with Peter Sinclair
Please do watch this one. I do think it’s one of my better ones.
It’s all explained here:
Just post the damn YouTube link with a short description, okay?
There’s absolutely no need for the ridiculous, redirected URL you keep putting up.
“Denier land – how deniers view global warming” – a spoof by Josh
Was that so hard?
so josh doesn’t know the difference between greenland and the whole globe?
Maybe he knows, and maybe he doesn’t want anyone else to know. People are actually falling for that graph of his. I had a denier friend of mine mail me the video in triumph.
OK – Let’s say the water is rising. The Earth is warming. I won’t argue that.
Will it then be warm enough to grow crops in lands that previously did not have a long enough growing season to grow such crops? I come from a place that did not have a long enough growing season to grow sweet corn. It seems like some good things could come about from this melting.
Will there be more fish in the sea? There will be more sea, after all.
There will be extinction of certain animals. This is sad. How many people really care? We did not eat Polar Bear meat.
How will the climate actually change in given areas? What areas will dry out? More ocean surface will mean more evaporation. Will more rain come to dry areas? Will global warming make the desert bloom? Will this enable the world to be fed?
If this is a bad thing and men are causing it, we should stop. We don’t want to change our lifestyle. That is a hard sell for you guys. If we need to stop burning coal, something else will be needed. A lot of windmills have gone up. The wind does not always blow. I want my lights to work all the time.
Engineer Poet says nuclear power will stop the Carbon Dioxide that is causing the ice to melt. He says we should use nuclear power. James Hanson says we should use nuclear power.
This seems like the way to stop the warming, but I just don’t know.
I’m not afraid of nuke plants. I’m just thinking if the earth warms and all that land mass of the Tiga forest could be used for productive agriculture that maybe we’d be better off.
your assumption that the rocky acidic soils of northern forests will instantly become as productive as the fertile plains of the midwest may be somewhat misguided
I could make things interesting politically if europe and america can no longer grow an overabundance of food – not to mention the effects of migrating populations as the subtropics become uninhabitable.
Likewise your assumption that any species we don’t eat is of no value. There are a number of life systems under assault beside polar bears, notably, the base of the ocean food chain, which is threatened by ocean acidification.
As for fish, fisheries can possibly respond to management if we stop messing with the oceans – but already we are seeing shifts that may not be in the dirction we would like
as the wind does not always blow, so nuclear plants do not always nuke. They need to be shut every 18 months for 5 weeks to refuel. What’s your backup?
In the case of a widely dispersed grid of wind and solar, you are much more robust in the face of regional changes in weather or grid outages, as cities, towns and neighborhoods become more capable of generating their own power locally. Even Tea Party zealots are now waking up to this advantage of renewable energy
“as the wind does not always blow, so nuclear plants do not always nuke. They need to be shut every 18 months for 5 weeks to refuel. What’s your backup?
In the case of a widely dispersed grid of wind and solar, you are much more robust in the face of regional changes in weather or grid outages, as cities, towns and neighborhoods become more capable of generating their own power locally. Even Tea Party zealots are now waking up to this advantage of renewable energy”
Nuke plants go 24 hours a day. Certainly they have planned refueling outages, but their capacity factors are high. Much better utilization is made of this machinery than windmills. Nuke plants pay for themselves with the power they generate many times over. It is free of greenhouse gases.
Windmills need subsidies to be built. They do not pay for themselves. If mankind survives this time, future generations will look back at this time as the tyranny of the “Greens.” Windmills only produce power about 30 percent of the time. Would you buy a car that started only once every three tries?
What do you do when the nukes don’t “nuke”? There are planned outages in the Spring or Fall when the demand for power is less. All generators need not be nuke. Greens love the gas turbines that keep their lights on when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine.
Building a lot of windmills means more expensive transmission lines. Miles and miles of Aluminum Cable Steel Reinforced (ACSR). Kind of a waste of time, energy and money to build infrastructure like this that only operates 30% of the time. Thirty percent is not what I’d term “robust.” “Robust is a word I’ve seen applied to software. Our power system needs to be more reliable than most office software
I’m less worried about Tea Party Zealots than those from the opposite end of the spectrum who want to take my life choices away from me.
