WE have a propsition., supported by the facts, which you say is not supported by the facts.
If you look at WHY windpower is so expensive, you can see the issues clearly. It costs more because the physics dictated that it uses more materials, and always will, in greater and more diverse locations, and always must..and is more liable to failure, and always will be. SIMPLY because to get the same out, you have to have many more units.
Look take your wishful unscientific thinking somewhere else.
I am not interested in discussing fantasises, only the actual real issues.
Well thank the weak mean spirited incompetence of this government to be afraid to take on a few whingeing stupid extremists, as well as pander to every terrorist and every vociferous minority rather than having the balls to tell it like it is.
At least that bitch Thatcher had balls. Wrong tho she was most of the time, at least she wasn't wrong ALL the time.
you really are being dense here. Wind generation doesnt inherently mean propellors on towers, other systems already exist and more are likely to cropup in future. That one approach is limited now does not mean all approaches are limited in the same way.
An EU study in 2007 concluded that, by 2030, onshore wind generation could be only 50% more expensive than nuclear power, instead of about double, while offshore would be down to about double from nearly three times. That is using whole life studies, which include everything from breaking the ground to final decommissioning.
It DOES ineherently means a structure tall enough to get the turbine, whatever form it takes INTO the wind.
I may not know every form of boat that floats, but I know solid concrete ones do one.
Your proposition is that MAYBE there is a form of high power efficient wind turbine that isn't 200ft tall. And huge. I tell you that not according to the laws of physics I know. They have to remove momentum fromm a cross section of wind. If they are not where it is, and have no cross section, they do not remove energy. Period.
Your pathetic points have all the conviction of someone who has never studied nor understood any scientific discipline.,. I suppose you are a politician.
Which study was that? All the ones I've seen which make wind seem useful are talking about it supplying less than 10% of the grid load. Given that we want the rest to be non-fossil, where are we going to get the other 90%? OTEC?
I see. So if I the householder have a small wind gen in the garden, of any design, why would I need:
EMWTK!
The large disparity between wholesale and retail energy prices exists because they do
The rest of your post is basic physics done by someone that doesnt fully appreciate the situation theyre applying the physics to. Really I've spent too long on this already.
The percentage of supply was not considered, only the relative costs of different ways of generating power. However, I recall reading that the UK grid could cope with a maximum of 15% from variable sources.
I see no particular reason to assume that. Coal is plentiful and cheap and, according to this article, if we suddenly stopped our entire output of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and all the other nasty gasses, which, of curse we would never get near to doing, we would reduce the greenhouse effect by
0.28%
formatting link
where are we going to get the other 90%?
If it were up to me, all nuclear, with a few fast consumer reactors to eat up the waste.
a load of garbage dreamed up by someone who doesn't believe in global warming. Quoting spurleous percentages to 3 decimal places doesn't make them incredibly accurate, just incredibly unbelievable.
Grossly inflating the effect of water vapour and ignoring the moderating influence of increased cloud cover isn't science, it's propaganda. The chances are that the perpetrator of this rubbish is also an advocate of creationism.
Where, exactly, does the author claim that global warming is not happening?
...
Please feel free to disprove the proposition with science, rather than rhetoric. This is not the first time I've seen it suggested that water vapour is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. However, there is a lot more political mileage to be got from CO2.
OK so it doesn't use that precise term but claiming that:
"Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account ..."
is the same message.
I don't have time to research in depth atm so a quote from Wikipedia will have to suffice.
"When these gases are ranked by their contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are:[7]
water vapor, which contributes 36?72% * carbon dioxide, which contributes 9?26% * methane, which contributes 4?9% * ozone, which contributes 3?7%"
I rather like my comparison between those who espouse creationism and those who deny anthropogenic global warning. In both cases the evidence is so overwhelming that the deniers have had to shift from outright denial to specious pseudo science.
That is not denying global warming. It is disputing the reasons for it.
I would rather have a link to the article, or, even better, to the sources used for the Wikipedia article. It is, as I am sure you are aware, not the most reliable source.
Which also says that water vapour is the most important greehouse gas, yet, as the article I gave says, it is not included in the calculations.
I think it is more akin to religion. The evidence is overwhelming only to those who already believe.
Even if we take the figures in Wikipedia as accurate, in the worst case, CO2 contributes 26%. Since the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 36% (NOAA figures). If we take that as all man-made, which many scientists dispute, then human generated CO2 contributes just over 9% of the greenhouse effect. The UK produces 2% of global man-made CO2, which means that, if we halve our CO2 output, then the global effect would be less than 0.1%. That is the absolute maximum effect we could have by halving our CO2 output. Take the lower end of the Wikipedia figures and it becomes less than 0.03%
Even the IPCC report, the bible for believers, is far less positive than generally reported. When the contributing scientists were asked if they thought that human activity had contributed to various events, the results were:
Warming of the most extreme days and nights each year - likely. Increase of warm spells / heat waves over most land areas - more likely than not Heavy precipitation events - more likely than not Areas affected by drought increases - more likely than not Intense tropical cyclone increases - more likely than not Increased incidence of extreme high sea levels - more likely than not
'Likely' means that up to one in three contributing scientists may disagree with the conclusion. 'More likely than not' means they could not even get that much agreement. It was also noted that this was based entirely upon opinion, without any assessment of the magnitude of anthropogenic contributions. To me, it is significant that, despite the intense interest in the subject, nobody has come up with indisputable figures for how much humans are contributing to climate change.
I believe that spending money on reducing emissions, without any clear indications that it will be effective, is a waste of money, which would be far better spent in preparing the world for climate change, whether that is warming or, as Russian and some other scientists are predicting, the far more dangerous cooling.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.