April 15, 2010
Natural Gas Worse Than Diesel On Global Warming?

Vehicles powered by natural gas would leak methane that would warm the planet way more than CO2.

In fact, using natural gas rather than diesel in vehicles could actually increase climate change, says Robert Howarth, professor of ecology and environmental biology at Cornell University. "You're aggravating global warming more if you switch," he says.

Howarth is basing his conclusion on a preliminary analysis that includes not only the amount of carbon dioxide that comes out of a tailpipe when you burn diesel and natural gas, but also the impact of natural gas leaks. Methane, the main component of natural gas, is much more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, so even small amounts of it contribute significantly to global warming. When you factor this in, natural gas could be significantly worse than diesel, he says. Using natural gas would emit the equivalent of 33 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule. Using petroleum fuels would emit the equivalent of just 20 grams of carbon dioxide per megajoule.

The problem with natural gas is that if it leaks before it is burned it is a far more potent warmer than if it is first burned and converted into carbon dioxide and water. Better to burn it in large electric power generator plants where it is burned with tight emissions controls in highly efficient furnaces.

Hydrogen is a bad idea for a similar reason (in addition to other reasons). Hydrogen leaks would damage the ozone layer. Hydrogen as a fuel storage medium is a bad idea.

Share |      Randall Parker, 2010 April 15 11:06 PM  Climate Policy


Comments
Mark said at April 16, 2010 5:17 AM:

The best bet is to convert natural gas to liquid HC first, and then use it in the conventional transportation infrastructure. If there were an efficient way to combine hydrogen-poor coal with hydrogen-rich natural gas to produce ~CH2 liquids, that would be ideal.

Jake said at April 16, 2010 5:43 AM:

The eruption of the Iceland volcano highlights how silly these types of stories are. In the next 3 months more greenhouse gases will spew forth from that volcano than all gases from human activity since the beginning of time.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 16, 2010 8:16 AM:

That is a very interesting claim, Jake. It is especially interesting because the curve of atmospheric CO2 concentration bears no relationship to major volcanic eruptions. We are all waiting with bated breath for the evidence you must have to support this earth-shaking revelation.

Black Death said at April 16, 2010 9:40 AM:

Volcanic eruptions produce global cooling from the ejection of sulfur dioxide and particulates into the stratosphere. The effect is well documented and not seriously disputed. From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8622520.stm)):

How volcanoes have shaped history


The eruption of Mount Pinatubo caused global cooling

In 1991, Mount Pinatubo on the island of Luzon, in the Philippines, erupted just 90km (55 miles) north-west of the capital, Manila.
Over the course of several eruptions, the volcano ejected a massive 10 cubic km of material, making it the second biggest eruption of the 20th Century.
While volcanic dust is in the upper atmosphere, it can have a profound short-term effect on the global climate, because it blocks out a portion of the sunlight able to reach the ground.
The Mount Pinatubo eruption caused the average global temperature to drop by 0.4-0.5C.
Previous eruptions have been much more deadly. The eruption of the volcano on Krakatoa in Indonesia in 1883 is one of the best known eruptions in relatively recent times, because it occurred after the invention of the telegraph.

It killed thousands, pulverised two-thirds of the island and drastically altered the ocean floor. But Krakatoa was a mere baby compared with the eruption of Tambora, also in Indonesia, some 68 years earlier.
This was the most powerful eruption in recorded history. Rivers of hot ash rolled down the 4,000m (13,000ft) -high volcano, killing around 10,000 people on the island.
It is thought to have ejected 50 cubic km or more of material and pumped vast amounts of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.
The cloud from Tambora caused an unusual chill, lowering global temperatures by an estimated 0.4-0.7C.
In parts of Europe and in North America, 1816 became known as "the year without a summer". Frosts killed off crops in New England and Canada; Europe was also hit badly.

th said at April 16, 2010 3:38 PM:

Perhaps big gas could provide a high fructose version of nat gas that drives the lefty media into another misguided frenzy which is exactly what this is. They are already refilling thousands of propane tanks, where's the problem parker? Natural gas is best used for industrial purposes and residential heating, not pandering to stupid leftist whims about global warming, by the way parker, the left in europe are clearing out the closet on global warming, they are getting the hell out, back-pedaling as fast as the teleprompter is jumping in.

from one of your favorites....
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html

Nick G said at April 16, 2010 4:22 PM:

th,

If you read that article carefully, you'll see that it supports Climate Change as a "big deal".

If you look at the following excerpt as an example, you'll see that much of it is about complexity vs oversimplification:

"Climate models involve some of the most demanding computations of any simulations, and only a handful of institutes worldwide have the necessary supercomputers. The computers must run at full capacity for months to work their way through the jungle of data produced by coupled differential equations.

All of this is much too complicated for politicians, who aren't terribly interested in the details. They have little use for radiation budgets and ocean-atmosphere circulation models. Instead, they prefer simple targets.

For this reason a group of German scientists, yielding to political pressure, invented an easily digestible message in the mid-1990s: the two-degree target. To avoid even greater damage to human beings and nature, the scientists warned, the temperature on Earth could not be more than two degrees Celsius higher than it was before the beginning of industrialization.

It was a pretty audacious estimate. Nevertheless, the powers-that-be finally had a tangible number to work with. An amazing success story was about to begin.

'Clearly a Political Goal'

Rarely has a scientific idea had such a strong impact on world politics. Most countries have now recognized the two-degree target. If the two-degree limit were exceeded, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen announced ahead of the failed Copenhagen summit, "life on our planet, as we know it today, would no longer be possible."

But this is scientific nonsense. "Two degrees is not a magical limit -- it's clearly a political goal," says Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). "The world will not come to an end right away in the event of stronger warming, nor are we definitely saved if warming is not as significant. The reality, of course, is much more complicated."

REN said at April 16, 2010 9:48 PM:

We need energy dense fuel for our transportation infrastructure. Carbon (Hydrocarbons) are hard to beat for their energy density and portability. Extra light, but strong vehicles will likely be in our future. Other fuel saving methods include trains, which run on low friction steel wheels. Trains should be moving freight and not long haul trucks. Gasoline and Diesel engines are fairly low on thermodynamic efficiency, so there is room to improve them with technology. We are seeing some of that now, for example with Fords Ecoboost engines. Other engines of the future could include ethanol boost gasoline engines. Hybrids bring some efficiency because they recover braking losses.

Lowering hydrocarbon consumption can be had by shifting power from the electrical grid to cars, as for example, in battery powered cars. The future is probably more of the same as we are seeing today, although the mix may shift around a bit. Hydrogen and Natural Gas have storage issues and low energy density that make them impractical.

Nick G said at April 17, 2010 9:19 AM:

REN,

I think the mix will shift quite a lot. EREVs like the Chevy Volt reduce fuel consumption by 90%, with no compromises in performance.

REN said at April 17, 2010 11:12 AM:

If we have something like a Chevy Volt with a very efficient gas engine, that would be a good technological fix. For example, you can make combustion engines very efficient if you make them run in a narrow output band. The battery can buffer the output. I understand that GM is moving in that direction.

We loose a lot of power, approximately 30% transmission losses over the electrical grid. We will need to take a look at that too. Maybe we can have smaller power plants clustered closer to their consumers. There is an interesting gas power plant designed by GE based on their CFM line of aero gas turbines. They can spool up quickly to fill in for sagging loads inherent in wind or tidal power.

There is a lot to do, but the first order of Society should be to fix our banking system. Our debt based monetary system is trapping us and hobbling us from moving forward.

th said at April 17, 2010 3:58 PM:

"The strong majority of 58 percent who said they feared global warming about three years ago has declined to a minority of 42 percent." nickg this is what I call progress, something der dufuses would have never imagined a year ago, the exposure of the lefty liars is what's significant, not der fools paradise making excuses that the models are very complicated.

Engineer-Poet said at April 17, 2010 4:20 PM:

REN, grid transmission losses in the USA are about 5.6% (total end-use divided by net generation was 94.4% in 2007).

And now I have to say it:  "YOU EEEEEEEDIOT!"  </Ren&Stimpy>

th said at April 17, 2010 4:25 PM:

"We loose a lot of power, approximately 30% transmission losses over the electrical grid. We will need to take a look at that too. Maybe we can have smaller power plants clustered closer to their consumers. There is an interesting gas power plant designed by GE based on their CFM line of aero gas turbines. They can spool up quickly to fill in for sagging loads inherent in wind or tidal power.

30%?, when did it get that bad, the US grid transmission and distribution loss is less than 10%, and those spool up quickly generators, aren't those called peaking units and haven't we had them since edison was alive. I agree with the debt based monetary system, but until we collapse, it won't get fixed, paul krugman has way too much leftist tribalism in him to admit defeat, much like the warming crowd. yuk yuk

th said at April 17, 2010 4:35 PM:

poet, given that climatechange has absolutely zero empirical evidence behind it, do you still think replacing coal's 30% heat efficiency, endless supply and 99% reliability with wind's 25% reliability and endless subsidy is an even trade-off, even if we carpet bomb the place with them?

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 17, 2010 5:37 PM:

Montana will eventually run out of coal, but Iowa will never run out of wind. Wind doesn't emit any mercury or need any ash dumps, either. The external costs of those aren't billed to electric consumers, which is a subsidy for coal.

The compressed-air electric storage project here is proceeding slowly, but it looks like there is a new company in the market called General Compression.

http://www.generalcompression.com/

General Compression claims it can shape the output of a wind farm to anything desired. There's your reliability.

NotProgressive said at April 17, 2010 8:57 PM:

Here is a link I found for GE, on the gas "peaking" power plant mentioned earlier. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LMS100. GeneralCompression is also interesting. One thing you should never count out is human ingenuity. That is one good reason for being optimistic about the future.

Hong said at April 17, 2010 9:13 PM:

Cloud cover and solar radiation are more likely culprits of the planetary warming cycle. Hardly any of the models even take into consideration the stellar activity of our parent star. So fixated are they on the narrative of man made CO2 output that it's virtually impossible to hold a rational discussion with the Alarmists. Judging by recent trends it might actually be beneficial to increase Methane output.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fWRsdTRR

KTWO said at April 17, 2010 11:44 PM:

Natural gas is worse than diesel which is worse than x which is worse than y which is worse than z.....

Sure!

Those who follow these topics know science has proved beyond doubt whatever we do will be the worst possible choice. Just as everything we have ever done was the worst possible thing we could have done.

However I agree with the text. If we use regulations to push diesel aside and substitute NG then it is an excellent idea to consider the entire process. Just measuring what comes out of the tailpipe won't work.

Engineer-Poet said at April 18, 2010 9:47 AM:

I can't believe Hong is still at this.  Without "solar radiation" in general, Earth would be frozen at about 20 K. : But there has been no increase in the solar constant lately, and his vagueness in defining "solar radiation" would let him muddy the waters with irrelevancies until the cows came home.  Ditto "cloud cover".  One change wrought by the anti-pollution measures begun in the 50's and 60's was a reduction in sulfate and particulate emissions.  This reduced cloud cover (offset somewhat by increased jet contrails), but it's not exactly supportive of the "no anthropogenic effect" position.

How does someone commit to such an intellectually vacuous position, constantly have it thrust in their face and still sleep at night?  Such people are sick.

I'm with Randall:  the best way to use natural gas for transport is to electrify transport (eliminating NG at the vehicle and leakage from the supply network).  If we had a government with a clue, we'd start by electrifying our rail system throughout.  The next step would be to recognize that our freeway system is too expensive to maintain largely because of the pounding it gets from heavy trucks, convert some of the lanes to rails by crushing the damaged pavement into ballast, and converting trucks to Blade Runner dual-mode vehicles.  With the rails as a return path for current, the trucks could be electrified using a single overhead wire.  No emissions from the trucks, best efficiency of use of whatever fuel provides the electricity, and more likely than not the entire system becomes almost entirely independent of oil in general and imports in particular.

Hong said at April 18, 2010 10:28 AM:

EP says,

"Without "solar radiation" in general, Earth would be frozen at about 20 K."

Something tells me you didn't read the article since it or I never made that point. Only that temperatures aren't rising and human activity probably isn't to blame.

"But there has been no increase in the solar constant lately"

Exactly my point EP, which correlates with the lack of increase or even decrease in global temperatures.

"his vagueness in defining "solar radiation" would let him muddy the waters with irrelevancies until the cows came home. Ditto "cloud cover""

The vagueness your referring to is comprehensively covered by the writer. Way to go avoiding the facts. Honestly, are you this lazy or are you that big a troll EP?

"One change wrought by the anti-pollution measures begun in the 50's and 60's was a reduction in sulfate and particulate emissions. This reduced cloud cover (offset somewhat by increased jet contrails), but it's not exactly supportive of the "no anthropogenic effect" position."

But the argument made by the skeptics is that such efforts were marginal at best judging by the historical record of global temperatures. Rising and falling temperatures have been recorded throughout human history before pollution or man made CO2 emissions became an issue.

"How does someone commit to such an intellectually vacuous position, constantly have it thrust in their face and still sleep at night? Such people are sick."

You took the words right out of my mouth. Keep flogging the hysteria and ignore the research lol. Further proof that the Alarmists cannot debate rationally but need to lash out when their theories are punctured. Can someone actually read the articles and offer an informed response?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fWRsdTRR

Randall Parker said at April 18, 2010 12:28 PM:

Hong,

Actually the modelers do consider solar radiation variability. In his book on global warming (Storms Of My Grandchildren - which I'm slowly reading) James Hansen discusses solar output measurements over the time period satellites have been able to measure them (since about the early 1970s if memory serves). He says the forcing changes from solar output fluctuations over recent decades haven't been large enough to produce the amount of warming measured in recent decades. He discusses feedbacks on the solar output fluctuations that might amplify .2 watt/m^2 solar output fluctuations into .4 watt/m^2 net effect. He says the science on this is not settled. The potential .4 watt/m^2 increase at the peak of the solar cycle is still small compared to the changes in the GHG forcings.

Aerosols and sulfates: Hansen says some aerosols have warming effects and other aerosols have cooling effects. Aerosols of the cooling variety have declined in the US and Europe in recent decades while rising in south and east Asia. Hansen thinks the huge rise in aerosols in places like China will eventually get reduced (as more affluent Chinese demand cleaner air to breathe) and when that happens some of the warming effects of CO2 that have been hidden by the aerosols will cause more warming than we've seen.

Hansen would like a specialized satellite launched that would do aerosol measurements in the upper atmosphere. He also says we could launch a satellite that would measure net forcing changes so that we could see from radiation in and radiation out whether we are warming the planet. These satellite proposals have never gotten approved by politicals in Washington DC. That's a pity.

You should try reading Hansen. I find him quite nuanced in his reasoning and he clearly states areas of uncertainty and types of measurements we need to make to narrow down the uncertainties.

Guys,

I would appreciate it if you tried a little more just pure rational argument before switching to insults.

Hong said at April 18, 2010 1:50 PM:

I think you should remember that Hansen has undermined his credibility with his refusal to release the data for his work:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

You've placed a lot of trust on Hansen and NASA but it's apparent much of their data is as unreliable as the CRU. Therefore I'm going to remain agnostic on his conclusions. Considering that there has been a relation between solar activity and global temperatures measured historically worldwide (as shown in the article I submitted) it's not convincing to declare the issue dead.

" He says the forcing changes from solar output fluctuations over recent decades haven't been large enough to produce the amount of warming measured in recent decades"

Your grounding a lot of faith on 30 years of satellite data while ignoring the centuries of history and other data sources stated in the article.

"Aerosols and sulfates: Hansen says some aerosols have warming effects and other aerosols have cooling effects. Aerosols of the cooling variety have declined in the US and Europe in recent decades while rising in south and east Asia. Hansen thinks the huge rise in aerosols in places like China will eventually get reduced (as more affluent Chinese demand cleaner air to breathe) and when that happens some of the warming effects of CO2 that have been hidden by the aerosols will cause more warming than we've seen."

I have little faith in the aerosol effect being that significant. Global rises in temperature have been recorded throughout history without human intervention. Again relying on Hansen as gospel is probably asking to be duped. But if a million spray cans can have such cooling effects than perhaps encouraging their use is a positive trend.

"You should try reading Hansen."

You should try reading Roger Pielks Sr. and my posted articles. I think you'll find that it addresses Hansen's points on the satellite data and other facts he'd rather leave quiet.

"Guys,
I would appreciate it if you tried a little more just pure rational argument before switching to insults."

I only insult when provoked as my history ought to show. Please stop equating me with the troll :)

PacRim Jim said at April 18, 2010 3:00 PM:

Diesel microparticles travel deep into the lungs, where they cannot be eliminated. The result could be cancer, fibrosis, and other unpleasantries.

Randall Parker said at April 18, 2010 3:35 PM:

Hong,

How does NASA GISS undermine their credibility by saying a competing research center uses a better way to normalize and correct data? Also, where does that Fox News story report what your sentence says it reports? His refusal to release the data? Where does the article mention this?

The aerosol effect being significant: Hansen shows a large error bar on the aerosol forcing effect. So he's not confident about it either. You'll have to find another way to disagree with him on this point.

Hong said at April 18, 2010 7:24 PM:

"How does NASA GISS undermine their credibility by saying a competing research center uses a better way to normalize and correct data?"

When the CRU data is considered better managed than NASA's than you have to admit a serious problem! The Fox news report also makes it clear that any satellite data is tied to land based stations. Problem is that many are too influenced by artificial heat sources such close proxity to pavement or vents. I would argue that FOX was being rather conservative on how wrong NASA has been.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html
From 2007: You might have remembered when NASA quietly revised the hottests years from the 1990s to the 1930s (later changing it back again to the 90s). It's hard to dismiss how Hansen breezily ignored the lack of temperature data from South America, Africa and Antarctica while declaring it unimportant. This while even Phil Jones had to admit the possibility that recorded warming periods found in Europe may have actually been a worldwide phenomenon. Also ask why data from uncontaminated sites like Walhalla, SC were altered by Hansen.