“..who want to take my life choices away from me.”
and your life choices include where the electrons come from that light your lights?
You give yourself away as a Tea Party dunce.
your telling me that “planned outages” do not need to be backed up.
I ask again, what is your backup?
the advantage of renewables is distributed generation – like the internet, much more robust to outages because you don’t lose a thousand megawatts in a microsecond. Wind is predictable. If a windmill in a large array goes down, you lose a couple megawatts, but not a thousand.
and need I remind you, you don’t have to evacuate nearby cities.
You presume that Nuclear does not need transmission lines
“windmills do not pay for themselves”..”subsidies” yada yada
Dude, if you want nuclear plants, go for it. The fact is, you’ll have to convince the big money investors that its a good deal, otherwise you are looking at trillions in subsidies, numbers that will only increase over coming years. Meanwhile, around the world, the most successful renewable subsidies, Germany’s, are configured to phase themselves out over the next couple decades.
Again, do your reading, so you don’t embarrass yourself like this, and don’t pretend you have an open mind, when you are merely trolling.
Everything has a a subsidy. Nuclear, oil, coal, petroleum, natural gas, you name it. Which ones absorb the most subsidies? The oldest and most profitable in that order. Who has the most money, profits, and political influence? Big oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear. You are so brainwashed by their PR, that you believe like smokers, that somebody is going to take your precious addiction away. Meanwhile, everyone else suffers from your addiction, and big fossil fuel retains its stranglehold on everything. This, you conclude, is the tyranny of the greens. Sound like the death moans of an aging dinosaur while the lumbering beast is still alive.bit would be awfully nice if you would substantiate some of your opinions, like how much aluminum wind farms use vs whatever, with some citations.
OK, wind has the lowest CO2, excepting hydro.
Under the CDEAC analysis, if half of the transmission cost is assigned to wind, the resulting cost would be approximately $120 per new kilowatt of wind developed. This represents about a 7% increase in the capital cost of wind development (based on capital costs for a wind energy facility of about $1,800/kW).
So wind grids requirements are only 7% of costs. Wind does not require substantially more transmission costs than any other form of generation under this study at 20% wind penetration. Further, the power system is complex and composed of many different generation sources, even among renewables. It will likely always be so and will include regional variations. Viewing the power system system simplistically, yields unrealistic results.
Power system professionals use metrics like ELCC to describe the capacity value of intermittent sources like wind. A discussion of this is beyond the scope of a blog, and understandable only to power engineering professionals. Quoting the study,
“Although 12,000 MW of wind capacity have been installed in the United States, little or no backup capacity for wind energy has been added to date.”
There are a lot of misconceptions on the internet. I like to look up reliable sources to find out what is real.
You green people are very mean. I will remember your kind on election day. In this day and age we need politicians who will be open to new thinking.
No – I’m not a tea Party person. I’m a populist.
The backup was noted as being two things:
1) Power demand is lower in the Fall and Spring. There is less need for power at these times.
2) All generators do not need to run. This is not a singular world where there is only one power source. If the nuke is off, gas turbines, geothermal, coal plants and sometimes even wind can make up the difference although not on a continuous basis. The grid is connected to many sources. It has been that way for a long time. This predates the relatively recent building of wind turbines.
Of course nuclear plants need transmission lines. However, a multiplicity of little used lines is not the result of building a baseload plant as it is with wind turbines. The transmission line from a nuclear plant will be utilized well. It will not be a waste of copper and aluminum as is often the case of a line to a remote wind farm. The waste is that thirty percent of the time it may be utilized well and 70 percent it is not. This is an irresponsible use of the ratepayer’s money.
Learn your US history. Nobody was hurt in 3 mile Island.
Many died in Japan, but it wasn’t due to the BWR plant flooding. It was due to the tidal wave. What do you see on the news? The attention is all given to a power plant accident with few if any deaths while those who suffer are ignored. Time will show that there has been an under-reaction to the real event.
Sorry – I didn’t waste time with your links.
