Wind Farms - Before pictures

[Scott Walker]

Isn't it time to ask yourself how much you really understand about the science of climate change?

When I was kid I was told by people that claimed to be the worlds foremost experts on the climate that we were contaminating the atmosphere and starting an ice age that would kill us all.

Once I grew up and discovered that I had not froze to death these same experts along with a new crop of brainiacks started telling me that we are contaminating our atmosphere which is going to cause global warming which would cause the oceans to rise, crops to fail, and it would kill us all.

A couple of years ago a bunch of these so called experts got caught lying and falsifying data in order to help their cause, shortly after this happened I was informed that it was no longer global warming but climate change that was going to kill us all.

All of this coming from a group of people that have about a 50/50 chance of predicting the weather here for next Tuesday.

That is what I understand about the science of climate change

[Steve Smith]

here in florida we have alot birds.

I've never heard of the alot bird.


Steve.

[Drew Wiley]

Scott - when I was a kid I was already reading research papers on engineering problems expected in the high arctic due to permafrost failure. Guess who funded these studies? Guess who still does? Who has the most stake financially in terms of exploiting the arctic? In any scientific field including medicine there are a handful of rogues who falsify data in order to get and unfair jump on research funding. Does that mean you never go to a docter again if you're sick? There's nothing particularly controversial about any of this from the standpoint of the scientific community at large, only from a propaganda standpoint from certain polluting or exploitive interests and their political lackeys. There are thousands of engineers and scientists all over the world studying global warming and already planning how to cope with its effects. I
know some of them quite well, and they certainly don't belong to any kind of information conspiracy. Doesn't mean the long-term weather patterns will be predictable; but that fact in itself makes the whole scenario pretty scary.

[Frank Petronio]

You can argue the validity of human-made climate change all you want... I am usually skeptical and fiscally conservative, but I have no doubt that human-made pollution has to have an effective on our climate.

I also know that the 1812 volcanic eruption in the South Seas caused the following several years to be much cooler than normal, leading to crop failures, which led to political disruptions that affected empires and commerce worldwide. Something like that occurring in our lifetime is very possible, likely even, and it would trump the entire Industrial Revolution's pollution with one event.

I'm skeptical that we can ever reverse any global warming process that is already in place, and I am not sure the proposed cures are any better than accepting the hand we are dealt. To completely reinvent our industrial base, economy, energy and land use years ahead of a nebulous threat -- well, it isn't in our species' nature is it? And we really can't predict where, when, or how global warming will impact us. So why should we screw up our economy when it could just as likely be pointless and futile?

We should remove subsidies while also holding polluters to clean up and pay the true cost of fixing their messes, so as consumers we are paying the true cost of our energy consumption. Only then will you see the wide-spread adoption and changes necessary, and we'll be able to adapt to whatever happens faster and more effectively than if we have to wait for international negotiations and stagnant, corrupt political bodies like the UN or the US Congress to act.

If you started to factor in the real cost of providing energy, including security, health risks, clean-ups -- including wars, nuclear waste, lost rivers, dead birds, transmission losses -- our gas prices would probably double but we'd see some really rapid innovation and true changes to our lifestyle. And whomever develops viable alternatives, be it Hydrogen or some magic juice, will lead the world.

[Drew Wiley]

Hydrogen fuel cell technology is already here. The problem is, it takes a LOT of
conventional energy to extract the hydrogen, then you've got distribution issues, etc. There ain't no free ride. I remember half a century ago my high school physics class took a field trip to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab up the hill here. We received fancy brochures and a lecture about how fusion would provide unlimited power to everyone by 1980 and eliminate our need to burn dirty fossil fuels. So a couples years ago they've managed to sustain a fusion reaction for about a millionth of a second at unbelievable cost in a building holding the world's biggest laser. Won't exactly fit under the hood of your car. I also recently saw a documentary piece on a French automobile
that would go sixty miles with zero pollution using only compressed air in a high-pressure carbon-fiber air storage tank. Of course, at the end of each day they needed
a big diesel air compressor belching out smoke and grit to fill it. Nothing comes free.
Go take pictures of those glaciers now, folks. The next generation might not have many to choose from.

[Tom J McDonald]

Drew Wiley, what's stopping them hooking up that car to a wind turbine?

[Scratched Glass]

Interesting discussion. Turbines kill birds by collisions and the change in air pressure around the blades causes a bats lungs to explode. They are also an eyesore in your neighborhood. There is the alternative we already have; mercury in our fish, oil slicks on the water, billions of dollars going to prop up dictators and monarchies. I'll take the wind turbine, but if every roof had a solar panel, it wouldn't take up any of the landscape

[Michael Kadillak]

When the Kennedy's embrace the installation of wind turbines near their family vacation home for the good of the country, I will similarly step in line. Until then I will rely upon common sense and pragmatism to be my personal guide. Fact of the matter is this.

A natural gas fired 1,000 MW power generation station would emit a minor amount of emissions and only require a 5 acre footprint with 25 employees to run it. To generate a similar amount of solar energy would require an enormous surface area. Similarly it would require wind turbines as far as the eye could see.

The bottom line for me is is this. Wind turbines are a friggin eyesore wherever they are located. Plus, there are only a limited area where they can be located - ie. where the wind blows sufficiently enough. Ditto for solar panels. Human beings are inherently bad for the environment even on their best days. We need power so I am into the best bang for the buck using some simple common sense. People inherently do not want them in their back yard just like penitentiaries.

What good does it do this country to pass emission regulation forcing coal fired electrical generation in the US to be a thing of the past when Asia is buying 2X the coal they bought 10 years ago from this country and burning it to the nines. In a week it is over the Eastern Mountains propagating more acid rain and what have we really accomplished? God gave us a brain for a reason. Check your emotion at the front door. Without reliable power we would not be participating in this forum. I personally am not willing to pay 20-30% more for my power bill just to feel good about how I am saving the planet for my kids. I would rather save that for their tuition payments.

[Drew Wiley]

Tom - no need for a wind turbine to power a car, just use a sail! Or only drive downhill.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

You're not willing to look at wind farms or solar panels, or regulate coal burning, or pay more for your energy to save the planet for your kids, and you call this common sense? You advocate natural gas as a solution to the energy problem, but I can tell you, if natural gas was cheaper than oil or coal, we'd already be using it instead. Natural gas generally burns cleaner than oil or coal, but it's nothing like clean compared to wind or solar, and burning is only the last bit. Before natural gas can burn, it has to be extracted and transported, and that's very dirty business. The fact of the matter is this: no single energy source will provide for the energy needs of an increasingly urban global community. Get used to that idea. Wind and solar will play larger roles, along with natural gas, biofuels, and (drumroll)... artificial life! Designer DNA implanted into enzymes will convert carbon to diesel fuel. Whatever sources of energy we eventually depend on, you can be sure you'll pay a lot more for it as global demand has only begun to rise, and that's the bottom line.