"His refusal to release the data? Where does the article mention this?"

You're right that the news article doesn't elaborate on this point. I should've offered some more links:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

NASA has now released the data and the results are not looking good for your guy Hansen: To me it goes way beyond sloppy record keeping to deliberate fraud. The breakdown was divided into four parts.
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-one/?singlepage=true
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-three/?singlepage=true
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-four/?singlepage=true

Reading the email snippets, you can see where Hansen is trying to shape the data (including altering a .5 C temperature difference between '34 and '98 to .2C) and how he and others at GISS map out a respond to critics with some unsavory tactics. The entire process reeks of corruption involving biased journalists and scientists secretly backtracking on their temperature estimates. Hansen dismisses minor temperature differences yet tries mightily to diminish their size. An arbitrary standard which states that nothing is important unless he says it is. It's seems like a lot to read but not really. I believe The American Thinker article I linked earlier is longer than these combined. Besides you'll be doing yourself a favor if you take the trouble.


"You'll have to find another way to disagree with him on this point."

You make it sound as though I'm simply a contrarian for the hell of it. Not very nice Randall. Since he's apparently unsure of it himself, I'm happy to remain agnostic again. Heh

Hong said at April 18, 2010 8:09 PM:

"How does NASA GISS undermine their credibility by saying a competing research center uses a better way to normalize and correct data?"

When the data at the CRU is regarded as superior than you have a problem! The Fox link clearly states the satellite data is problematic when the surface temperature stations are suspect. Other bloggers have written about problems with the GISS including their temperature revisions in 2007 and 2009 where Hansen breezily dismisses the total lack of data from South America, Africa, and Antartica. Or how uncontaminated sites such as Walhalla, Georgia found it's data altered.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html

"His refusal to release the data? Where does the article mention this?"

You're right there should have been a link to reference that point I made. Here's one:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/researcher-says-nasa-hiding-climate-data/

NASA has now released the data and the results are not looking good for your guy Hansen: To me it goes way beyond sloppy record keeping to deliberate fraud. The breakdown was divided into four parts.

Part One
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/

Part Two
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true

Part Three
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-three/?singlepage=true

Part Four
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-four/?singlepage=true

Reading the email snippets, you can see where Hansen is trying to shape the data (including altering a .5 C temperature difference between '34 and '98 to .2C) and how he and others at GISS map our a respond to critics with some unsavory smears. The entire process reeks of corruption with biased journalists and scientists secretly backtracking on their temperature estimates. Now it seems like a lot to read but not really since I think it's less reading than the American Thinker article I posted earlier. Besides, you'll do yourself a favor to read things Hansen doesn't want you to know.

"You'll have to find another way to disagree with him on this point."

As Gore might say, don't be snippy. I'll be happy to remain agnostic on this point.

Hong said at April 18, 2010 9:43 PM:

"How does NASA GISS undermine their credibility by saying a competing research center uses a better way to normalize and correct data?"

When the CRU has more reliable data than NASA than you must admit that's a problem!

"Also, where does that Fox News story report what your sentence says it reports? His refusal to release the data? Where does the article mention this?"

You're right, the report only states that much of the satellite data is problematic given how closely it's tied to land based stations. Many of which are located too close to artificial heat sources to be relied on.

I should have offered more to back up that statement. Here's a link from a blogger commenting on NASAs quiet revisions to the temperature data in 2007 (and later again in 2009). One has to be suspicious when Hansen alters data proving a .5C difference in temperatures to flatten it out to .3C. Or when he breezily dismisses the lack of any data in South America, Antartica, or Africa.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html

There has been even more revelations of questionable behavior by Hansen and GISS from recent FOIA requests by Christopher Horner:

Part One
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/

Part Two
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true

Part Three
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-three/?singlepage=true

Part Four
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-four/?singlepage=true

At best you can dismiss their behavior as unprofessional and sloppy. But it appears Hansen isn't above slanting data to fit the narrative. It's a lot to read but worth your time. Unless you've already made up your mind.

Hong said at April 18, 2010 9:49 PM:


"How does NASA GISS undermine their credibility by saying a competing research center uses a better way to normalize and correct data?"

When the CRU has more reliable data than NASA than you must admit that's a problem!

"Also, where does that Fox News story report what your sentence says it reports? His refusal to release the data? Where does the article mention this?"

You're right, the report only states that much of the satellite data is problematic given how closely it's tied to land based stations. Many of which are located too close to artificial heat sources to be relied on.

I should have offered more to back up that statement. Here's a link from a blogger commenting on NASAs quiet revisions to the temperature data in 2007 (and later again in 2009). One has to be suspicious when Hansen alters data proving a .5C difference in temperatures to flatten it out to .3C. Or when he breezily dismisses the lack of any data in South America, Antartica, or Africa.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html

There has been even more revelations of questionable behavior by Hansen and GISS from recent FOIA requests by Christopher Horner:

Part One
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%E2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%E2%80%94-part-one/

Part Two
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true

Part Three
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-three/?singlepage=true

Part Four
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-2-0-%e2%80%94-the-nasa-files-u-s-climate-science-as-corrupt-as-cru-pjm-exclusive-%e2%80%94-part-four/?singlepage=true

At best you can dismiss their behavior as unprofessional and sloppy. But it appears Hansen isn't above slanting data to fit the narrative. It's a lot to read but worth your time.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 19, 2010 8:32 AM:

Fox News. Pajamas Media. Washington (Sun Myung Moon) Times.

Do you have any sources which vet their information seriously?

Fox News needs a closer look. Alwaleed bin Talal bought enough News Corp. stock to get a seat on the board of directors. Some people are saying that Fox News' coverage of issues of interest to the Saudis (like Islamic terrorism) has been biased to mute criticism. It is also in Saudi interests to avoid any government policy which reduces the consumption of fossil fuels or cuts the price.

Hong said at April 19, 2010 8:38 AM:

"Do you have any sources which vet their information seriously?"

As compared with the New York Times or MSNBC? I haven't seen a Jason Blair or Contessa Brewer on the conservative leaning sites.

"Some people are saying that Fox News' coverage of issues of interest to the Saudis (like Islamic terrorism) has been biased to mute criticism. It is also in Saudi interests to avoid any government policy which reduces the consumption of fossil fuels or cuts the price. "

I haven't heard that but, I suppose using the same standard, any source we cite will have some form of bias or another. Sulzberger, the Beeb, GE, etc. I recommend studying the content of the article even if you want to dismiss the outlet.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 19, 2010 1:59 PM:

The Saudis are now making veiled threats not to develop alternative energy.

http://arabnews.com/economy/article44491.ece

Quote follows:

However, most agree that any unrealistic drift or push toward an immediate transition to alternative energy sources could definitely hamper investments in energy sources that are tried and tested. And this very prospect is chilling - to say the least. Despite these pronouncements to continue investments by Aramco and the likes, noises made by influential people could have undesirable impact.

And that is an issue. R. James Woolsey is an influential name in Washington. A former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), he currently runs the consulting house, Woolsey Partners. In a recent article he says, "We urgently need to reduce oil dependence. This means lowering demand and utilizing substitutes as cheaply and quickly as possible." Unfortunately this urge is on political grounds and this is the disturbing fact - for all and sundry. Criticizing the producers he underlines, "OPEC sets oil's price at a level that exploits our addiction but is generally not high enough for long enough that we go cold turkey."

Hong said at April 19, 2010 3:37 PM:

Perhaps it's best to stop subsidizing green tech when it's so inefficient and technologically immature. Go nuclear or increase drilling. That would serve our strategic goals without squandering billions on solar or wind farms that produce a fraction of the output of coal, gas, oil or fission. Germany spent a considerable amount subsidizing their green sector to their everlasting regret. It's now time to embrace proven technologies instead of subsidizing green jobs at the expense of productive energy.

th said at April 19, 2010 4:46 PM:

Among the cows in iowa, remember sir, a whole lot of evidence is finally coming out of europe indicating wind is an absolute disaster at everything, particularly at producing power. I thought this was a good example of leftist genius and why harvard dumbasses in govt who love wind, make for a real big problem, they subsidized solar so much they drove prices down and into the hands of china.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxBFA5S79r1MsWIkHre-u3K4odaQD9EMHGB80

General compression? Are you conceding that wind is a failure at this point on its own merit, that the only way it works is a tweak of more springs, more rubber bands, more subsidy, more hope, more change. No utility in its right mind has ever considered any of this greenie nonsense as anything other than waving a piece of paper around to mollify the gullible, especially the idiots in the media.

Randall Parker said at April 19, 2010 6:08 PM:

th,

Europe's problem is that it is too far north for solar to work well and it is not windy enough. If ever a continent needed nuclear power that continent would be Europe. European wind subsidies are so large because it doesn't have many high quality wind sites. Wind power in the US can expand more rapidly with much smaller subsidies because we have the windy great plains states.

America does not need large subsidies to make wind grow. Wind is growing very rapidly here with small subsidies. My guess is that if coal was forced to pay the external costs of pollution then wind (or at least nuclear) would be competitive. The subsidies in the US level the playing field in a way that is more fair than is the case in Europe.

Hong,

Regards subsidizing green tech: I'd rather subsidize it in a way that maximally speeds up the rate of technological advance per dollar of subsidy. I doubt that DOE loans are the way to do that. I doubt the DOE can pick winners.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 19, 2010 7:17 PM:

I am in Iowa. Iowa is getting at least 10% of its electricity from wind already (that's average), and the high capacity factors make it quite inexpensive. Companies like General Compression, if they can deliver, take away the need for backup
powerplants fired by coal or gas.

I don't care what doesn't work in Europe. Iowa isn't Europe. Iowa has enough wind to replace all coal-fired power in the USA, and there are several states with better wind than Iowa.

Hong said at April 19, 2010 9:19 PM:

I think you're too sanguine of wind's potential. George Will stated recently that 186,000 wind turbines would be necessary to generate enough power that a few nuclear sites could do for less. The amount of acreage necessary for all that is staggering while the damage to the local bird population goes without saying.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/why_america_needs_nuclear_plants_Va6kn07sarGyiINxiZ7rYI

Randall Parker said at April 19, 2010 9:38 PM:

Among the cows,

Your state gets the highest percentage of electric power from wind of any state - Iowa gets 14% of its electric power from wind. A quick glance at a wind map shows why.

Wind power growth in America is pretty fast. But note what I observe there about natural gas electric power growing by a much larger absolute amount. Solar is still unimportant. Wind has actually reached player stage.

Hong,

I'm sanguine about wind? As I've previously stated, we should expect wind's costs to rise as more wind power gets installed at less ideal wind farm sites. It looks like it has a ceiling. We definitely need a lot more nuclear power.

Paul said at April 20, 2010 6:09 AM:

Methane, molecule per molecule, increases the IR opacity of the atmosphere much more than CO2, but only over the short term. Methane is chemically destroyed over a time scale of roughly 15 years. It will not persist for centuries, as a good fraction of the CO2 currently being emitted will.

BTW, it's possible that we could, by geoengineering, increase the rate of removal of methane from the atmosphere. One way to do this would be to reduce emission of carbon monoxide. Each CO molecule ends up consuming a OH radical (oxidizing the CO to CO2). The OH radical would otherwise oxidize something else, most likely methane. Or, we could add artificial oxidants to the lower atmosphere. A good choice might be molecular chlorine, released at low concentration over oceans. Cl2 is quickly photolyzed to atomic chlorine radicals, which rapidly react with methane, forming HCl (which is washed out by rain). The methyl radical is consumed soon after by other fast atmospheric chemical reactions.

Hong said at April 20, 2010 6:12 AM:

I'm speaking to cowman, not you Randall. I thought because my response followed his it would've been clear.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 20, 2010 2:42 PM:

I read the Will column, and I could feel myself getting dumber by the line. It is no wonder that your posts here lack intellectual heft, Hong; your mental diet is junk food.

He writes in sound-bites without listing his assumptions. He lies with statistics. For example, the worst-case number is eleven birds per turbine per year. The figure for 186,000 turbines would be around 2 million birds per year. That is about 0.6% of the population of American Robins alone. The mortality rate from predation is many times higher than that.

Do you want to defend the claim about the Appalachian Trail as a serious analysis of the issue? Quote that line and expand on it, if you dare to put yourself on the line and remove all doubt.

The fact is that Iowa's wind can replace all coal-fired electricity in the USA. Texas wind can replace all electricity used in the nation, with plenty to spare. The wind industry is adding electric output (not nameplate capacity) at the rate of several nuclear plants per year.

Wind has bottlenecks. There is a lack of transmission capacity and lots of political opposition to new lines. Nuclear has its problems too. But they are different problems, and that's a good thing. Diversity is resilience.

Randall Parker said at April 20, 2010 5:53 PM:

Hong,

Gotta agree with the cow guy about George Will columns and more generally political pundit columns. When I first started blogging I used to quote newspaper columnists. But I rarely do today. Better to swim upstream and quote real experts or at least people who've devoted more time to learning a topic than a political columnist does.

Among the cows,

What's your source for Iowa's wind potential? Ditto Texas.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 20, 2010 6:54 PM:

The wind resource potential for the lower 48 states is at http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/docs/wind_potential_80m_30percent.xls

Randall Parker said at April 20, 2010 7:33 PM:

E-P,

Aside on your rail electrification comment: My guess is that it is a lot cheaper to move more freight from truck to rail than to convert rail to electric power. Though I'm just guessing.

Given that trucks use about 10 times as much diesel fuel as trains (total, different ratio per ton mile) I think the bigger gain to be had comes from either making trucks more efficient or shifting more freight to trains.

Hong said at April 20, 2010 8:48 PM:

Among the Cows says,

"I read the Will column, and I could feel myself getting dumber by the line. It is no wonder that your posts here lack intellectual heft, Hong; your mental diet is junk food."

LOL, hit a nerve cow man? Will is a Pulitzer winning columnist. A man not used to making arguments on the fly. You however, clearly have a troll complex. *sigh* another one...

"Do you want to defend the claim about the Appalachian Trail as a serious analysis of the issue? Quote that line and expand on it, if you dare to put yourself on the line and remove all doubt."

I'll be happy to place Will's argument and 'intellectual heft' over your own. Common sense would argue that 186,000 turbines would involve a tremendous scale unless you're saying is that Will's estimates are off base, which you don't seem to do. I'm trying to understand how you're so blase about the size required and the damage to the bird population ('only' 2 million? I think Fish and Wildlife might disagree). Assuming your estimates are true you better hope it doesn't include bats or endangered wildlife, lol. We haven't even spoken about the noise, damage to the local bedrock, jammed turbines from insects, variablility in wind conditions and other technical issues. As for your pro-government link it makes no estimate of the cost, the scale or potential environmental impact of such development which I suspect would also be huge. I'm going to continue remaining skeptical of such rosy estimates. But here's a paper on some real world experience with Wind since you and Randall thought less of Will. The problems faced are universal so I can't quite see how Texas and Iowa would be such exceptions since I assume wind farms in Vermont, California, or Scotland would also be placed away from populated areas.

http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

Here's an interesting bit on just what a single tower might look like:

"As FPL (Florida Power & Light) Energy says, "a typical turbine site takes about a 42×42-foot-square graveled area." Each tower (and a site needs at least 15-20 towers to make investment worthwhile) requires a huge hole filled with steel rebar–reinforced concrete (e.g., 1,250 tons in each foundation at the facility in Lamar, Colo.). According to Country Guardian, the hole is large enough to fit three double-decker buses. At the 89-turbine Top of Iowa facility, the foundation of each 323-foot assembly is a 7-feet-deep 42-feet-diameter octagon filled with 25,713 pounds of reinforced steel and 181 cubic yards of concrete. The foundations at the Wild Horse project in Washington are 30 feet deep. At Buffalo Mountain in Tennessee, too, each foundation is at least 30 feet deep and may contain more than 3,500 cubic yards of concrete (production of which is a major source of CO2). On Cefn Croes in Wales the developer built a complete concrete factory on the site, which is not unusual, as well as opened quarries to provide rock for new roads -- neither of which activities were part of the original planning application [click here for photos of the abhorrent destruction on Cefn Croes]. "

It goes on to say one might need to blast the bedrock if such towers were placed in Pennsylvania possibly damaging the local water supply and all for one tower. 186,000? Cmon...I suggest you read it before commenting. I really hope you're not stupid enough to dismiss the writer as a paid agent of the oil industry or such rubbish. I'd hate to think I spent so much time on another troll for nothing...

Randall Parker said at April 20, 2010 10:41 PM:

Among the cows,

Since your source for wind potential uses 80 meter height I decided to go looking for information about wind tower height. Turns out 80 meters is reasonable for the larger turbines built today. Some towers go up to 90 meters with 2.5 MW turbines. Also, even larger turbines are under development. The 7 to 10 MW turbines with 120 meter towers will be pretty amazing.

Hong,

The larger turbines and towers cut costs per MW. That's why turbines keep getting bigger and towers keep getting higher.

Hong said at April 21, 2010 6:19 AM:

Exactly my point Randall, these new towers will be over 300 feet tall as I cited above. Imagine thousands of them dotting the landscape. The damage to the soil, bedrock and local wildlife.