It may surprise you that I actually like wind energy. I’ve read about it since the Carter times when they built the first rash of wind turbines. However, I think it should be applied where practical and not to meet some mandated quota for “green” energy. We need actual solutions to our energy problems.
Germany is building coal plants to meet its needs. It often imports Nuclear energy from France. Many other countries are building nuclear plants even if Germany decides not to build any more. It may be able to buy power from them.
I admire your devotion to your cause. The green people do have a beautiful dream. Unfortunately, I believe in that which is practical.
As far as the nukes go, here’s what I’d like to see, LFTR. It may never happen in my lifetime, but if it is all they claim, it is also a good dream. You have an open mind? Look into the LFTR.
My time is limited. There will be no more responses. Insult me as you see fit.
“You green people are very mean. I will remember your kind on election day. In this day and age we need politicians who will be open to new thinking.”
You may have missed the previous post about Mary P. Sinclair and me posting the “Repercussions” excerpt from her Wikipedia page.
Those “mean” people weren’t enviros, she was.
I’ll let you figure out why she’s relevant to the conversation.
And, enough about LFTR; it’s become a bigger Internet meme than Ron Paul.
The earliest that a functioning, tested, reliable MSR of any kind will be in production is 2030. None of us is standing in LFTR’s way but we’re also not going to sit on our hands waiting for yet another nuclear promise to reveal itself as boon or boondoggle.
I will apologiize in advance if you feel offended by my remarks. My goal is to set the record straight and advance the cause of understanding and enlightenment. Seriously, I hold no grudge.
0.Sorry – I didn’t waste time with your links.
You want to throw away your vote in an act of biting your face to spite your nose? And why would you not want to carefully research what and whom you were voting for? You are likely to be taken in by hucksters if you do not do your research. My post was probably not read before you made
1.your comments about backup.
“Although 12,000 MW of wind capacity have been installed in the United States, little or no backup capacity for wind energy has been added to date.”
2.Nor the part about extra transmission lines.
This represents about a 7% increase in the capital cost of wind development (based on capital costs for a wind energy facility of about $1,800/kW).
3.Nobody was hurt at Three Mile Island
“Large numbers of central Pennsylvanians suffered skin sores and lesions that erupted while they were out of doors as the fallout rained down on them. Many quickly developed large, visible tumors, breathing problems, and a metallic taste in their mouths that matched that experienced by some of the men who dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and who were exposed to nuclear tests in the south Pacific and Nevada. ”
4.Germany is building coal plants to meet its needs.
5.It often imports Nuclear energy from France
Germany exported more electricity than it imported for the seventh consecutive year in 2012, despite an accelerated exit from nuclear-power generation that included the immediate and permanent shut-down of nearly half of the country’s atomic reactors in 2011.
6.Many other countries are building nuclear plants
the number of nuclear plants worldwide and percentage of electricity provided by nuclear is declining.
Wind energy is no dream. “As of the third quarter of 2013 the capacity is now 60,078 MW.” – Wikipedia.
See Morins comments on LFTR. Now that is a dream.
My time is limited, too. Only one lifetime.
Swallow – you assert,
“The transmission line from a nuclear plant will be utilized well. It will not be a waste of copper and aluminum as is often the case of a line to a remote wind farm. The waste is that thirty percent of the time it may be utilized well and 70 percent it is not. This is an irresponsible use of the ratepayer’s money.”
The first and most important flaw in your reasoning is that the grid is sized for the peak load, not generation. All year long, the grid is too big compared to the peak annual load. All night long and most of the day, the grid is underutilized.
Why cannot the same transmission system be used for a multiplicity of resources? All other sources combine on the same grid, but wind and only wind, requires a singular power line for all its sources? Not only is the grid not expanded just for wind, one objection given to an increased grid for wind is that it could be used for coal! Will the grid be expanded for wind? Sure. For wind and only wind? No.
[…] VIDEO: Making the Plio Scene – What the Past tells us about Sea Level (Climate Crocks) […]
Thanks Peter for an informative video. I have reposted the video and elaborated in text upon it here: Ice Sheets and Sea level: what the past tells us is likely.
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
"The sharpest climate denier debunker on YouTube."
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 1,665 other followers
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.