply of energy. I'd rather see renewables built, but if we're being non-idealistic about this, electricity will be provided by less environmentally friendly means, more economically centralised means, than it is now.

The sooner we face that reality the more likely our greatgrandkids will have some direct experience of electricity rather than just stories.

Electricity is needed for the whole bread and circuses thing to continue. It will definitely be maintained, and it will be by means designed to ensure profit, not an environmentally friendly distributed supply.