As for your comment on swimming upstream, it's no struggle for when my views on energy sprawl are reflected by the Nature Conservancy.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:6K_KFraoxkcJ:www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/northcarolina/files/tnc_energy_sprawl.pdf+nature+conservancy+wind+farm+sprawl&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi4IKXnxv9mQEUuQeujqjgD3Ks5U0MLNVj_ssUliq4CPvXz4o4chLCTJeSZx2uMsEXfV25GQGEmwRFOcb6m6QdJQPkqHokEkHA5umisGPlrwO5K51PQkxNMuSFqKL7Zn25ujag9&sig=AHIEtbSlS3IrqcVP4SK4OQodeU0c_PGqRg

As for George Will's numbers, they're derived from Ken Salazar's estimates on making wind energy 20 percent of our power needs. Now, lets see what the moo eyed lightweight has to say...lol

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 21, 2010 9:24 AM:

Randall: The Vestas V90 brochure lists a 105 meter tower as an option. The standard 105-meter tower is 285 tons, the standard 80 meter tower is 160 tons.

Hong:

"Will is a Pulitzer winning columnist. A man not used to making arguments on the fly."

You say he's a columnist. I agree. You do not say he is a scientist, expert analyst or has subject-matter expertise, and it is obvious he is/has none of those things. His gift for writing does not make up for his errors, even if it makes them appealing to people who find his statements agreeable and don't care to look at the facts themselves.

"http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html"

AWEO is a one-man "organization", trying to capitalize on the name recognition of the American Wind Energy Association (awea.org). It isn't even a think tank.

"Common sense would argue that 186,000 turbines would involve a tremendous scale unless you're saying is that Will's estimates are off base, which you don't seem to do."

The US electric system is already on a tremendous scale. What sort of silly objection is that?

"We haven't even spoken about the noise, damage to the local bedrock, jammed turbines from insects, variablility in wind conditions and other technical issues."

Cows appear not to care about noise. Every gully "damages bedrock" (worrying about bedrock, you get sillier all the time). Turbines do not jam from insects, and testing includes dead bugs on the blades.

Variability in wind conditions is being solved. See generalcompression.com above, and the Iowa Stored Energy Park.
http://www.sandia.gov/ess/About/docs/haug.pdf
http://www.isepa.com/swf/caes_demo.html

"As for your pro-government link"

Single ideologues and columnists write gospel, but extensive surveys are "pro-government" and presumably wrong?

You quoted an article without showing any understanding of what it means. 13 tons of reinforcing steel is how much compared to the nacelle and the tower? (The 80 meter Vestas tower is 160 metric tons.) A 42-foot square patch is what fraction of an acre? How many acres would be required for 186,000 turbines? How much is that compared to the available area in the various places listed in the survey?

You didn't come back to the Appalachian Trail, you changed the subject. A measurement in linear miles is meaningless.

A meaningful question is how much area a line of wind turbines 2178 miles long would take. 10 rotor diameters is supposed to be a good spacing. Take 2178 miles of lined-up wind turbines and cut the line up into rows 10 rotor diameters apart to make a square. How big is the square? How big is it compared to the available area in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, and the Dakotas? Take the available area from the spreadsheet.

If you can't even calculate that, you understand nothing. If you read meaningless mush and nod your head in agreement, you have nothing of value to add to anything. You are a mindless follower.

Hong said at April 21, 2010 3:54 PM:

"You say he's a columnist. I agree. You do not say he is a scientist,..."

I never stated he was one but it doesn't take one to point of the obviou flaws with wind energy. We've seen that scientists are subject to their own partisan corruption. One must seek information from whatever source if it's genuine even if it doesn't belong to a member of your wind mafia. lol

"AWEO is a one-man "organization", trying to capitalize on the name recognition of the American Wind Energy Association (awea.org). It isn't even a think tank."

Regardless, you've offered no rebuttal to suggest he's wrong. In fact you've shown no sign you even read his arguments. It's quite well researched and fairly comprehensive. Smearing him is the coward's way out.

"Cows appear not to care about noise. Every gully "damages bedrock" (worrying about bedrock, you get sillier all the time). Turbines do not jam from insects, and testing includes dead bugs on the blades."

Noise complaints from residents are quite common and I'm perplexed why damaging bedrock and the water table is a good thing to you. The harm to the the local bird and bat population is extensive and well documented. Insects may not stop the turbines but they have reduced efficiency by as much as 30 percent.

"Single ideologues and columnists write gospel, but extensive surveys are "pro-government" and presumably wrong?"

'Simple' ideologues who you still struggle to credibly disprove but pro-wind groups dependant on funding by the Energy department are gospel? How interesting. Your links are cute little slide shows but they don't address my point. Wind conditions aren't wholly predictable and more efficient storage doesn't change weather patterns does it?

" 13 tons of reinforcing steel is how much compared to the nacelle and the tower? (The 80 meter Vestas tower is 160 metric tons.) A 42-foot square patch is what fraction of an acre? How many acres would be required for 186,000 turbines? How much is that compared to the available area in the various places listed in the survey?"

Now I know you didn’t even read the article. Sad and typically lazy reasoning. Had you tried you'd have known the tower was a GE 1.5-MW tower with a nacelle weighing 56 tons, a blade assembly of 36 tons and a total tower assembly weighing 163 tons. It's between 2 to 3 hundred feet tall with a wingspan rivaling a 747. The description is right there on the preceding and following paragraphs.

Also, it requires 45-50 acres each in some places for one tower to be built, and needs 60 acres to produce one megawatt (according to just the EPA). Assuming 640 acres per square mile and 186,000 towers and applying the 60 acre estimate you see that the area is approximately 17,500 square miles. Larger than Maryland and nearly equal to the size of Denmark!

"You didn't come back to the Appalachian Trail, you changed the subject. A measurement in linear miles is meaningless."

You didn't rebut Will's statements on the fact that wind costs 25 times more per megawatt than all other subsidized energy combined. The Nature Conservancy stated the amount of energy produced by one square mile of nuclear equals 30 square miles of wind. So it sounds like an unequal tradeoff to sacrifice so much land for overpriced electricity.

So in total, you don't rebut the Nature Conservancy, George Will (derived from estimates made by Ken Salazar), or Rosenbloom. You ignore the soil erosion issue, dismiss bedrock and water table damage, completely brush off the potential harm to endangered wildlife, the loss of efficiency from insect damage, the noise issue suffered by local residents, completely dodged the costs involved in creating 186,000 turbines, the overpriced nature of the power generated, AND the fact that 25,000 turbines have so far cost $30 billion in credits and only generate less than 2 percent of our electrical needs. Have I missed anything? Your lack of any arguments goes beyond the pale.

Now if your claiming that by placing all the turbines in Iowa or Texas we can avoid these complications (highly doubtful in my opinion) then you were as effective in making that point as Big Wind is at creating cheap energy. Assuming all this is done there's still the issue of efficiently transmitting the power across state lines to the entire country. The infrastructure required for that would be tremendous. No realistic cost-effective solution has presented itself and it's doubtful there will be one to meet our immediate needs. Better to apply ourselves to nuclear, gas and oil drilling as the Europeans seem to be leaning back towards. At what point does all this become a boondoggle best avoided with public funds? Or are you just a shill for wind power?

Engineer-Poet said at April 21, 2010 7:08 PM:

I repeat, "I can't believe Hong is still at it."

Hong, you continue to play the classic troll's game of "let's you and him fight".  You never bother to make your own claims or fully state anything here for reference; you have an endless parade of links to other people's faulty or incomplete arguments, none of which require any effort from you.  And when someone tires of performing the analysis you're incompetent to do yourself, you declare victory.  Not intellectual victory, because your faulty position isn't any less wrong at the end; troll's victory.

I'd never heard the argument that wind turbines had squat to do with water tables before.  As the owner of a house with a basement which is on the water table (it floods if the sump pump fails), I can't believe anyone would argue that wind turbines cause harm while houses don't.  But a quick search shows that these are bogus claims typical of anti-wind propagandists (example 1, example 2).  So long as wind turbines aren't used to pump groundwater, they're not going to affect the water table.

The sheer depth of stupidity is breathtaking.  You should be embarrassed by the arguments you're using here (even by proxy), but you aren't because you don't care.  The facts and the truth don't matter to you.  You are only trying to muddy waters and create the bogus impression that there are serious arguments on the anti side other than what the pro side readily acknowledges.  Ideologue, troll, paid propagandist, whatever; equally wrong, equally vile.

Randall ought to throw you off this site so hard that you bounce.

Hong said at April 22, 2010 4:39 AM:

"Hong, you continue to play the classic troll's game of "let's you and him fight".

Really? Am I asking you to fight the writer? No, I'm asking you to respond or counter. Instead as you do here you complain the articles are too long, too complicated, too many and try to personalize the issue. What a childish noise machine you are performing another one of your tantrums here. It's amusing to witness the bottomless rage you and other trolls emit here when your attacks are turned on you.

"You never bother to make your own claims or fully state anything here for reference"

Isn't offering an opinion with a supporting link a personal claim? Or is there new rules in grammar I'm not aware of.

"you have an endless parade of links to other people's faulty or incomplete arguments,"

As for these links you complain of, you haven't offered any reason to doubt them since you don't even read them now do you? Is that not the actions of a coward? These aren't usually 10,000 word essays or extraordinarily large yet you refuse to study them. Is it because you and cow fear they might persuade you?

"none of which require any effort from you."

I disagree, it takes the effort to find, to read, and to post all in the understanding that an honest debater will review them, which you fail to realize. *Ahem.

"I'd never heard the argument that wind turbines had squat to do with water tables before."

Going back to the paper from Rosenbloom he cites proposals where digging deep into the bedrock risked damaging the local water supply. Because you're too lazy to actually read, I'll give you some of the relevant details:

'On many such mountain ridges as well as other locations, it would be necessary to blast into the bedrock, as Enxco's New England representative, John Zimmerman, has confirmed, possibly disrupting the water sources for wells downhill. At the Waymart plant in Pennsylvania, the foundations extend 30-40 feet into the bedrock. At Romney Marsh in southern England, foundation pillars will be sunk 110 feet. For each 6-feet-deep foundation at the Crescent Ridge facility in Illinois, another 24 feet was dug out and filled with sand. Construction at a site on the Slieve Aughty range in Ireland in October 2003 caused a 2.5-mile-long bog slide.'

Now if you have any reasonable doubts of this claim, now is the time to make it.

"But a quick search shows that these are bogus claims typical of anti-wind propagandists (example 1, example 2). "

As Inigo Montoya would, 'I do not think it means what you think it means.'

I've looked at both cites and I wonder if you posted the right links since nowhere does it prove your claim that these are illegitimate concerns. One cites a resident who is in favor of wind turbines near his home while others oppose and the other is a list of grievances against turbines. Neither is the smoking gun you make it appear since the objections raised seem quite reasonable. How does that make it propaganda?

Emplacing a single wind turbine is a considerable work of construction. It can damage the water supply of local wells and a leak of gasoline or hydraulic fluid can contaminate them as well. Now you and other wind advocates brush off the concerns as no greater than building a house but the above quoted suggests otherwise. Maybe there's a way to mitigate but you've offered none. Ignoring the risk doesn't make it go away.

"The sheer depth of stupidity is breathtaking."

This coming from someone who dismisses most critics to the Doctrine of Global Warming as paid agents of the oil companies? Funny I didn't get my check from them. Or the fact that he treats a blog like RealClimate seriously, a Global warming shill site. And how about when you claimed that starting a trade war with China might be a good idea to have them comply with a carbon tax scheme? When we all know sanctions have worked so effectively on Iran and North Korea? lol You're pathetic E-P. I would be embarassed by the paranoia and curiously naive sentiment you've expoused.

"You should be embarrassed by the arguments you're using here (even by proxy), but you aren't because you don't care"

I'm very comfortable with the arguments I've both made and forwarded here. I do care about the logical consistency of my points. Why else would I offer any links, seek to explain them or to even respond to the taunting and amateurish attacks here?

"You are only trying to muddy waters and create the bogus impression that there are serious arguments on the anti side other than what the pro side readily acknowledges. Ideologue, troll, paid propagandist, whatever; equally wrong, equally vile."

I have strong opinions and sometimes idealogical ones for which I make no apologies. I have forwarded opinions, listened to valid counters, and offered links to support my views. Your response however illustrates my point on your lack of intellectual honesty in your point of view. You dismiss as bogus the other side's opinion without offering reasons why. You do this ALL THE TIME and it's a source of both humor and mild frustration with me. And here again you choose not to debate but engage in personal attack. You have done so from the beginning when you took such ridiculous offense at a stray remark I made against greenie tech so I can hardly be blamed for your intolerant behavior.

"Randall ought to throw you off this site so hard that you bounce."

If he wants to remove a troll you ought to be first in line since you just violated Randall's plea for civility and produced another predictably lame verbal fart. Why are you so obsessed with me? You carry these vendettas from one thread to another with me and others here. Face the facts E-P, you are a despicable bully and a coward and it's time you learned to be silent when you have nothing intelligent to contribute. Either make a rational point or leave the room for the adults and crawl back under your bridge.

dowlan smith said at April 22, 2010 5:30 AM:

I like nuclear. Waste disposal seems to be a solvable problem. Breeder reactors to actually use the waste can largely cut down on the volume.

Wind and solar have potential and problems. (Variability and Storage) If BEVs and ERVs become a significant portion of the vehicle fleet, then dynamic load balancing by smart switching of charging demand can help balance out the load.

I'm really not worried about C02, but other pollutants in coal are an issue. The smoke from the coal power plants needs to be scrubbed well and the ash disposed of properly. The radioactive particles from the ash can be refined to fuel part of the nuclear power generation.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 22, 2010 12:46 PM:

I didn't know Hong had a history of this sort of thing.

"Common sense would argue that 186,000 turbines would involve a tremendous scale unless you're saying is that Will's estimates are off base, which you don't seem to do."

Common sense is not a reliable guide to many things. That's why people do calculations.

"One must seek information from whatever source if it's genuine even if it doesn't belong to a member of your wind mafia. lol"

One must seek information, not just confirm one's prejudices. You won't do this even when the original information sources are given to you. George Will is not a source. His figures are third-hand and have been removed from their context.

When you use phrases like "wind mafia", you remind me of the "birfers". Obama's birth certificate has been published and the birth announcement in the original 1961 newspaper in Hawaii has been repeated. The "birfers" still won't believe Obama is a US citizen. Maybe the history mafia and newspaper archive mafia did it.

"Regardless, you've offered no rebuttal to suggest he's wrong."

I am not debating the AWEO guy. If you want to make an argument, don't hide behind him. If you don't understand what he's saying well enough to state it in your own words and defend it, there is no reason to talk to you. Either you can support the claims you make, or you can't. It looks like you can't.

So far everything you have said amounts to claims that wind causes bogslides, pollutes groundwater (by adding chemicals from concrete and rebar?), "damages bedrock", makes noise and isn't always generating. Nobody disputes that the wind doesn't blow all the time. Bogs are probably bad places for wind farms (maybe moors are only good for Victorian novels). Wind turbines do make noise.

Wind itself makes noise, and the noise from wind turbines is eventually lost in it. The parts of the USA which have a lot of wind do not have many people. Wind turbines don't seem to bother cows. They don't bother corn or soybeans. Iowa has lots of cows, corn and wind.

Farmers and ranchers like wind farms. A wind turbine pays several thousand dollars a year to rent a very small parcel, while an acre of corn nets very little after expenses. The wind farm is guaranteed income for the farmer and property taxes for the county. They aren't worried about groundwater or bogslides. Maybe if you look carefully you can find a bog on a western Iowa ridgeline, and warn the whole world not to put a wind turbine there.

Damaging bedrock. Hmmm. You should talk to the AWEO guy about forming a companion organization called People for the Ethical Treatment of Bedrock. You may have trouble getting established. You will have to spend time protesting at mountain-top removal sites and strip mines before reporters will cover you when you picket wind farms.

You'll need money. Maybe you can sell "Ban Weathering" bumper stickers.

"Also, it requires 45-50 acres each in some places for one tower to be built, and needs 60 acres to produce one megawatt (according to just the EPA). Assuming 640 acres per square mile and 186,000 towers and applying the 60 acre estimate you see that the area is approximately 17,500 square miles. Larger than Maryland and nearly equal to the size of Denmark!"

No, it doesn't "require 45-50 acres" to build one tower. The parcels rented for the pads are usually 1/10 acre each. The rest of the area is unchanged (grazing cows, growing corn). You overstated the area by a factor of 450 to 500.

The state of Iowa is 56276 square miles. Texas is 268601 square miles. Towers covering half of each at 60 acres per tower and 1 megawatt per tower would number 1,732,677 towers and generate 1.73 terawatts.

The USA doesn't consume even 1 terawatt at peak. Maybe we can buy some extra electric fans to blow away the hot air from "skeptics" who are strangely un-skeptical about certain pundits.

"You didn't rebut Will's statements on the fact that wind costs 25 times more per megawatt than all other subsidized energy combined."

Wind costs less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour or on the order of $2000 per rated kilowatt. The production tax credit is 2.1 cents per kWh. If that were true, other subsidized energy would have to cost less than 0.4 cents per kWh or $80 per rated kilowatt. This could only be true if "other subsidized energy" means things like coal.

You missed corn ethanol subsidies in the list of "all other subsidized energy". There is a blender's credit of about 45 cents a gallon. Was that George Will's omission? Do you still trust everything he says?

Common sense isn't helping you very much. Neither is George Will. Hiding behind him makes you look both foolish and cowardly. Try skepticism and a calculator.

"Now I know you didn’t even read the article."

You didn't even try to answer the question.

"Going back to the paper from Rosenbloom he cites proposals where digging deep into the bedrock risked damaging the local water supply."

No, he gave an un-cited paraphrase from an Enxco represenative talked about blasting into bedrock. Damage to groundwater was Rosenbloom's speculation. He gives no examples of it happening, or any plausible way for it to happen.

