The Financial Costs of Fighting Global Warming

[Curval]

Understood....but where are all the studies about how harmful fossil fuel burning has been....oh wait...those are the ones that everyone in here poo poos and then claims that global warming is a myth.

"Think about them now before they come back and bite you later on."

Do I start calling you a tree hugging hippy now?

[oboe]

Mav - regarding the widespread myth that wind turbines are mauling bird populations, the National Renewable Energy Lab has this to say:

MYTH:Wind turbines kill birds and thus have serious environmental impacts. Bird kills have caused serious scientific concern at only one location in the United States: Altamont Pass in California, one of the first areas in the country to experience significant wind development. Over the past decade, the wind community has learned that wind farms and wildlife can and do coexist successfully. Wind energy development’s overall impact on birds is extremely low (<1 of 30,000) compared to other human-related causes, such as buildings, communications towers, traffic, and house cats. Birds can fly into wind turbines, as they do with other tall structures. However, conventional fuels contribute to air and water pollution that can have far greater impact on wildlife and their habitat, as well as the environment and human health.

Also, there is no battery storage at wind farms.   The turbines are connected into electrical substations and their output is fed directly to the power grid.

[VERTEX]

Its not that we think global warming is a myth, its we think the C02 effect has been exaggerated. We are dealing with a very complex and chaotic system, to say C02 is THE reason for global warming is highly simplistic at best and extremely reckless at worst.

Current atmospheric models do not allow us to predict the weather past a few days, therefore trying to predict the climate years or decades into the future is extremely naive.

Don't buy into the current mass hysteria generted by followers of global warming doctrine. Do your own reading from all sources pro and con and make an informed opinion for yourself.

[Curval]

Vertex,

With all due respect I suggest you check out the Global Warming threads that are all over this BBS.  Most posters agree that there is climate changes going on but state quite openly that mankind is not responsible.

I'm having a read of Mav's favourite group's website, the EPA:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html

Some interesting stuff in there.

[VERTEX]

Thanks for that Curval I'll have a look.

In this country, Canada, acceptance of global warming and manmade C02 as the cause has become mainstream thinking, also The UN as embraced the idea wholehartedly. I am very concerned.

You might want to check out some recent stories run in the national post.

They did a 10 part series called THE DENIERS, it was very interesting.

If you google DR Shariv and click on the first link called The Real Deal you will get to the national post website that has the entire series. It is a good read.

[Maverick]

Oboe,

The bit about the feed into the power grid is not quite true if you are taking the rest of the "not green" production out of the loop. The wind turbines can add to the grid but only if there is a main supply the wind power is supplementing, not as a primary source. Wind is viable as a supplement to the power grid not the main source of electricity. Once the wind dies to a low level there would be no source.

The impact on birds is low now since there are few wind farms in existance. How about when the numbers increase to blanket areas? How about in close relation to a wetland or migration flyway? Remember you are talking a far greater number than what we have now. Frankly even then I still think it would be bogus but it is an arguement levied by those who's interest is birds, not electricity. You still have to assess the impact, real and perceived, to defuse the situation and allow some project to go ahead.

Curve, you can call me most anything except late for supper. I'll just consider the source.

I'm not a "hippy" and although as an outdoorsman and fan of nature I am more of a tree hugger than the usual person who has not spent any time in the wild. I also understand the interplay between nature and man's possible relationship to it rather than opponent.

I brought up those things because that's what I have seen argued in the development of the area (SW) where I have spent most of my life to date. "Progress bad, utilities bad, population increase bad so all you other folks leave me to enjoy this area selfishly". Oh and BTW make sure I can run my TV, computer, AC, heat, pool, spa etc. as much as I want but you guys have to cut back. Don't forget you can't build in the foothills above the height of the fancy houses already there. You'll spoil the natural view......  

This area really IS the epitome of NIMBY.

[lazs2]

mav.. you really wouldn't need storage with solar unless you wanted to be independent of the grid.

You would still need power plants but your cost would be almost nothing since you would sell back the power you didn't use and buy when you needed it (at night) the power plants could be smaller and they would sell the power you sold them to factories and other high demand users.

lazs

[oboe]

Mav,

Agreed, wind power will not be the primary source on the grid.   But it has room to increase significantly.   Absolutely siting studies should be done and bird kill (actually bats, too) studies should continue.   Siting wind farms near wetlands and in migratory flyways should be prohibited, but even with those restrictions there is plenty of room for development.

There are experimental storage facilities in the works - for example, in central Iowa, a wind farm is going to power air compressors to pump air into underground caverns - then the air is going to be released to power generating turbines.    Other plans include using excess electricity on windy days to power electrolysis units to separate oxygen and hydrogen from water.   When the wind dies, the hydrogen and oxygen will be recombined to produce electricity.    AFAIK, there has been no magic bullet discovered yet, but I think its wise to keep trying different things and see what works best.

One of the most embarrassing and egregious examples of NIMBY I think is Ted Kennedy's opposition to America's first planned offshore windfarm.   Unfortunately it will be just visible from his and a bunch of his blueblood supporter's houses on Cape Cod.     Really indefensible and hypocritical.

[ghi]

Originally posted by Shuckins


The stations would cover approximately 29,000,000 acres and cost approximately $262,000,000,000 to build.



 

Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion that's 1000 000 000 000, aprox 4 times more than you need,

 btw,1 hectare=2.4 acres, not 100 acres

[oboe]

Been waiting for someone to compare it to the cost of the Iraq war.

I think of spending on domestic, renewable energy sources as an investment, not so much a cost.  

Is the Iraq War an investment or a cost?    It really doesn't look good from where I sit.

[Gunslinger]

I have it on good authority that there are thousands apon thousands of square miles in Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico that get plenty of sun light and are for the most part completly devoid of just about everything.

But the environmentalist might get into some type of hippie civil war due to the endangerment of some insignificant desert weed (See:  California Imperial Valley Sand Dunes, endangered weed )

[Hazzer]

The Real cost of Global warming will be in lives not in  dollars.

[Curval]

"Curve, you can call me most anything except late for supper. I'll just consider the source. "

lol Mav.

I just found it funny that you immediately yelled for an epa study.  That's commie talk!

[Sixpence]

Well, I thought nuclear energy would work if we could find a way to neutralize radioactive waste. I found this

[Maverick]

Originally posted by lazs2
mav.. you really wouldn't need storage with solar unless you wanted to be independent of the grid.

You would still need power plants but your cost would be almost nothing since you would sell back the power you didn't use and buy when you needed it (at night) the power plants could be smaller and they would sell the power you sold them to factories and other high demand users.

lazs

Laz the whole idea was to replace power generation by burning hydrocarbons with solar and wind. That's going to take a real big section of the "grid" away. Once the sun goes down how is solar going to help again without having stored the electricity some how? This isn't for small home production it's replacing a significant chunk of the entire grid.

The point I was trying to make, and I'll try to be very clear about it, is that neither solar or wind are going to supply the amount of electricity consistently, reliably and for 24/7 like the hydrocarbon source does. They can provide electricity but only when the wind is blowing strongly enough or the sun is shining. (or both) They can't provide the electricity in as small a space as hydrocarbon production. The excess produced will need some kind of storage device for use at night and during times of calm air if it is to be used in those times.

Hydroelectric doesn't supply the needs for electricity if hydrocarbon production is gone. I don't imagine that nuclear production is going to be thought of very well for some time if ever by the greenies either.