It's meaningless mush, but it agrees with your prejudices so it's gospel to you.

"a leak of gasoline or hydraulic fluid can contaminate [water]"

If it's a concern, use biodiesel and biodegradable hydraulic fluid. http://www.schaefferoil.com/datapdf/112B.pdf

Farm equipment can break down in the field and spill fuel or hydraulic fluids. Farmers take power equipment out into the fields several times a year. They spray lots of herbicides too. By your reasoning that means farming is a bigger danger to groundwater than wind farms and should be prohibited.

You really need to try skepticism. It helps prevent lots of blushing.

"This coming from someone who dismisses most critics to the Doctrine of Global Warming as paid agents of the oil companies?"

No, most critics are useful idiots. Only a few at think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and fronts like the Greening Earth Society get paid. The rest are working for free. That's a pretty good deal for Exxon, Peabody Energy and Saudi Arabia.

You aren't doing very well with reasoning and calculation, and you imply you're not getting paid. Are you maybe in group 1?

Engineer-Poet said at April 22, 2010 8:55 PM:

Quoth Hong:

I disagree, it takes the effort to find, to read, and to post all in the understanding that an honest debater will review them, which you fail to realize.
Well!  From the above, it's pretty obvious that you find, and maybe you read, but "understanding" isn't a point you get to very often.  "Sycophancy" is a more accurate term.  Honest debate would require you to stipulate to facts and accept conclusions drawn from them (including the possible conclusion that the available information isn't sufficient to decide between positions), which I don't see you doing either.  Dismissing major research surveys as the work of a "wind mafia" is anything but honest; it's poisoning the well.

BTW, Cow guy, "meaningless mush" is a bit of a mouthful unless you're after alliteration.  "Drivel" is half the syllables and a lot less typing.

Hong said at April 23, 2010 9:30 AM:

"I didn't know Hong had a history of this sort of thing."

The only history I have is of infuriating trolls who take a disproportionate amount of offense to skeptical comments I've made on their sacred cows. lol

It's more fun when two try and tag team me because one was too feeble to fight alone.

"One must seek information, not just confirm one's prejudices. You won't do this even when the original information sources are given to you. George Will is not a source. His figures are third-hand and have been removed from their context."

What sources? The pro-wind sites you offer funded by the Energy department? Just how skeptical would you be of a study release by the nuclear industry? I thought so... George Will is not your enemy so I wonder why you hold such a grudge against him? You perform poorly at logic and reason despite elevating yourself above George Will and you've surrendered your objectivity to the wind mafia so perhaps you could benefit from reading more layman.

"When you use phrases like "wind mafia", you remind me of the "birfers".

A tongue in cheek reference which I knew would be risible to the likes of you. Lighten up. It's certainly not as morally repugnant as claiming global warming skeptics are equivalent somehow to Holocaust deniers. And shall we discuss the ridiculous claims of Troofers?

And E-P if you're reading this,try actually reading my response to you for once since this applies to you too. lol

" words and defend it, there is no reason to talk to you. Either you can support the claims you make, or you can't. It looks like you can't."

No, I'm not telling you to argue with Rosenbloom but to simply read it! You read George Will, or so you claimed, but Rosenbloom is too difficult? I would imagine reading a science writer would hold more appeal to you. Except, you are not interested in fact or capable of honest debate. You hide yourself from Rosenbloom and other sources I've put forward because they are more credible opponents to wind energy. So you invent facts with no credible reference and you dismiss the skeptics without even reading them. Do you realize how biased and irrational you are right now? How silly it all is.

"The parts of the USA which have a lot of wind do not have many people"

Yet in presumably isolated areas of Europe, noise, light and environmental complaints persist. How is Iowa so different from the rest of the planet? Are there not sparsely populated regions in Germany, Japan, or Denmark? Perhaps your neighborhood cows have the only turbine friendly space to themselves. How interesting...

"The wind farm is guaranteed income for the farmer and property taxes for the county."

It doesn't seem to go as smoothly as you'd like us to believe. The example of Lincoln Township deflates your narrative a bit since farmers there who leased land to turbines had to buy adjacent plots from their neighbors because of noise and the disruptive affect of the lights from towers.

http://www.aweo.org/windlincoln.html

And these residents decided to place the turbines a full mile from their homes because of concerns about noise, shadow and the dangers of a collapsed tower. One resident compared the noise from a local three turbine project to a jet plane landing and taking off.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/03/31/montville-voters-ok-ordinance-for-wind-energy-regulations-require-mile-distance-between-turbine-towers-and-homes/

http://www.windaction.org/news/21413

You haven't challenged the environmental costs to the bird and bat populations or the loss of efficiency from insects so I gather you concede those points. Considering the studies produced estimating thousands of birds and hundreds of thousands of bats it was wise to retreat there.

"No, it doesn't "require 45-50 acres" to build one tower. The parcels rented for the pads are usually 1/10 acre each. The rest of the area is unchanged (grazing cows, growing corn). You overstated the area by a factor of 450 to 500."

The point I was trying to make was that the EPA averages 60 acres per tower to generate 1 MW. They state that a 25 MW project might have between 60 to 70 turbines over 1500 acres. Rosenbloom cites Eltra, the Danish grid operator, that one turbine diminishes the efficiency of another one 5 km away.

The estimates I've found state a GE 1.5 MW tower would optimally have 3 rotor diameters apart perpendicular to the wind and 10 rd apart when parallel. The average amount to produce one megawatt of power therefore range from 32-60 acres per tower.

"Wind costs less than ten cents per kilowatt-hour or on the order of $2000 per rated kilowatt. "

LOL, I love the generalize estimate 'less than ten cents'. I'm always skeptical of these claims for such an unreliable energy source. Gas and coal estimates come in equal or even lower while nuclear estimates vary wildly from 1.68 cents per kilowatt/hour to 30. Nuclear has unique challenges in that it suffers from heavy regulations, construction and fuel disposal issues that drive up costs. Because of the heavy subsidies given to all energy sectors, the transmission difficulties, and the low capacity (20-35%) of wind I suspect the final numbers are distorted and problematic to divine. And since the numbers aren't consistent I'm willing to guess you're parroting them from the wind mafia you regard as gospel. Why else wouldn't you offer a supporting link? Then again you're not dealing with facts but rather your agenda.

This is a QA sessions where, mind you, the WIND project manager actually gives a figure of 3 cents for nuclear.
http://www.huronwind.com/huronwind/hw_pdfs/33.pdf

"Common sense isn't helping you very much. Neither is George Will. Hiding behind him makes you look both foolish and cowardly. Try skepticism and a calculator."

Skepticism is exactly what I'm practicing. Try offering some numbers to support your assertions that aren't from the Wind lobby. It's you who seems to be comfortable hiding, from George Will, Rosenbloom, the Nature Conservancy, the EPA and yes Common sense as well.

"You didn't even try to answer the question."

You asked what type of tower the article was referencing, which was plainly stated in the article. Are you deliberately being obtuse or just stupid?

"No, he gave an un-cited paraphrase from an Enxco represenative talked about blasting into bedrock. Damage to groundwater was Rosenbloom's speculation. He gives no examples of it happening, or any plausible way for it to happen."

The Ovenden Moor windfarm was found to have 'cracked the bedrock, diverted natural watercourses, dried layers of peat that were likely to simply blow away and elsewhere formed deep pools of peat "soup" (fetid surface water), and they concluded that there was certain to be a knock-on effect on flora, insects and birds.'

"If it's a concern, use biodiesel and biodegradable hydraulic fluid.

I'm sure bathing, drinking or irrigating crops with hydraulic fluid appeals to you (which would explain your behavior-heh), especially the biodegradable ones, but I prefer clean water.

"They spray lots of herbicides too. By your reasoning that means farming is a bigger danger to groundwater than wind farms and should be prohibited."

Do you not understand the difference between spraying the surface and leaking oil through a drilled, dug or blasted opening in the ground? Did what you say actually make sense to you?

"No, most critics are useful idiots. Only a few at think tanks like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and fronts like the Greening Earth Society get paid. The rest are working for free. That's a pretty good deal for Exxon, Peabody Energy and Saudi Arabia."

So an unpaid idealist studying an issue suddenly becomes a useful idiot while a paid employee of the wind lobby is what, a high priest to your cult? Suddenly, the truth only applies to the wind lobby, the global warmists and yourself. How very interesting. I'm also amused you took the time to read my response to your fellow troll.

"You aren't doing very well with reasoning and calculation, and you imply you're not getting paid. Are you maybe in group 1?"

Projecting again I see. Go to your bosom buddy E-P and ask how well that's worked for him. lol

Hong said at April 23, 2010 9:34 AM:

E-P says,

"Well! From the above, it's pretty obvious that you find, and maybe you read, but "understanding" isn't a point you get to very often."

You mean the understanding you provide in offering petty smears and attacks as a substitute for real debate? Or ignoring Randall's instruction to behave? How hard was that to screw up? lol

"Sycophancy" is a more accurate term. "

As you're quite familiar with. You think we don't notice how often you hide behind Randall? How you're nearly begging him to ban me now? And are you alone in this latest attack? Hmm.....

Randall and I don't often agree but despite our many disagreements he has never stooped to making this as personal as you two. What that says about your lack of discipline and intellectual rigor, well...such self styled intellects and presumable adults behaving like bratty children. What can anyone say about it?

"Honest debate would require you to stipulate facts and accept conclusions drawn from them (including the possible conclusion that the available information isn't sufficient to decide between positions), which I don't see you doing either. "

Honest debate requires you to study facts and draw conclusions yes but when you imbibe all your information from biased climate blogs than you're a drone of the lobbies. And I don't see you taking the time to seriously studying opposing facts. Your lack of a serious response all but screams that I'm correct. You merely complain about the size and number of links. And your choice not to engage or even read the opposing sources reveals your cowardice, therefore your little lecture on honest debate is rich with irony.

"Dismissing major research surveys as the work of a "wind mafia" is anything but honest; it's poisoning the well."

These research studies paid for by the energy department on behalf of the wind lobby should be treated with skepticism. Treating them as gospel is embarassingly amateurish. I would offer a healthy distance from all industry studies. You struggle with objectivity and display a hate for opposing viewpoints which reveals your intolerance.

As for poisoning the well, that's hilarious coming from you. It's all fine to smear warming skeptics as 'deniers' (with all the Nazi imagery attached), paid agents of the oil industry, etc but wind mafia is out of bounds to you? Such feigned outrage and hypocrisy staggers me.

"BTW, Cow guy, "meaningless mush" is a bit of a mouthful unless you're after alliteration. "Drivel" is half the syllables and a lot less typing."

'Babble' suits you both even better. Or Twaddle, that's fine too. Or the perennial favorite: Gibberish. It's entertaining to see you prove me correct. I must admire your ability to hold a childish grudge and to rebound after each beclowning. lol Nice work. Take a bow.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 23, 2010 2:14 PM:

"What sources? The pro-wind sites you offer funded by the Energy department? Just how skeptical would you be of a study release by the nuclear industry? I thought so..."

That is not what I think. Those are facts. You mistake one for the other, which is not very bright.

You think Rosenbloom's guesswork is fact. You get that wrong too. This is what I actually think about nuclear.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007021.html#reply20100317101506
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007098.html#reply20100420144259
I have nothing bad to say about it. Iowa doesn't have enough of it, and there is so much wind here that wind has already surpassed it. It takes a long time to build nuclear in this country. It will be a long time before it catches up to wind around here if it ever does. The World Nuclear Association says there is just one nuclear plant under construction in the USA right now, and it is not in Iowa.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
There was one license application for a plant just south of here in Missouri. The Missouri project has been cancelled.

Here is guesswork. Maybe Iowa can trade wind power for nuclear power from Con Edison in Illinois and everyone will be better off.

"And shall we discuss the ridiculous claims of Troofers?"

I am glad you agree they are ridiculous. Maybe we can find more things to agree on.

"I'm not telling you to argue with Rosenbloom but to simply read it!"

I did. He does no research of his own. He refers to The Utilities Journal and The Wall Street Journal as authorities. He has no neutral reports, only competition and think tanks. No bias there?

Rosenbloom claims "the impossibility of large-scale storage". What will he say when ISEPA or General Compression open plants? Will you say you were wrong to believe Rosenbloom in the first place?

Rosenbloom says "Even a small facility would have a huge impact on the landscape. Any substantial amount of wind power would be devastating." Most of Iowa does not have its original prairie grasses or buffalo any more either. Corn isn't native to here. Farming causes erosion and water pollution. Wind power doesn't. Why the double standard?

Rosenbloom does not seem to have updated his site since 2006. His pages don't say when they last changed. Maybe he knows he's wrong but can't admit it yet.

Rosenbloom's site has many errors and biases. Why didn't you see this? Do you care?

"You haven't challenged the environmental costs to the bird and bat populations or the loss of efficiency from insects"

I challenged the cost to birds in http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007098.html#reply20100420144259
You complain when I don't read all of Rosenbloom, but you don't read what I write to you.

Iowa is getting 14% of its electricity from wind even with insects. I guess that means wind works. It will work even better when blades clean themselves automatically.
http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20091203ptan20090297352.php
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100054940

"The example of Lincoln Township"

Kewaunee County has a population of 20,187 and 59 people per square mile. Lyon County in Iowa has a population of 11,763 and 21 people per square mile. People in Kewaunee County may commute to Green Bay. I doubt anyone commutes to Des Moines from Lyon county. Lyon county is almost all farms. If no wind towers were closer than 1 mile to any village almost all of it could still be covered.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=lyon+county,+ia&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=49.71116,73.388672&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Lyon+County,+Iowa&t=h&z=11

Do you mean farmers in Lyon County shouldn't make deals with wind farms? It's their land.

"The Ovenden Moor windfarm"

So there is one place where geology makes it bad to dig into bedrock because the water leaks out. I already said that moors may be better places for Victorian novels than wind farms. There aren't any moors in Iowa. I bet you won't find any between the Dakotas and Texas. Swamps in general are not good for wind. Swamps are low places, wind towers are best in high places.

I have done my part. I have given you maps, patents, and pro-nuclear sites. It's time for you to say what you take as fact. If you don't agree the US government's wind survey can be trusted, what do you trust? If you will only trust people who start with their conclusions there is no reason to talk to you. I am interested in facts, not religion.

th said at April 23, 2010 5:36 PM:

The Danes were the inspiration worldwide enthusiasm for wind and it'll be interesting to see if their lead is now still in the same high regards after they've shocked the world with their recent conclusion....it was all just a very expensive waste of time and money. Lot's of cool looking wind maps and govt money and naive political pressure won't work any better here than it did over there. They got plenty of wind, it looks like maybe 20% of the whole country is class 3 or better, http://www.windatlas.dk/World/DenmarkWRA.html can anyone explain why they are now saying wind blows? yuk yuk

Engineer-Poet said at April 23, 2010 11:16 PM:

Quoth Hong:

You mean the understanding you provide in offering petty smears and attacks as a substitute for real debate?
That's what you do, yes.  I haven't seen you offer a technical rebuttal to anything aimed at you yet.  I'm still waiting, but I'm not sanguine.
You think we don't notice how often you hide behind Randall?
Eh?  I don't rely on him for facts or positions.  I just note that you're contributing nothing of value and wondering how far his tolerance goes.  Sooner or later, you're going to be gone; the only question is when.
Honest debate requires you to study facts and draw conclusions yes but when you imbibe all your information from biased climate blogs than [sic] you're a drone of the lobbies.
Pray tell, which "biased climate blog" is my source of gospel.  I wait with bated breath for you to tell me which one gives me my talking points on nuclear power, for wind power, for coal gasification, for electric power generation, for vehicle engines, for batteries, and everything else I write about.

(that was a sarcastic way of calling you an idiot, in case you're slow.)

And I don't see you taking the time to seriously studying opposing facts.
I don't see you posting anything that rises to the standard of "fact".  A one-man propaganda outfit with no standards of evidence other than what agrees with his conclusions (which happen to be yours)?  Puh-leeese!
Your lack of a serious response all but screams that I'm correct.
I see the same sort of delusions from young-earth creationists.  I hope you enjoy their company.
These research studies paid for by the energy department on behalf of the wind lobby should be treated with skepticism. Treating them as gospel is embarassingly amateurish. I would offer a healthy distance from all industry studies.
You ought to know that I'm quite pro-uranium and exceedingly pro-LFTR (I've been pushing them on my blog and all over The Oil Drum).  Where's your complaint about that?  I guess you favor certain "lobbies" at the expense of others.
You struggle with objectivity and display a hate for opposing viewpoints which reveals your intolerance.
Yup.  I don't suffer fools gladly, I wish they would FOAD.  That includes you.
As for poisoning the well, that's hilarious coming from you.
Okay, if you're not just doing that, SHOW ME where the wind energy survey is wrong.  Give me data.  And until you can do that, you don't have any business posting; STFU.
It's all fine to smear warming skeptics as 'deniers' (with all the Nazi imagery attached), paid agents of the oil industry
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has an extensive PR apparatus, and is proven to be lobbying against AGW mitigation and also demanding compensation for lost revenue if it is implemented.  All supported by multiple sources.  Denying it proves you're either an idiot or a tool.
wind mafia is out of bounds to you?
Convince me it exists and I'll denounce it.  There's an "ethanol mafia" (which I have denounced), but I don't see a "wind mafia".  Show me the evidence.

Engineer-Poet said at April 23, 2010 11:19 PM:

th, what's your basis for that conclusion?  It looks like the west and south coasts of anything in Denmark are great territory.  Its major problem is that it's small; it looks to be less than 200 miles in any dimension.  If you look at a weather map you can see that a weather system can easily cover 500 miles or more; Denmark really needs to be connected to Sweden, Norway and Germany to even out the variations.

You didn't link to anything which says that Denmark has given up on wind, and Wikipedia says that Denmark hit the 20% mark for wind power in 2007 (2+ years ago, for those who are counting).  If Denmark traded with Norway, Norway's hydropower would play nicely against Denmark's wind power.

Michigan makes Denmark look small, with more than 3 times as much area.  There's talk about putting offshore turbines in both lakes Michigan (between Michigan and Illinois) and Huron (between Michigan and Ontario).  Trading power with points east and west would let the network pull energy from weather systems for days as they moved along.

Hong said at April 24, 2010 9:06 AM:

"That is not what I think. Those are facts. You mistake one for the other, which is not very bright."

Facts because you say so? Cmon now.

"You think Rosenbloom's guesswork is fact. You get that wrong too."

As for Rosenbloom you call it guesswork but he does what writers are supposed to do, speak to experienced operators in the industry, government, and cites news reports to form a narrative. In this case it's often Europeans who've applied wind technology and understand it's flaws and limitations. Their conclusions are not guesswork but based upon their experiences. You've discounted them but be honest about it. That's why I suspect you haven't fully read the paper.

Perhaps his work is dated but it introduces points that still remain unchallenged. The question of transmission, the lack of a steady wind supply, damage to the environment. These are genuine concerns which you dismiss. And because you do so, they are somehow irrelevant?

"I did. He does no research of his own. He refers to The Utilities Journal and The Wall Street Journal as authorities. He has no neutral reports, only competition and think tanks. No bias there?"

He cites German periodicals, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Windpower Monthly, grid managers, wind industry executives, statistics from the Department of Energy, the EPA, Denmark's National Environment Research Institute, their Wind Industry Association, Spanish studies on bird fatalities, A study by the European Union on noise complaints, it's an exhaustive list of different studies, periodicals, government officials from the industry. It's impossible to argue that his sources are one sided or unreliable.

As for think tanks, a few posts ago, you complained Rosenblom wasn't even a member of one and now that you realize he cites them, you use that as a negative too?

"Rosenbloom does not seem to have updated his site since 2006. His pages don't say when they last changed. Maybe he knows he's wrong but can't admit it yet.

Note the dates on these please. Perhaps you confused the article with the entire site.
http://www.aweo.org/notsofast.html
http://www.aweo.org/Martin.html

"Farming causes erosion and water pollution. Wind power doesn't. Why the double standard?"

You're making assumptions again, since I never argued pollution of any industry was to be lauded. And you're wrong, wind turbines do cause damage and pollution. Land must be cleared sometimes involving herbicides. I pointed out at least one example where the bedrock was damaged. Are you reading my replies in the right order because I see you're taking some of my later responses first.

"You complain when I don't read all of Rosenbloom, but you don't read what I write to you."

I was referring to your last post where you dropped the matter completely. You challenged the cost to birds and I felt your numbers underestimated the potential loss of bats or endangered species. You certainly ignored the studies cited by Rosenbloom on the cost to local wildlife.

"Iowa is getting 14% of its electricity from wind even with insects. I guess that means wind works. It will work even better when blades clean themselves automatically."

This has been the advertised claim but it says nothing about the actual amount consumed. For good reason since wind is such a variable source where turbines often are at just 25 to 35 percent capacity, even in Iowa. Steadier supplies of coal need to remain on tap to replace any drop off from wind. If you want to speak of guesswork read this:

'Unless there is a period of more than a few days where it is guaranteed that the electricity will not be needed, a coal plant cannot shut down, because it must be ready if wind power is unavailable. As the number of wind turbines increases and they are spread across a broad region, the need for keeping base-load generation online at all times and at high power loads should decrease. '

http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2009docs/090413-windproduction.pdf

"Do you mean farmers in Lyon County shouldn't make deals with wind farms? It's their land."

What I mean is that even isolated stretches of land have people who complain about the noise, lights and flickering effects of a wind turbine. Brushing off their concerns isn't smart and undermines your case.

"So there is one place where geology makes it bad to dig into bedrock because the water leaks out. I already said that moors may be better places for Victorian novels than wind farms."

You denied there were any examples and I provided you one. Is that really going to be a problem for you?

"I have done my part. I have given you maps, patents, and pro-nuclear sites."

Maps that don't answer my point since I never disputed the geography only that even residents in farmland have complained about noise and lights from the turbines. The nuclear sites are irrelevant to our discussion because I never accused you of being nuclear Luddite, and patents which imply progress in wind technology but progress exists everywhere; in nuclear, coal, gas.... I wonder how much progress we would have in nuclear or even oil if we expended similar amounts of taxpayer monies on those industries. By reducing regulations might we encourage domestic reactor construction rather than relying on a queue from Japan? Therefore I'm not still not sold that wind can be anything more than a supplemental source of power. And an overpriced one at that.

"If you don't agree the US government's wind survey can be trusted, what do you trust? If you will only trust people who start with their conclusions there is no reason to talk to you. I am interested in facts, not religion."

Academic studies, the personal experiences of residents near wind farms, some news reports, workers and officials who've had experience operating wind farms: both positive and negative, some think tanks that aren't so ridiculously biased, the occasional columnits, and even government studies. All of which I provided in the various links to you. I'll take them all but I won't rely solely on wind lobby produced statistics or reports. You claim to be a believer in facts but you are selective in what facts to believe (aren't we all?) and often seem to conflate your opinion as fact.

"Rosenbloom's site has many errors and biases. Why didn't you see this? Do you care?"

He has a bias, yes but he cites executives in the wind industry, government studies, wind energy periodicals, what more can he do to prove he's work is researched and documented? What errors? You say the same about Will. This is becoming a bad habit of yours where you make an assertion declaring it fact and calling opposing arguments non-factual speculation. There is a difference of opinion yes and varying sources neither of us can agree on but your word is not gospel. Your religious faith in wind not withstanding...;)

"I am glad you agree they are ridiculous. Maybe we can find more things to agree on."

If you're offer is serious I'll be happy to lower the temperature but remember this all began because you declared jihad when I called your estimates on wind power too optimistic and offered your favorite columnist to support my opinion. I don't think we have to be enemies and you clearly have a personal investment. However, I don't support funding any industry incapable of self sufficiency. Or the manner in which regulations seem to hobble one in favor of another with more political favor. Perhaps we can make peace Arafat since it's clear things are spinning out of control. Read EP if you have any interest where this could descend to and ask if you can take much of what he says seriously. For every valid point he makes, he spoils it with his bottomless supply of bigoted rage and unhinged insanity. He's not really trying to debate but to publicly defecate himself. Perhaps we will simple agree to disagree for now. I await your hopefully sane reply.

Hong said at April 24, 2010 9:31 AM:

"That's what you do, yes."

Dismantle trolls until they wet themselves in a public frenzy? Thank you I do my best.

"I haven't seen you offer a technical rebuttal to anything aimed at you yet. I'm still waiting, but I'm not sanguine."

I've offered Rosenbloom who gives actual citations to studies. I've given the EPA estimates, the dimensions of the towers and average acreage per tower. I've discussed capacity and base load demand. I've provided links and quotes from various people in the industry who presumably know more than you about the issue. So what are you babbling about? You've sat out much of this debate, submitting virtually nothing and have nerve call my responses BS? Do you offer anything other than the same smears? Give something or be a proven liar.

This report of a Spanish study suggests green jobs will cost us more than any benefit accrued to our moral vanity. Perhaps you're familiar with it. I'm interested in know what smear you'll attach to this study.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0

"Eh? I don't rely on him for facts or positions."

I'd say you rely on him for moral support and you seem eager for a pat on the head. Why the sychophancy? And when he remarks critically on a point I've made, you often follow. You don't think he can handle the discussion on his own without you? And now you tag team with Cow when working alone was too taxing.

"I just note that you're contributing nothing of value and wondering how far his tolerance goes. "

Actually what we all notice is that you ignored his request to keep remarks civil and soiled yourself and your cause again in the process. How does that feel? Again, 90 percent of your posts to me here are nothing but rude, personal flames as any but the most biased observer can see and you claim I have offered nothing? So much 'nothing' you feed on it every day. lol

"Sooner or later, you're going to be gone; the only question is when.""

What you really mean is that your bullying hasn't silenced me and you turn to the site owner to censor me isn't that right? I sense a note of desperation but go ahead and keep asking Randall, keep sending emails maybe he'll take pity on you and save you from further embarassment. lol

"Pray tell, which "biased climate blog" is my source of gospel."

You do have an affinity for RealClimate as we all see. They've largely been exposed as a shill site beating the drum of AGW alarmism to all but the most unhinged which explains your reliance on them.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

" I wait with bated breath for you to tell me which one gives me my talking points on nuclear power, for wind power, for coal gasification, for electric power generation, for vehicle engines, for batteries, and everything else I write about."

??? Have I ever shown the slightest interest in your self professed expertise on issues outside of global warming? The majority of our exchanges focus on climate issues where I've been amused by your hardheaded refusal to entertain the skeptics.

"that was a sarcastic way of calling you an idiot, in case you're slow."

You're sarcasm is as weak as your logical deduction and comprehension. So is apparently, your social life replying to little ole me on a Friday night! I had to wait and stop laughing when I realized that fact. And you've proven to be a coward who avoids responding to much of my specific points. Instead all I see is the same, tired boxed package of smears and insults.

"I don't see you posting anything that rises to the standard of "fact". A one-man propaganda outfit with no standards of evidence other than what agrees with his conclusions (which happen to be yours)?"

As I've patiently explained to Cow, the one man quoted studies, industry experts, articles, journals, and offered a wealth of information on the flaws in wind power. What more do you need to raise awareness? As the coward you are you choose not to read or entertain his writings. It just reveals you're pathetically narrow focus. And that doesn't excuse you for not reading the link I posted on the Nature Conservancy on the efficiency of nuclear over wind. Or Human Events, the articles, the QA from a wind power manager. Harp on Rosenbloom but ignore the rest. Is that how it is?

"I see the same sort of delusions from young-earth creationists. I hope you enjoy their company."

You mean the sort of delusion as recommending a trade war with China to have them comply with carbon tax agreements? Or how about accusing all opponents as paid operatives of an oil conspiracy? Those delusions? Yes you are the expert, through your actions rather than observations. lol

"You ought to know that I'm quite pro-uranium and exceedingly pro-LFTR (I've been pushing them on my blog and all over The Oil Drum). "

I've known about your pro nuclear stance, which is why I'm puzzled at your sudden silence here on the issue since I was advocating nuclear as you claim to do. The only topic you wish to discuss here is me, your object of obsession. Quite a thing for a troll to do.

"Where's your complaint about that? I guess you favor certain "lobbies" at the expense of others."

I have none, if you want to channel a nuclear Howard Beale by all means. However your silence on the issue here speaks less of intellectual integrity but a personal vendetta towards me. Pathetic...

"Yup. I don't suffer fools gladly, I wish they would FOAD. That includes you."

Meaning you hate being revealed as the ass clown of this board who regularly receives a beating from a growing plurality here for his unhinged, biased, and logically inconsistent commentary. Yeah I would be too. lol

"Okay, if you're not just doing that, SHOW ME where the wind energy survey is wrong. Give me data. And until you can do that, you don't have any business posting; STFU."

Sorry Grayson, I don't have to be quiet to express my skepticism of any study from the wind industry and I've been offering a battery of links to support my opinion that the expectations of wind's potential is too rosy. And given the many links here you'll have to point out which wind survey to treat as gospel since I've commented, I believe, on them all. I've certainly had a good laugh at the ones you linked Vizzini lol

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has an extensive PR apparatus, and is proven to be lobbying against AGW mitigation"

And how does that prove it's justified implying I'm an anti-Semite or a paid agent of the Sauds? Christ is that all you present as proof? No wonder you're last to see what a complete meltdown you are!

"Show me the evidence."

As I said to cow, lighten up. It was a deliberately provocative thing to say to see what hackles it might raise. It's hardly anything to wet yourself over unless it strikes a bullseye. But tens of billions of public money flooding into an industry seemingly incapable of surviving without it is going to create some powerful interests. Is it a new cartel? Hard to say although this article doesn't bode well for the wind lobby or this administration.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=526944

Denying all this money won't corrupt the process as it has with others only proves you're continuing failure at logical deduction.

So far you've offered nothing to rebut my specific points on wind except a couple of articles from residents who objected to a nearby wind farm and a site listing the reasons against wind power. That has been your total contribution to this discussion. Everything else has been personal attacks, insults, and an embarassingly obvious plea to Randall to have me banned. You wasted a Friday night to make you last assault on our intelligence which doubly adds to my enjoyment of your humiliation. I have some hope Cow and I can reach an understanding but you're plainly beyond hope. I DO hope you read this reply to see how small you've become. And Cow, I hope you read this post to realize how the hate and insanity of a person like EP can demean and diminish oneself to a bullying clown. He invoked Alan Grayson for crying out loud! lol

Randall Parker said at April 24, 2010 10:37 AM:

E-P,

When Hong writes long comments ignore most of them rather than answering sentence per sentence. You are letting him drift your own attention away from the facts that you say he doesn't provide or ignores.

Hong,

I realize you do not see it this way but when you refer to "wind mafia" and other terms of derision in referring to people you disagree with you invite character assassination against yourself. Your bring up character. The discussion becomes one about character, including your own.

Among the cows,

Since you calculated that Iowa generates 17.8% of its electricity from wind I am wondering if Iowa is a net electric power importer. That'd explain the discrepancy between the claim of 14% from wind for Iowa versus the 17.8% from wind that you calculated. Or maybe the 14% was from older data?

E-P,

Sure, Denmark does trade electric power with neighbors. In fact, one criticism made about Denmark's heavy reliance on wind is that it is only possible due to the ability to trade with neighbors. The neighbors would have a hard time scaling up to Denmark's level of wind dependence because they'd then need neighbors to trade with.

Since Europe is so much smaller than America (at least if you leave out Ukraine and Russia west of the Urals) it has a much harder time using wind from different areas to balance out each other.

As far as Denmark's wind quality is concerned: If they have so much quality wind on land then why'd they go offshore so soon? Offshore is higher cost. Denmark's wind costs more than wind in America as a result.

Randall Parker said at April 24, 2010 11:11 AM:

E-P,

Businessweek says Danish wind power is already pumping water into Scandinavian water reservoirs:

Storing electricity may be another fix. In Scandinavia, Danish wind power is used to pump water into Norwegian and Swedish reservoirs and later released to drive hydroelectric plants when the wind is not blowing.

I've read of some other instance (can't remember where) where some country or region buys power when cheap and sells when more expensive and uses hydro to do this. Part of Canada maybe? That's what cool about hydro. Even if you aren't doing pumped storage you can selectively run the water thru the generators when prices are highest. A cheap energy source that can be sold for high prices during peak periods.

Hong said at April 24, 2010 11:11 AM:

"That is not what I think. Those are facts. You mistake one for the other, which is not very bright."

Facts because you say so? Cmon now.

"You think Rosenbloom's guesswork is fact. You get that wrong too."

As for Rosenbloom you call it guesswork but he does what writers are supposed to do, speak to experienced operators in the industry, government, and cites news reports to form a narrative. In this case it's often Europeans who've applied wind technology and understand it's flaws and limitations. Their conclusions are not guesswork but based upon their experiences. You've discounted them but be honest about it. That's why I suspect you haven't fully read the paper.

Perhaps his work is dated but it introduces points that still remain unchallenged. The question of transmission, the lack of a steady wind supply, damage to the environment. These are genuine concerns which you dismiss. And because you do so, they are somehow irrelevant?

"I did. He does no research of his own. He refers to The Utilities Journal and The Wall Street Journal as authorities. He has no neutral reports, only competition and think tanks. No bias there?"

He cites German periodicals, The Guardian, The Telegraph, Windpower Monthly, grid managers, wind industry executives, statistics from the Department of Energy, the EPA, Denmark's National Environment Research Institute, their Wind Industry Association, Spanish studies on bird fatalities, A study by the European Union on noise complaints, it's an exhaustive list of different studies, periodicals, government officials from the industry. It's impossible to argue that his sources are one sided or unreliable.

As for think tanks, a few posts ago, you complained Rosenblom wasn't even a member of one and now that you realize he cites them, you use that as a negative too?

"Rosenbloom does not seem to have updated his site since 2006. His pages don't say when they last changed. Maybe he knows he's wrong but can't admit it yet.

Note the dates on these please. Perhaps you confused the article with entire site.
http://www.aweo.org/notsofast.html
http://www.aweo.org/Martin.html

"Farming causes erosion and water pollution. Wind power doesn't. Why the double standard?"

You're making assumptions again, since I never argued pollution of any industry was to be lauded. And you're wrong, wind turbines do cause damage and do cause pollution. Land must be cleared sometimes involving herbicides. I pointed out at least one example where the bedrock was damaged. Are you reading my replies in the right order because I see you're taking some of my later responses first.

"You complain when I don't read all of Rosenbloom, but you don't read what I write to you."

I was referring to your last post where you dropped the matter completely. You challenged the cost to birds and I felt your numbers underestimated the potential loss of bats or endangered species. You certaintly ignored the studies cited by Rosenbloom on the cost to local wildlife.

"Iowa is getting 14% of its electricity from wind even with insects. I guess that means wind works. It will work even better when blades clean themselves automatically."

This has been the advertised claim but it says nothing about the actual amount consumed. For good reason since wind is such a variable source where turbines often are at just 25 to 35 percent capacity, even in Iowa. Steadier supplies of coal need to remain on tap to replace any drop off from wind. If you want to speak of guesswork read this:

'Unless there is a period of more than a few days where it is guaranteed that the electricity will not be needed, a coal plant cannot shut down, because it must be ready if wind power is unavailable. As the number of wind turbines increases and they are spread across a broad region, the need for keeping base-load generation online at all times and at high power loads should decrease. '

http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2009docs/090413-windproduction.pdf

"Do you mean farmers in Lyon County shouldn't make deals with wind farms? It's their land."

What I mean is that even isolated stretches of land have people who complain about the noise, lights and flickering effects of a wind turbine. Brushing off their concerns isn't smart and undermines your case.

"So there is one place where geology makes it bad to dig into bedrock because the water leaks out. I already said that moors may be better places for Victorian novels than wind farms."

You denied there were any examples and I provided you one. Is that really going to be a problem for you?

"I have done my part. I have given you maps, patents, and pro-nuclear sites."

Maps that don't answer my point since I never disputed the geography only that even residents in farmland complain about noise and lights from the turbines. The nuclear sites are irrelevant to our discussion because I never accused you of being nuclear Luddite, and patents which imply progress in wind technology but progress exists everywhere; in nuclear, coal, gas...therefore I'm not still not sold that wind can be anything more than a supplemental source of power. And an overpriced one at that.

"If you don't agree the US government's wind survey can be trusted, what do you trust? If you will only trust people who start with their conclusions there is no reason to talk to you. I am interested in facts, not religion."

Academic studies, the personal experiences of residents near wind farms, workers and officials who've had experience operating wind farms: both positive and negative, some think tanks that aren't so ridiculously biased, articles, even government studies. All of which I provided in the various links to you. I'll take them all but I won't rely solely on wind lobby produced statistics or reports. You claim to be a believer in facts but you are selective in what facts to believe (aren't we all?) and often seem to conflate your opinion as fact.

"Rosenbloom's site has many errors and biases. Why didn't you see this? Do you care?"

He has a bias, yes but he cites executives in the wind industry, government studies, wind energy periodicals, what more can he do to prove he's work is researched and documented? What errors? You say the same about Will. This is becoming a bad habit of yours where you make an assertion declaring it fact and calling opposing arguments non-factual speculation. There is a difference of opinion yes and varying sources neither of us can agree on but your word is not gospel. Your religious faith in wind not withstanding...;)

"I am glad you agree they are ridiculous. Maybe we can find more things to agree on."

If you're offer is serious I'll be happy to lower the temperature but remember this all began because you declared jihad when I called your estimates on wind power too optimistic and offered your favorite columnist to support my opinion. I dont' think I am your enemy and you clearly have a personal investment which I find laudable. What I don't appreciate is taking taxpayer funds to support any industry incapable of self sufficiency. Or the manner in which regulations hobble one industry in favor of one with more political favor. Perhaps we can make peace Arafat,

Hong said at April 24, 2010 11:17 AM:

Randall says,

"I realize you do not see it this way but when you refer to "wind mafia" and other terms of derision in referring to people you disagree with you invite character assassination against yourself. Your bring up character. The discussion becomes one about character, including your own."

E-P was a festering troll long before I used the wind mafia in our discussions so you'll need another explanation for his odd behavior. You aren't applying the double standard of calling us 'deniers' while declaring out of bounds our own labels are you?

th said at April 24, 2010 3:39 PM:

"As far as Denmark's wind quality is concerned: If they have so much quality wind on land then why'd they go offshore so soon? Offshore is higher cost. Denmark's wind costs more than wind in America as a result." parker, going into deep water deserves a peak wind drum roll rim shot... badaboom.

th said at April 24, 2010 4:01 PM:

poet, even in denmark, which has best wind according to the maps in all of europe hasn't closed one fossil fuel plant, isn't that what this stupid nonsense is all about?

Randall Parker said at April 24, 2010 4:27 PM:

Hong,

If you are interested in arguing about the evidence then ignore the personal attacks and argue with evidence. If you do that then the personal attacks will probably stop.

If you would focus less on people's motivations and more on facts then we wouldn't have really long comment threads with low signal to noise ratios.

Hong said at April 24, 2010 6:00 PM:

"If you are interested in arguing about the evidence then ignore the personal attacks and argue with evidence. If you do that then the personal attacks will probably stop."

I just don't believe in turning the other cheek. Perhaps it's a flaw. I did try and abide by your plea though, credit me for trying at least.

"If you would focus less on people's motivations and more on facts then we wouldn't have really long comment threads with low signal to noise ratios."

Oh now please don't try and pin this all on me Randall. Really, the one you should watch out for is the next troll spam from EP. It should be arriving any time...NOW!

Randall Parker said at April 24, 2010 6:30 PM:

Hong,

You posted on this thread before E-P. You started on the pejoratives before he did. You said in your first post:

Cloud cover and solar radiation are more likely culprits of the planetary warming cycle. Hardly any of the models even take into consideration the stellar activity of our parent star. So fixated are they on the narrative of man made CO2 output that it's virtually impossible to hold a rational discussion with the Alarmists. Judging by recent trends it might actually be beneficial to increase Methane output.

So you asserted your opponents aren't rational and you labeled them Alarmists. That is how you set the tone for what followed. Once you set that tone I'm not going to fault him without faulting you. After that E-P responded in kind and it just built up from there. You are both responsible. But you provided the kindling from which he built the fire which you fanned.

I don't write posts so I can sit back as a spectator and watch this kind of bullshit.

Oh, and it should be emphasized: This style of debate does not convince anyone. All you do is satisfy yourself emotionally and drive away commenters who try harder to debate facts and avoid gratuitous insults.

Engineer-Poet said at April 24, 2010 10:18 PM:

Quoth Hong:

Dismantle trolls until they wet themselves in a public frenzy? Thank you I do my best.
You couldn't "dismantle" your way out of a wet paper bag.
I've given the EPA estimates, the dimensions of the towers and average acreage per tower.
Cowboy showed that those estimates point to power potential several times what the USA uses.  That happens to agree with the wind power study you don't like.  When you claim something as an authority and someone shows that it proves that your conclusion is false, how can you maintain that position?  Logical consistency demands that you cede the argument, yet you don't.  That's dishonest.
You've sat out much of this debate, submitting virtually nothing and have nerve call my responses BS?
Eh?  Something argued with factual errors or logical fallacies is wrong, no matter what the position or other details are.  One need prove NOTHING to show that any given argument is BS.  It's quite possible for any position given in an argument to have insufficient support from facts or logic to establish it as correct, and if the advocates are sloppy enough ALL arguments in a given debate may be provably insufficient to support their conclusions.  That would make them all wrong.

It would help if you weren't so sloppy, but given that the facts contradict your position that's the only thing that lets you stick with your (foreordained) conclusion.

I'd say you rely on him for moral support and you seem eager for a pat on the head.
Yeah, right.  I have my own blog and people looking forward to me posting on it.  You have... what, exactly?
What you really mean is that your bullying hasn't silenced me
Translation:  "E-P continues to point out where I refuse to supply facts to support my positions, and wonders if the Pundit is more interested in quality of posts on the site or munching popcorn while watching the show.  As long as it doesn't come down to quality, I'm good; amusement or lack of attention works fine for me."
You do have an affinity for RealClimate as we all see.
I haven't followed RC closely in years, but just about any given search terms in their bailiwick will come up with something meaty.  They are particularly good in noting where the "skeptics" have been dishonest, and that doesn't require them to prove anything.

Citing "populartechnology.net" is real good.  It's another Blogger site, and has exactly as much authority as I do.

You're sarcasm is as weak as your logical deduction and comprehension. So is apparently, your social life replying to little ole me on a Friday night! I had to wait and stop laughing when I realized that fact.
I had a potluck last night, and did a little reading and posting after I got home.  Of course, this has exactly nothing to do with soundness of arguments.  The off-topic slur is the trademark of the troll.

I may go further into this later, but right now it's time for bed.

Hong said at April 25, 2010 7:19 AM:

"You couldn't "dismantle" your way out of a wet paper bag."

It's quite apparent you're using one now to breathe into my little pet troll. Randall is right, you should stick with the facts, you're retorts are lame. lol

"Cowboy showed that those estimates point to power potential several times what the USA uses. That happens to agree with the wind power study you don't like."

Cow never once refers to the EPA in our discussions. I had to introduce their 60 acres per megawatt estimate. It supports the skeptic's arguments that 186,000 new towers would cover a vast acreage at tremendous cost. Please if you can't even follow our discussions why do you intrude so ineptly?

"Eh? Something argued with factual errors or logical fallacies is wrong, no matter what the position or other details are."

Yet you clearly have not followed the arguments very well as the above indicates. If you want to pretend to be a referee, you'd better actually do your homework.

"One need prove NOTHING to show that any given argument is BS."

Please, I'm not asking you to prove a negative but one needs to offer a reason to claim something is BS instead of simply calling it BS wouldn't you agree? You've done only enough to show you're lack of understanding. What links beyond the two irrelevant ones have you offered Vizzini?

"It would help if you weren't so sloppy, but given that the facts contradict your position that's the only thing that lets you stick with your (foreordained) conclusion."

Exactly what facts contradict my position? Wind energy powerpoint presentations, estimates from a DOE connected organization promoting wind, an article from people opposed to wind, an anti-wind website? That's virtually the sum so using that to claim victory doesn't make any sense. You completely dodged the Spanish study I cited suggesting that alternative energy (that includes wind in case you're slow) won't create jobs but unemployment. It's nice that you can just ignore evidence that doesn't support your pre-ordained conclusion. That's called cowardice and laziness.

"Yeah, right. I have my own blog and people looking forward to me posting on it. You have... what, exactly?"

The apparent magical ability to make you vomit on Randall's blog on a Friday and Saturday night with no arguments or supporting evidence yet. Randall has been trying to save you here, I suggest you behave.

"Translation: "E-P continues to point out where I refuse to supply facts to support my positions, and wonders if the Pundit is more interested in quality of posts on the site or munching popcorn while watching the show. "

Translation to translation: E-P is silently admitting he doesn't care how he pollutes Randall's site with what Randall himself calls bullshit (mine and yours) given that Randall called in last night to post several times for us both to stop and that it isn't funny. And having no effective argument to Hong, I'll simply filibuster him instead...lol

"I haven't followed RC closely in years,"

Translation: I ONLY read their blog once every day and people should pay no attention to the fact that I'll occasionally reference their blog here with links or suggestions even despite the derision they've earned.

"They are particularly good in noting where the "skeptics" have been dishonest, and that doesn't require them to prove anything. "

Perhaps that's what honestly think they're doing or just muddying the waters as you do here with me.

"Citing "populartechnology.net" is real good. It's another Blogger site, and has exactly as much authority as I do."

It has far more authority since, unlike you, it actually provides evidence to support its opinion pointing to the idealogical bias and motivations of the people behind ReadClimate, and it's largely financial.

"I had a potluck last night, and did a little reading and posting after I got home. Of course, this has exactly nothing to do with soundness of arguments. The off-topic slur is the trademark of the troll"

No posting late into the night, being unable to resist a flame even on a weekend when presumably your life shouldn't revolve around a computer, is the trademark of trolldom. Me pointing that you needed to post on Friday AND Saturday has got to be far less offensive (actually it's hilarious) than spending days attacking and smearing your opponent behind the work of Randall or Cow.

"I may go further into this later, but right now it's time for bed."

Sure troll, waste more of Randall's time. Perhaps he's sending you memos the rest of us don't receive but it seems clear he's getting tired of this act.

Hong said at April 25, 2010 7:36 AM:

To Randall,

"You posted on this thread before E-P."

Um, no I didn't. But who's keeping score?
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007098.html#reply20100417162059

"So you asserted your opponents aren't rational and you labeled them Alarmists."

Not all opponents, just the rabid Alarmists. Did that really offend you? Considering how we've been called deniers (by even you I believe), paid agents of Oil, and other assorted slanders is calling someone an irrational global warming alarmist so beyond the pale? I doubt it. As for tone, believe it or not, I've done my very best to respect your plea for civility here. You'll notice, that it never became personal for me until the other side crossed a certain line. If you deny this is true than we'll have to agree to disagree.

"You are both responsible."

It's about time Randall.

"But you provided the kindling from which he built the fire which you fanned."

He provided his own. I'm not a psychologist but his type of inchoate rage needs little to trigger it. Nobody else spends a Friday night AND Saturday night to write and post a long attack on me! Look, I can take responsibility for baiting E-P but not for his actions. It was his choice to engage or not to with incivil slurs. He chose to return after several days to lob insults and ignore your wishes for civil discourse. I can't claim psychic powers that compelled him to humiliate himself that way. He's presumably a grown man who can reply without hemorrhaging his intellect in such a petty back and forth. So really, E-P's insane and hilariously unhinged behavior predates my opening comments on this thread. This has been his pattern with me and others on a pretty consistent basis.

"All you do is satisfy yourself emotionally and drive away commenters who try harder to debate facts and avoid gratuitous insults."

I will confess that I was really enjoying E-P's emotional and intellectual meltdown but I think I also make a great effort to debate. Why else would I offer so many urls or entertain so much of my opponents remarks, often sentence by sentence? I'm sorry if you think I'm polluting your board but I won't tolerate insults nor do I think I ought to. I hope you understand.

However, to appease you, perhaps I will abandon this thread and leave the last word to the troll EP. The thread is getting old. and I've successfully fulfilled my quota of making a jackass out of E-P (for now) and pleading the skeptic's case. I mean read his latest post to me Randall, the guy can't even go to bed on Saturday without thinking about me! lol. Let's hope in the future E-P can follow your directions and stick to the facts but I'm not sanguine.

Hong said at April 25, 2010 8:27 AM:

"You posted on this thread before E-P."

Um, no I didn't. But who's keeping score?
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007098.html#reply20100417162059

"So you asserted your opponents aren't rational and you labeled them Alarmists."

Not all opponents, just the rabid Alarmists. Did that really offend you? Considering how we've been called deniers (by even you I believe), paid agents of Oil, and other assorted slanders is calling someone an irrational global warming alarmist so beyond the pale? I doubt it. As for tone, believe it or not, I've done my very best to respect your plea for civility here. You'll notice, that it never became personal for me until the other side crossed a certain line. If you deny this is true than we'll have to agree to disagree.

"You are both responsible."

It's about time Randall.

"But you provided the kindling from which he built the fire which you fanned."

He provided his own. I'm not a psychologist but his type of inchoate rage needs little to trigger it. Nobody else spent a Friday AND a Saturday night to write posts attacking me! Look, I can take responsibility for baiting E-P but not for his actions. It was his choice to engage or not to with incivil slurs. He chose to return after several days to lob insults and ignore your wishes for civil discourse. I can't claim psychic powers that compelled him to humiliate himself that way. He's presumably a grown man who can reply without hemorrhaging his intellect in such a petty back and forth. So really, E-P's insane and hilariously unhinged behavior predates my opening comments on this thread. This has been his pattern with me and others on a pretty consistent basis.

"All you do is satisfy yourself emotionally and drive away commenters who try harder to debate facts and avoid gratuitous insults."

I will confess that I was really enjoying E-P's emotional and intellectual meltdown but I think I also make a great effort to debate. Why else would I offer so many urls or entertain so much of my opponents remarks, often sentence by sentence? I'm sorry if you think I'm polluting your board but I won't tolerate insults nor do I think I ought to. I hope you understand.

However, to appease you since you seemed determined be paint me as a villain, and because this thread is spinning out of control I may abandon it and give the final word to the troll or trolls here. Anyway, I think I've successfully fulfilled my quota of making a jackass out of E-P (for now) and pleading the skeptic's case. After all anybody who's last thought on a Friday and Saturday night is about me needs no effort from me to embarrass himself. Let's hope in the future E-P can follow your directions and stick to the facts but I'm not sanguine. lol

Engineer-Poet said at April 25, 2010 10:03 AM:

Yeah, you're one to talk about authorities.  I'm taking a quick look at your AWEO reference and looking at the links.  After the intro (which has links to other parts of the presentation), here's what the first 15 go to:

  1. Self-reference.
  2. Dead link (site is 404).
  3. Dead link (site is 404).
  4. Self-reference.
  5. Self-reference.
  6. Self-reference.
  7. Not a report, but a Grauniad news item about a report.  It does cite a cost of 16 €/year per household, though.  Clearly crippling.
  8. A link to a real report, but from a grid manager (accustomed to fossil-fired plants and not wanting to change, as they are all very conservative).
  9. Wind-farm.org, which appears to be an expired domain (probably abandoned after it was exposed as a front for someone).
  10. An article not in English.
  11. An irrelevant claim about Denmark, as it's not specific to electricity.
  12. Self-reference.
  13. Self-reference.
  14. Self-reference.
  15. Self-reference.
There's 2 links to actual pertinent information out of 15 items.  This is what you'd have us take as "authority".

I have seen wind whipping up dust by Palm Springs in California, and making whitecaps on drainage ponds on the Trans-Canada Highway.  I've seen the wind farms spinning (including the forest of ancient turbines off I-5 south of SF).  I've felt the force and run the numbers, and I can't take the "skeptics" seriously.

Hong said at April 25, 2010 12:39 PM:

"Self Reference"

According to Rosenbloom it's all based on a Swedish graduate student specializing in hydrogen and wind power, as posted in a Yes2Wind discussion. Also references a Danish Wind Industry Association's guide to the technology and from personal correspondence with other experts and from industry spec sheets.

"Dead link (site is 404)"

Here it is
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/dk-analysis-wind.pdf

"Dead link (site is 404)."
Dr. Vic Mason has written a number of articles on the subject including these:

http://www.dartdorset.org/pdf/West%20Danish%20wind%20power%20lessons%20for%20the%20UK.pdf

http://www.dartdorset.org/pdf/Unfriendly%20WF%2018%20Feb%202004.pdf

"Self-Reference"

General knowledge regarding the flaws in power generation.

"Self-Reference"

More general knowlege on the definitions of kilowatts per hour, capacity factor, and other figures

"Self-Reference"

Not really, it's actually a link to this wind report from E.On Netz, which apparently manages the transmission grid of the lower third of Germany
http://www.aweo.org/windEon2004.html

And another link you apparently missed, unless this was the one you sought by Richard Courtney who bases much of what he writes on a speech given by David Tolley (Head of Networks and Ancillary Services, Innogy (subsidiary of German energy consortium RWE) in Jan 15, 2003

"Not a report, but a Grauniad news item about a report. It does cite a cost of 16 €/year per household, though. Clearly crippling."

It also cites an activist stating how price of wind is 3x that of conventional power. The writer does nothing to contradict that estimate. Or that the cost in Britain per ton of carbon would be £70-£140, a much higher figure than in Germany.

"A link to a real report, but from a grid manager (accustomed to fossil-fired plants and not wanting to change, as they are all very conservative)."

Here's the real report:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/EirGrid-WindImpact-Main.pdf
When the facts presented oppose your pre-ordained conclusions because they're from a source you don't like we should all treat your word as gospel now?

"Wind-farm.org, which appears to be an expired domain (probably abandoned after it was exposed as a front for someone)"

If you don't like the site, go to the source. Rosenbloom bases his argument for that link on this Telegraph story which he references but doesn't link that states the relevative costs between wind energy and conventional sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2841582/Rich-UK-climate-triggers-bloom-of-wind-farms.html

"An article not in English."

Translated for you here
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-US&dl=en&lp=es_en&a=http%3a%2f%2fwww.iberica2000.org%2fes%2fArticulo.asp%3fId%3d1097

A short article discussing how the long term plans for emissions reductions in the US and UK do not seem to involve wind.

"An irrelevant claim about Denmark, as it's not specific to electricity."

This is funny you're calling it irrelevant because it doesn't specifically mention electricity. Rosenbloom is citing it to illustrate his point that despite the large expansion of Denmark's wind industry it hasn't significantly met demand or it's targeted emissions reduction goals. I find it very instructive that a nation that has worked harder than us to adopt wind technology can not keep up with demand. It doesn't even come close.

"Self Reference"

A sample of photos of different wind farms found on the internet. Note the sprawl, and imagine 140,00-180,000 more in the United States

"Self Reference"

A summation of different reports or articles written but not available online from Eleanor Tillinghast detailing the poor performance record of Vermont's Searsburg Wind Plant run Green Mountain Power. She bases her report on their Annual Reports and from an evaluation by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)

"Self Reference"

A posted letter by Dr. John Etherington from the University of Wales on the notion that wind power lowers CO2 emissions. He points out the now obvious fact that wind doesn't generate reliable power requiring coal plants to remain online to provide basload power.

"Self Reference"

A critique on an IPCC (because we know how reliable they are) paper sourced by Greenpeace to rule out wind ernegy as an effective emissions reduction tool.

"There's 2 links to actual pertinent information out of 15 items. This is what you'd have us take as "authority"."

I think your dead wrong, nearly all the information seemed pertinent to the issue if you bothered to locate them through Bing or Google. The paper needs to be updated but the information is out there. I took at your 'self references' and they seem like basic and general information to me and as for the dead links, I found most of the originals through internet searches and posted them here. Even one IPCC link was dead which tells how even so-called respectable sites discontinue urls.

Did you even read my other sources including the Spanish study, or are you just fixating on Rosenbloom? He is a fine, if slightly dated source of information but there is a wealth of other sources available. It didn't take me long to find most of your dead links.

"I have seen wind whipping up dust by Palm Springs in California, and making whitecaps on drainage ponds on the Trans-Canada Highway. I've seen the wind farms spinning (including the forest of ancient turbines off I-5 south of SF). I've felt the force and run the numbers, and I can't take the "skeptics" seriously."

We're not just talking just about dust but of ecological damage which cannot be immediately felt. Of living beside one every day of your life and living with noise, flickers, or vibrations. We're speaking of the economic costs of subsidizing an industry with weak storage and transmission capacity while neglecting conventional sources. Of handing billions to an industry that hasn't proved it can reduce CO2 emissions, or that it's even necessary. If you want to dismiss this all based on some personal anecdotal experience then fine. How does someone reason with a guy who ignores and impugns all the opposing sources and critics?

Iowa Wind Mafia said at April 26, 2010 12:18 PM:

"If you're offer is serious I'll be happy to lower the temperature but remember this all began because you declared jihad when I called your estimates on wind power too optimistic and offered your favorite columnist to support my opinion."

You can start by answering my question from way up at http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007098.html#reply20100423141451. What do you take as fact? If there is no source we both trust we have nothing to talk about. If you only trust anti-wind sources you are practicing religion. I am not interested in your religion.

Consider this an offer you can't refuse. My new employer may ask me to put my knee-breaking classes to use. Or they might hire the job out. I hear there's a group which wears robes and leaves burning windmills on people's lawns if they won't change their lightbulbs.

AtheistCardinal said at April 26, 2010 1:09 PM:

"If you only trust anti-wind sources you are practicing religion. I am not interested in your religion."

Using your logic, I can say the same for you. Are you telling me the only sources you treat as fact are your pro wind ones? And I'm the religious one? How is it religious to be a skeptic? That's new to me. I don't even see how that makes any sense wind mafia. I trust the facts presented by Rosenbloom, The nature conservancy, George Will's point on 186,000 turbines and the numbers on how much was spent subsidizing the industry, the Spanish study, the Q&A, and the links I've posted. You haven't given me reason to doubt them. I think they have less financial interest at stake than your pro-wind groups. I doubt all the skeptics are receiving checks from the Sauds, Big Oil, Coal, Penn and Teller, or Cheney. Then we do have nothing to talk about and we can't reach common ground.

"Consider this an offer you can't refuse. My new employer may ask me to put my knee-breaking classes to use. Or they might hire the job out. I hear there's a group which wears robes and leaves burning windmills on people's lawns if they won't change their lightbulbs."

Do me a service and I will repay in due time by answering my question. For now the Cardinals of doubt demand I do penance for the unthinking devotion I give to skeptical reasoning by beating myself using Al Gore's Nobel or else be exiled to Siberia.

Iowa Wind Mafia said at April 26, 2010 2:59 PM:

"Are you telling me the only sources you treat as fact are your pro wind ones?"

That's like saying "the only sources you treat as fact are your pro gravity ones". Or the Chrstian Science position on drugs and vaccines. Are they perfect, no. But denying they work? Those people are crazy.

When you feel Iowa wind pushing you, you know it's a fact. You know it in your bones. Every sailor has known it for the last 3000 years. The numbers just tell you the details.

You have not answered the question. If you are a member of the Church of No Air Motion, just say so. Otherwise tell me what sources you accept. The US Government says nuclear energy works, natural gss works, and coal works, just as it says wind works. You agree with all but the last. Either the source is good or it isn't. The only difference is the part that says wind has lots of energy. You should be able to explain.

I saw two wind turbine blades on I-80 on Saturday. They came on from I-380 and got off at exit 284.

I have a second question for you. If wind is "fake", how does Iowa get more electricity from wind than nuclear power? And where are the plans to build more nuclear in Iowa?

Better answer right, or the wind mafia might take you up to the top of one of their towers and ask you if you want to take the fast way down or the slow way. That's how they got me. They charge a lot for their classes too. I am going to have to make it up on commission. At least they aren't as bad as Amway.

th said at April 26, 2010 3:46 PM:

Just when you think they can't get any dumber, this shows up...are these same idiots gonna do climate engineering?

"On windy nights in northern Germany, consumers are paid to keep the lights on.

Twice this year the nation’s 21,000 wind turbines pumped out so much power that utilities lowered customer bills for using the surplus electricity. Since the first rebate came with little fanfare at 5 a.m. one October day in 2008, payments have risen as high as 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, about as much as a small factory or 1,000 homes uses in 60 minutes."

And of course, the electrons from the wind magically went specifically into the pump storage system while the conventional powered electrons were dutifully flopping around like beached fish waiting for some idiot to turn his lights on at 2 in the morning, thanks for the laff parker.

Hong as AtheistCardinal said at April 26, 2010 5:58 PM:

"That's like saying "the only sources you treat as fact are your pro gravity ones".

You're not really saying your sources are gospel are you? Who's the religious one here?

"Are they perfect, no. "

Now we're getting somewhere although don't put me in the same category as your strawman. I think whatever evidence you have showing wind generating capacity is tainted by the obvious political hand of the Energy Department.

"Otherwise tell me what sources you accept."

The ones I presented to you. Some are from pro-wind sites too so they shouldn't bother you. Is that clear enough for you or did you skip this answer?
BTW, the link you provided just takes sends me to top of the page unless you want to rehash methane too. lol

"Either the source is good or it. The only difference is the part that says wind has lots of energy. You should be able to explain. "

Cmon...you seriously think I don't believe wind power can generate electricity? I just don't believe it's nearly as efficient as coal, nuclear, oil or gas and it probably never will be. And I certainly don't believe it's worth billions of public dollars for mediocre outcomes. I'm seriously ready to believe I'm talking to myself here since the sum total of my replies have been to explain. My long posts, my links were all to explain. It seems you're not listening so I'm going to ask you again, are you fully reading my replies or just skipping to the end? Is this your preferred method of debate now? I thought you weren't trying to be a troll. lol

You seem to expect that I'll accept the slide shows and graph you presented. I need something more independent of govt. One should learn to be skeptical of official govt sources. This administration hasn't been especially good at, ahem, fortelling the cost and benefit other sectors, so blindly accepting it's wind surveys are a mistake.

"If wind is "fake", how does Iowa get more electricity from wind than nuclear power?"

Again with the strawman, did I say it was fake? As for nuclear the clear culprit in my opinion is both regulation and the public's lingering doubt brought on by events like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. The heavy subsidies for wind energy I would think also have some effect wouldn't you say?

Tell your associates you may need more time to read my replies and away from any Al Gore videos. Nice name change, I got under your skin that well?

Randall Parker said at April 26, 2010 8:55 PM:

Hong,

As I've previously stated: Wind is growing rapidly with just a 2.1 cent/kwh production tax credit. The cost advantage of coal or natural gas has got to be pretty small for wind installations to take off with such a small production tax credit. We know that the cost advantage for fossil fuels electricity is less than 2.1 cents per kwh just by watching market behavior.

Nuclear's considerable cost disadvantage is similarly being offset with loan guarantees that lower the cost of credit. I'm less clear on how much of a cost gap is closed by the loan guarantees. It is harder to calculate that because we have to wait to see how much it ends up costing to build nuclear power plants.

Engineer-Poet said at April 26, 2010 10:27 PM:

Quoth Hong:

it's all based on a Swedish graduate student specializing in hydrogen and wind power
It's wrong to couple the two, because hydrogen itself is a boondoggle.
"Dead link (site is 404)"

Here it is
You know Rosenbloom's intent, when his link is gone?  Are you Rosenbloom?
General knowledge regarding the flaws in power generation.
Which hasn't stopped Denmark from getting 20% of its juice from wind, without things like dynamic charging of electric vehicles and other storage systems.  Those are coming, BTW.

There's a post I'm thinking about writing about using ethanol distilleries as dump loads for wind power.  They need heat for mashing and distillation, and they don't care what it comes from; if electric spot prices are cheaper than natural gas, they should be happy to buy juice instead.  The 2009 average industrial NG price was $5.27/mcf, while 2008 was $9.67 (EIA link); figured on a straight BTU basis with 10% losses for NG, the equivalent wind-power prices are 1.93¢/kWh and 3.55¢/kWh respectively.  In other words, ethanol production looks like a near-perfect substitute for the PTC in the areas where fuel ethanol is produced until both local electric needs and the total heat demand of ethanol plants has been satisfied.  Estimating 13 billion GPY and 25,000 BTU/gallon, that's about 8.4 GW of dump load.  That's more than the average US production from wind power.  I guess that means that we can double wind production a couple more times.  Then we have to... worry about more dump loads!

I've known about your pro nuclear stance, which is why I'm puzzled at your sudden silence here on the issue since I was advocating nuclear as you claim to do.
I advocate FOR everything I think will work.  This INCLUDES wind AND nuclear, but NOT hydrogen.  I poke at ethanol advocates but realize they are a political force.  Nuclear power is NOT at issue here.

Who the hell is Alan Grayson?

Iowa Wind Mafia said at April 27, 2010 8:00 AM:

"You're not really saying your sources are gospel are you?"

I'm saying the denials aren't true. The evidence proves it. Nobody knows how gravity works, but deny it? Those people are crazier than Flat Earthers.

"The ones I presented to you."

I want you to list those sites again, all together. I know this sounds nit-picky. I don't want to argue over which sites are on your list. I only want to look at who they are, what they say and whether is it correct. Start with a short list, go from there.

"Some are from pro-wind sites too so they shouldn't bother you."

The US government's site is pro-wind and pro-nuclear, but you only want to believe part of it. You don't want to believe the anti-nuclear sites. Why the double standard?

"BTW, the link you provided just takes sends me to top of the page unless you want to rehash methane too. lol"

Remove the period at the end.

"I just don't believe it's nearly as efficient as coal, nuclear, oil or gas and it probably never will be."

How do you define "efficiency"? Wind turbines are more efficient than almost any engine. The "fuel" is free. There is a lot of that "fuel" in the USA, and lots of other places.

"And I certainly don't believe it's worth billions of public dollars for mediocre outcomes."

2.1 cents per KWH was about a billion dollars for 2008. It bought 52 billion KWH. That's 51% more than in 2007.

1.8% of all US electricity came from wind last year. It was 1.3% in 2008. http://www.awea.org/reports/Annual_Market_Report_Press_Release_Teaser.pdf
It was 14% here in Iowa. We only get 10% from nuclear. (I wish both numbers were lots bigger.)

The wind numbers and nuclear numbers both come from the government. Do they lie about wind and tell the truth about nuclear?

"Again with the strawman, did I say it was fake?"

You say some things are fake. I want the details. I wonder if you will say the 1.8% number for 2009 is fake. If so, I wonder why. I also wonder what you think the real number is, and why.

There's a good reason for gas and coal interests to hate wind. It lowers the price of electricity and cuts profits.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2010/4/25/62541/6173
"operators in Europe may have become their own worst enemy, reducing the total price paid for electricity in Germany, Europe’s biggest power market, by as much as 5 billion euros some years"
"Spanish power prices fell an annual 26 percent in the first quarter because of the surge in supplies from wind"

"Nice name change, I got under your skin that well?"

It was funny. I think the Flying Spagheti Monster is funny too. If you aren't laughing, you are the joke.

Hong said at April 27, 2010 8:26 AM:

What 'no thank you' for going through the effort to find the sources you scowl over?

"It's wrong to couple the two, because hydrogen itself is a boondoggle."

I'm not going to debate hyrdrogen or else the thread will never end but at least I've badgered you into actually reading one of the critics. lol

"You know Rosenbloom's intent, when his link is gone? Are you Rosenbloom?"

No the url is old and needs to be updated. Articles stop appearing for one reason or another as I pointed out with the IPCC. It doesn't require mind reading.

"Which hasn't stopped Denmark from getting 20% of its juice from wind,... "

That's the talking point for pro-winders but as I've made the point here power consumption also matters. Generating electricity is fine and dandy but lack of transmission and storage degrades it's utility? CEPOS, a Danish think tank argues that the intermittent quality of wind means only 5% of electrical needs are satisfied from wind generation. The exported wind power to Sweden and Norway is good for those countries but costs the citizens extra taxes and charges that make Danish electricity the highest in the EU. Subsidizing one industry like wind detracts from another costing an estimate $90,000-$140,000 per green job and shifting employment from more productive sectors. Things don't look well in Denmark so I'd hate to see that model applied here. Unfortunately, this administration seems to moving in that direction.

http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf

"dynamic charging of electric vehicles and other storage systems. Those are coming, BTW."

Which often imposes a cost of it's own in converting the power generated into something else for storage. The question is it cost effect and or the government's responsibility to fund it? If transferring funds to this sector shifts it away from more productive areas is it worth the boost to our moral vanity? A shortsighted gain for long term waste?

A neat little article on the dynamic challenges to storage is available here
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/950/using-energy-storage-for-intermittency-problems/

Big Wind however doesn't seem all that interested in storage capacity. Michael Goggin of the American Wind Energy Association publicly stated his belief that wind power could be integrated into the electrical grid without storage, which sounds absurdly optimistic. Many promises are made, few a fully realized.

"Nuclear power is NOT at issue here."

Perhaps that's true in your case since you barely commented until I did. Hmmm....

"Who the hell is Alan Grayson?"

Another troll of the Democrat Party. You're new role model? ;)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/09/alan-grayson-tells-dick-c_n_386472.html

Hong said at April 27, 2010 8:28 AM:

To Randall,

"I'm less clear on how much of a cost gap is closed by the loan guarantees. It is harder to calculate that because we have to wait to see how much it ends up costing to build nuclear power plants."

I suspect once regulations on nuclear are lifted and the virtual freeze ends, Detroit will gear itself up and start producing the modern reactors that, right now, we have to wait on line for from Japan. That will reduce the interest needed to pay to finance nuclear power construction.

Hong said at April 27, 2010 1:21 PM:

"I'm saying the denials aren't true. The evidence proves it."

'The evidence proves it'? Govt=truth; Deniers=Vaccine opponents. Is there any govt site you disbelieve or do you treat them all as gospel? *sigh I think this concludes the debate on your thoughts here about the govt's authority. You can keep beating the drum but I'm moving on.

"I want you to list those sites again, all together. I know this sounds nit-picky. I don't want to argue over which sites are on your list. I only want to look at who they are, what they say and whether is it correct. Start with a short list, go from there."

Really dude? I made a great effort in all my responses and it's clear you didn't bother reading most of them. How sad. I'm not going to bother inserting the point behind each link, you'll have to do your homework on that. And understand we'll probably never agree which sites are correct so it's wise of you not to bother rehashing all the old objections. Check for (1) your favorite columnist, (2) Rosenbloom, (3) the Nature Conservancy, (4) the QA session, (5) the Iowa Policy Project, (6) the Bloomberg report on the Spanish study about renewable energy (this I'll link because it wasn't addressed directly to your comments)
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a2PHwqAs7BS0,

(7) Another one about the Spanish study, this reporting some collusion between the Energy Dept and a pro-wind advocacy group to attack the Spanish study.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=526944

"You don't want to believe the anti-nuclear sites. Why the double standard?"

We weren't discussing nuclear really, so there is no double standard. Did you even post an anti-nuclear site? I can't remember. If something is presented that seems objective about nuclear, I'll treat it seriously. Why don't you offer something if nuclear is what you want to discuss? Actually, don't this thread has gone too long.

'How do you define "efficiency"? Wind turbines are more efficient than almost any engine. The "fuel" is free. There is a lot of that "fuel" in the USA, and lots of other places.'

Storage, transmission, capacity. Installation. Subsidized credits. They all need to be factored into the costs which was the point I've been trying to make. 'Free' fuel is useless if it costs too much to transmit, to install turbines, to store, or only works 25-35 percent of the time. This doesn't include damage to wildlife, noise and light issues, or the maintenance costs.

Another tidbit about wind, they have a 5 year accelerated depreciation rate that no other industry is allowed to do which earns them a tax bonus. No political favoritism there?

"2.1 cents per KWH was about a billion dollars for 2008. It bought 52 billion KWH. That's 51% more than in 2007."

Without these subsidies wind costs 20 to 50 percent more than gas. With the subsidies, it STILL costs more than gas, nuclear or coal. You and Randall seem to think 2.1 cents is modest but when the credits have been allowed to expire, wind farm development fell by 70 percent. This according to your own AWEA. They also say the Obama stimulus plan rescued the wind industry from a 50 percent drop off in new installation.

(8) http://www.sustainableindustries.com/energy/89603222.html?viewAll=y

Obviously, wind is still not a viable alternative since it needs such heavy govt. support to survive. Hardly a picture of health. Added to that are the special credits and tax breaks no other industry receives to offset their costs.

(9) http://wweek.com/editorial/3518/12294/


"1.8% of all US electricity came from wind last year. It was 1.3% in 2008. http://www.awea.org/reports/Annual_Market_Report_Press_Release_Teaser.pdf
It was 14% here in Iowa. We only get 10% from nuclear. (I wish both numbers were lots bigger.)"

1.8 percent is still a miniscule amount. It's dwarfed by biomass and hydropower which together represents 85% of all electricity produced by renewable sources. We sank $30 billion for something the nation, as a whole, hardly ever uses.

(10) http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/renewable_energy.cfm

The numbers again, even if true, don't reflect consumption, which because of variable wind conditions have never been high and this Danish study estimates actual use at only 5% for them. The subsidies also shifts employment away from more productive areas to less productive wind energy. Denmarks also subsidizes power to Sweden and Norway at some expense to themselves.

(11) http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf


"The wind numbers and nuclear numbers both come from the government. Do they lie about wind and tell the truth about nuclear?"

It the only source was govt then yes, I'd remain doubtful but I've found more diversity of sources and opinion supporting the govt figures on nuclear. With wind I find almost none and you still only feed the AWEA or pro-wind lobby sources. However, I've taken a second look (just appease your religious dogmatism) and have posted links with govt figures. You'll notice some linked sources above using Energy Dept stats. Happy?

"You say some things are fake. I want the details. I wonder if you will say the 1.8% number for 2009 is fake. If so, I wonder why. I also wonder what you think the real number is, and why."

Nope, didn't call it fake, just exaggerated. Remember my first words to you was that I thought you were too sanguine on your wind expectations. Never said the theory behind wind was totally off base.

"There's a good reason for gas and coal interests to hate wind. It lowers the price of electricity and cuts profits.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2010/4/25/62541/6173"

The same article (which was referenced here by TH) has this to say about the subject stating that more power doesn't really dramatically lower profits:

'RWE, Germany’s second-largest utility, minimizes the risks of having to pay consumers to use power by using a “broad” range of different generation technologies in different markets, a spokesman for the company said. Rebates, or negative prices, do not have a big negative effect on the company, he said. '

What the articles also says is that the supply isn't being efficiently distributed resulting in bottlenecks. On the surface, it may be positive news but the article also suggest the power generation is not consistent so I'm not too sure how comfort wind advocates can take from it.

"It was funny. I think the Flying Spagheti Monster is funny too. If you aren't laughing, you are the joke."

Nah, I'd just like some royalties in case your new names gets you paid since I was your inspiration for the name change. And don't revise history, you didn't think it was funny when I first said it. But you're welcome, I enjoyed saying it.

Among the cows in Iowa said at April 28, 2010 10:20 AM:

"Is there any govt site you disbelieve or do you treat them all as gospel?"

When the government states production of coal, oil, gas and electricity, I believe them. If I believe the nuclear figures, I have to believe the wind figures. The US Government paid the PTC on most of it. Utilities took those 52 billion KWH and paid for them. The numbers have to add up. This is just accounting.

Denying simple facts puts you in bad company. Are you a black helicopter guy or tinfoil hat guy?

"I made a great effort in all my responses and it's clear you didn't bother reading most of them."

That's right. I don't have the time to read religious material. It's all garbage. Nothing you said impressed me. Your Rosenbloom site is no good either. It's an onion. Two layers down it's still rotten. I say fuck it.

"Did you even post an anti-nuclear site? I can't remember."

No. I am not anti-nuclear. Nuclear generates about 20% of US electricity. But you believe the US government when it says nuclear generated X, and you don't believe the government when it says wind generated Y. You have a double standard.

"'Free' fuel is useless if it costs too much to transmit, to install turbines, to store, or only works 25-35 percent of the time."

Some peaking plants work less than 5% of the time. Any plant is good for consumers if it lowers the price of electricity.
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2010/4/25/62541/6173

"Another tidbit about wind, they have a 5 year accelerated depreciation rate that no other industry is allowed to do which earns them a tax bonus."

The US had a one-year writeoff for gas guzzlers in "business use".

"Without these subsidies wind costs 20 to 50 percent more than gas."

Europe has feed-in tariffs instead of subsidies. Even with a fixed price, total electric bills went down. That means wind is cheaper than the rest.

"1.8 percent is still a miniscule amount."

It's about 50% more than wood and 3 times as much as waste. Hydro has been going down since 1997.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0802a.html
Even if we can dam more rivers, we probably shouldn't. We are barely started with wind.

"We sank $30 billion for something the nation, as a whole, hardly ever uses."

Iowa gets 14% from wind. That's one day a week. Soon it will be 2 days. Maybe General Compression can make it 4 days. The nation gets almost 1 week a year. Soon it will be 2 weeks. Does everyone "hardly ever use" vacation time?

"Nope, didn't call it fake, just exaggerated."

No difference. When someone "exaggerates" production figures, it's fraud. That's what you say it is.

You say production numbers are frauds. You say the wind power producers are frauds. You say the utilities which bought the power are frauds. All this goes on the US EIA web site, which you say is a fraud.

The creationists say that fossils were faked to test our faith, IOW frauds. You are NO DIFFERENT. You are a religious nut. "Wind denial" is part of your faith. I have learned all I am going to learn from you. You are not capable of learning anything. There is no reason to talk to you any more.

AtheistCardinal said at April 29, 2010 6:04 AM:

"When the government states production of coal, oil, gas and electricity, I believe them. If I believe the nuclear figures, I have to believe the wind figures. The US Government ..."

It doesn't answer the question though but at this point I didn't expect a serious answer from you.

"That's right. I don't have the time to read religious material. It's all garbage. Nothing you said impressed me. Your Rosenbloom site is no good either. It's an onion. Two layers down it's still rotten. I say fuck it."

LOL, it all garbage because you say so even without reading or studying any of it? Interesting... Here's something to remember, you calling it religious doesn't make it so. You still offer no substantive reason to doubt ANY of my sources. E-P, at least made the effort. It also means everything I cited; the newspaper accounts, the European govt sources, the QA sessions, the US govt sources, the Spanish study are all false gospel according to you. You have a high opinion of yourself to think you know more than all these sources. It's quite arrogant and small minded of you to decide nothing other than YOUR materials should be worshipped as fact. Is it any wonder I find your arguments ridiculous Cardinal? lol

"But you believe the US government when it says nuclear generated X, and you don't believe the government when it says wind generated Y. You have a double standard."

I said no such thing. You either don't read my responses, don't understand them, or choose to apply another lame straw man. Basically it means you're not debating honestly or competently. I called any govt site unworthy of trust without independent verification. You offer none which is why I still have a problem accepting your estimates on wind while the nuclear sites HAVE been objectively confirmed.

"Some peaking plants work less than 5% of the time. Any plant is good for consumers if it lowers the price of electricity."

Only if they're unaware of the hidden cost. What decreases to energy prices and taxes might there have been if more efficient energy sources had been tapped instead of wind?
And don't think I miss the irony of your use of a pro-wind blog. lol

"The US had a one-year writeoff for gas guzzlers in 'business use'."

It was meant to help small business and farmers avoid paying the luxury tax on their trucks but hadn't been updated to account for the popularity of SUVs and Hummers. That's not quite the same as giving an entire industry like wind a favored tax status.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403b1.asp

"Europe has feed-in tariffs instead of subsidies. Even with a fixed price, total electric bills went down. That means wind is cheaper than the rest."

Feed Tariffs largely serve the same purpose as a subsidy so you get no traction with your argument there. It guarantees a quota for renewable sources REGARDLESS of it's actual value or efficiency.

It typically includes three key provisions: 1) guaranteed grid access, 2) long-term contracts for the electricity produced, and 3) purchase prices that are methodologically based on the cost of renewable energy generation [3] and tend towards grid parity. Under a feed-in tariff, an obligation is imposed on regional or national electric grid utilities to buy renewable electricity (electricity generated from renewable sources, such as solar power, wind power, wave and tidal power, biomass, hydropower and geothermal power), from all eligible participants.[4].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff

"Hydro has been going down since 1997. Even if we can dam more rivers, we probably shouldn't. We are barely started with wind."

30 years of subsidies doesn't sound like we're just 'barely started with wind'. I suspect many of the environmental issues that bedevil hydro will quickly sink their teeth into Wind. And one must never underestimate the NIMBY factor.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/


"Iowa gets 14% from wind. That's one day a week. Soon it will be 2 days. Maybe General Compression can make it 4 days. The nation gets almost 1 week a year. Soon it will be 2 weeks. Does everyone "hardly ever use" vacation time?"

However you spin it, it's a miniscule amount and again it neatly avoids my point on consumption. 1.8 percent generated after thirty years and billions spent is not impressive.

"No difference. When someone "exaggerates" production figures, it's fraud. That's what you say it is. You say production numbers are frauds. You say the wind power producers are frauds. You say the utilities which bought the power are frauds. All this goes on the US EIA web site, which you say is a fraud."

I call wind's potential exaggerated. I'm agnostic on govt production figures that can't be independently verified as you should be. Nuclear has been, why can't wind? And didn't I use a few of your precious gospel sources to bolster my arguments? I didn't hear objections from you there...

"The creationists say that fossils were faked to test our faith, IOW frauds. You are NO DIFFERENT. You are a religious nut. "Wind denial" is part of your faith. I have learned all I am going to learn from you. You are not capable of learning anything. There is no reason to talk to you any more."

That's right, I'm religiously skeptical. The Pope of free thought, the Mullah of agnosticism, the Imam of dubiety. Damn me for my fundamentalist pursuit of evidence and reason! How dare I question the doctrine of the Archangel Gore and Hansen! Who am I, a layman, to question my self-proclaimed betters. lol

You are an intellectual coward. I've patiently answered all your questions while you've avoided a large share of mine and you call ME dishonest? And when did I EVER call myself a creationist or a Nazi? You're just grasping at straws now, what a load of crap you peddle. Just calm yourself and stop using the roids bro-they're bad for you.

You confessed you don't read opposing sources, you dismiss and hide from them and call them religion without noting the irony in your words. You've learned nothing except new ways to deny the fact that your wind God is no Mossiah. And when all was said and done you descended into profanity. How classy. Thanks for proving how empty your arguments really were...lol

AtheistCardinal said at April 29, 2010 5:43 PM:

"When the government states production of coal, oil, gas and electricity, I believe them. If I believe the nuclear figures, I have to believe the wind figures. The US Government ..."

It doesn't answer the question though but at this point I didn't expect a serious answer from you.

"That's right. I don't have the time to read religious material. It's all garbage. Nothing you said impressed me. Your Rosenbloom site is no good either. It's an onion. Two layers down it's still rotten. I say fuck it."

LOL, it all garbage because you say so even without reading or studying any of it? Interesting... Here's something to remember, you calling it religious doesn't make it so. You still offer no substantive reason to doubt ANY of my sources. E-P, at least made the effort. It also means everything I cited; the newspaper accounts, the European govt sources, the QA sessions, the US govt sources, the Spanish study are all false gospel according to you. You have a high opinion of yourself to think you know more than all these sources. It's quite arrogant and small minded of you to decide nothing other than YOUR materials should be worshipped as fact. Is it any wonder I find your arguments ridiculous Cardinal? lol

"But you believe the US government when it says nuclear generated X, and you don't believe the government when it says wind generated Y. You have a double standard."

I said no such thing. You either don't read my responses, don't understand them, or choose to apply another lame straw man. Basically it means you're not debating honestly or competently. I called any govt site unworthy of trust without independent verification. You offer none which is why I still have a problem accepting your estimates on wind while the nuclear sites HAVE been objectively confirmed.

"Some peaking plants work less than 5% of the time. Any plant is good for consumers if it lowers the price of electricity."

Only if they're unaware of the hidden cost. What decreases to energy prices and taxes might there have been if more efficient energy sources had been tapped instead of wind?
And don't think I miss the irony of your use of a pro-wind blog. lol

"The US had a one-year writeoff for gas guzzlers in 'business use'."

It was meant to help small business and farmers avoid paying the luxury tax on their trucks but hadn't been updated to account for the popularity of SUVs and Hummers. That's not quite the same as giving an entire industry like wind a favored tax status.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/biz_tips/20030403b1.asp

"Europe has feed-in tariffs instead of subsidies. Even with a fixed price, total electric bills went down. That means wind is cheaper than the rest."

Feed Tariffs largely serve the same purpose as a subsidy so you get no traction with your argument there. It guarantees a quota for renewable sources REGARDLESS of it's actual value or efficiency.

It typically includes three key provisions: 1) guaranteed grid access, 2) long-term contracts for the electricity produced, and 3) purchase prices that are methodologically based on the cost of renewable energy generation [3] and tend towards grid parity. Under a feed-in tariff, an obligation is imposed on regional or national electric grid utilities to buy renewable electricity (electricity generated from renewable sources, such as solar power, wind power, wave and tidal power, biomass, hydropower and geothermal power), from all eligible participants.[4].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff

"Hydro has been going down since 1997. Even if we can dam more rivers, we probably shouldn't. We are barely started with wind."

30 years of subsidies doesn't sound like we're just 'barely started with wind'. I suspect many of the environmental issues that bedevil hydro will quickly sink their teeth into Wind. And one must never underestimate the NIMBY factor.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_faces_fight_on_cape_wind/


"Iowa gets 14% from wind. That's one day a week. Soon it will be 2 days. Maybe General Compression can make it 4 days. The nation gets almost 1 week a year. Soon it will be 2 weeks. Does everyone "hardly ever use" vacation time?"

However you spin it, it's a miniscule amount and again it neatly avoids my point on consumption. 1.8 percent generated after thirty years and billions spent is not impressive.

"No difference. When someone "exaggerates" production figures, it's fraud. That's what you say it is. You say production numbers are frauds. You say the wind power producers are frauds. You say the utilities which bought the power are frauds. All this goes on the US EIA web site, which you say is a fraud."

I call wind's potential exaggerated. I'm agnostic on govt production figures that can't be independently verified as you should be. Nuclear has been, why can't wind? And didn't I use a few of your precious gospel sources to bolster my arguments? I didn't hear objections from you there...

"The creationists say that fossils were faked to test our faith, IOW frauds. You are NO DIFFERENT. You are a religious nut. "Wind denial" is part of your faith. I have learned all I am going to learn from you. You are not capable of learning anything. There is no reason to talk to you any more."

That's right, I'm religiously skeptical. The Pope of free thought, the Mullah of agnosticism, the Imam of dubiety. Damn me for my fundamentalist pursuit of evidence and reason! How dare I question the doctrine of the Archangel Gore and Hansen! Who am I, a layman, to question my self-proclaimed betters. lol

You are an intellectual coward. I've patiently answered all your questions while you've avoided a large share of mine and you call ME dishonest? And when did I EVER call myself a creationist or a Nazi? You're just grasping at straws now, what a load of crap you peddle. Just calm yourself and stop using the roids bro-they're bad for you.

You confessed you don't read opposing sources, you dismiss and hide from them and call them religion without noting the irony in your words. You've learned nothing except new ways to deny the fact that your wind God is no Mossiah. And when all was said and done you descended into profanity. How classy. Thanks for proving how empty your arguments really were...lol

Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

                       
Go Read More Posts On FuturePundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©