The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

What happened when there was little or no wind last week

View previous topic View next topic Go down

What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.08.12 7:11

Monday, 13 August 2012, 6:57

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9468604/The-great-wind-delusion-has-hijacked-our-energy-policy.html


The great wind delusion has hijacked our energy policy

The command of Britain's electricity supply has fallen into dangerous hands

Britain would have to build 10 turbines a day every day for eight years to meet its EU renewables target

By Christopher Booker

7:00PM BST 11 Aug 2012

232 Comments

Anyone impressed by the efficient way in which Britain has organised the Olympic Games might consider the stark contrast provided by the shambles of our national energy policy – wholly focused as it is on the belief that we can somehow keep our lights on by building tens of thousands more wind turbines within eight years. At one point last week, Britain’s 3,500 turbines were contributing 12 megawatts (MW) to the 38,000MW of electricity we were using. (The Neta website, which carries official electricity statistics, registered this as “0.0 per cent”).

It is 10 years since I first pointed out here how crazy it is to centre our energy policy on wind. It was pure wishful thinking then and is even more obviously so now, when the Government in its latest energy statement talks of providing, on average, 12,300MW of power from “renewables” by 2020.

Everything about this is delusional. There is no way we could hope to build more than a fraction of the 30,000 turbines required. As the windless days last week showed, we would have to build dozens of gas-fired power stations just to provide back-up for all the times when the wind is not blowing at the right speed. But, as more and more informed observers have been pointing out, the ministers and officials of the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) seem to live in a bubble of unreality, without any practical grasp of how electricity is made, impervious to rational argument and driven by an obsession that can only end in our computer-dependent economy grinding to a halt.

The latest attempt to get them to face reality is by Prof Gordon Hughes, a former senior adviser on energy to the World Bank, now a professor of economics at Edinburgh, whose evidence to the Commons committee on energy and climate change has now been published on the website of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. His most shocking finding is that the pursuit of our Climate Change Act target – to reduce Britain’s CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 – would cost us all £124 billion by 2020, or £5,000 for every household in the land: not just
to build tens of thousands of absurdly subsidised wind turbines, but also for the open-cycle gas-fired power stations needed to provide back-up. To guarantee the same amount of power from combined-cycle gas-fired plants would cost £13 billion, barely a tenth as much.

Furthermore, as Prof Hughes explains, ramping the back-up gas plants up and down would mean running them very inefficiently, and give off so much CO2 that we could end up increasing our overall emissions rather than reducing them.

And who is expected to build them or pay for them?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by PeterMac on 13.08.12 7:18

Spain is doing exactly the same thing. The once beautiful vistas are ruined, as I put it recently

"Here in southern Spain in the hot windless summer months when we most want to use air conditioning and fans, or in the long windless and freezing months of winter when we long for warmth, we see the wind turbines flopping flaccidly about, ruining previously beautiful vistas, or in a strange literary reversal, looking for all the world like giant Don Quixotes, standing on guard, gaunt and motionless against the sky, scanning the plains for approaching intellectual pygmies. A permanent and pathetic testimony to the waste of many millions in the sadly illogical and unscientific pursuit of a once laudable ideal. "

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tilting at wind turbines

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.08.12 7:25

@PeterMac wrote:Spain is doing exactly the same thing. The once beautiful vistas are ruined, as I put it recently

"Here in southern Spain in the hot windless summer months when we most want to use air conditioning and fans, or in the long windless and freezing months of winter when we long for warmth, we see the wind turbines flopping flaccidly about, ruining previously beautiful vistas, or in a strange literary reversal, looking for all the world like giant Don Quixotes, standing on guard, gaunt and motionless against the sky, scanning the plains for approaching intellectual pygmies. A permanent and pathetic testimony to the waste of many millions in the sadly illogical and unscientific pursuit of a once laudable ideal. "
A literary and poetic masterpiece Peter...are you tilting at wind turbines perchance?

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by PeterMac on 13.08.12 7:35

I fear we all are. Politicians are not scientists. And their view of the future extends to the next division bell.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by PeterMac on 13.08.12 8:05

“How green you are, How green you are, How green you are ....How green !!!”

And as the words of the children’s party song fade softly away, we know that we have failed.

We do try to be ‘green’. All of us. But it is not easy.

For many years we were told by the hippies and their attached ‘environmental scientists’ that everything had to be “biodegradable”. For at least a decade or more that was a ‘good word’, and got attached to almost everything. Plastics, detergents, paper, nappies, you name it. It all got labelled biodegradable, and we all paid a premium and congratulated ourselves.

But then came Greenhouse Gases and Global Warming and Climate Change. Even hippies began to realise, some of them fairly slowly, that “biodegradable” meant that the plastics were converting themselves, and fairly quickly, into .... greenhouse gases ! That is what biodegradable means.

Biodegradables, like hippies, have long gone. Evaporated and drifted away on the breeze.

With that came more serious science. Serious, but not necessarily logical, and certainly not without controversy. And lot of it not very scientific either.

Whatever your standpoint - from unconditional accepter to hardened sceptic - there is clearly a serious problem about way in which we humans use the world’s resources of energy and raw materials, and the way in which we create and then dispose of our waste.

How do we make sense of it all.

Let us take that often quoted example of babies’ nappies. For years we were told that if put in landfill sites they would take 10,000 years to biodegrade, and that was deemed to be bad. But that was the hippy era, when logical thought was not high on the agenda.

Nowadays ? Consider - a nappy is made of paper and cotton, biological products which have absorbed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to grow. We add to it other carbon containing matter (- sorry ! -) and bury it in a landfill site. The carbon is not released for 10,000 years. Is this not good ? The carbon has now been removed from the atmosphere and put back into the ground. And we grow more cotton, taking more carbon out of the atmosphere to make a new one.

As with plastics of all sorts. If they cannot be recycled - of which more later - surely the best place for them is back underground, to replace the oil and coal from which they originated.

We are exhorted to plant trees to do exactly this - to absorb CO2. But then some of those projects are to use them as fuel, which is a bit strange. Others are for construction and furniture, which at least locks in the carbon.

And then someone came up with another idea. Instead of taking all that carbon out of the atmosphere, and putting it back into the ground, and then at the same time taking more out of the ground in the form of gas, oil, and coal, why not re-cycle the energy content of what we already have.

In other words use proper industrial incinerators. Nottingham and other big cities did this and made very efficient district heating plants. Once started they require no further fuel. Metals and glass are harvested from the ash waste, and apart from the hideous blot on the urban landscape and the dreadful stench all was well. Until someone analysed the smoke and found dioxins, that is !

I go shopping. I leave my home with the fans running to keep it cool whilst I am out, get into my air conditioned car, and drive 5 miles to the supermarket. Enter the air conditioned, artificially lit building, go to the chill cabinets spilling cooling air onto the ground, select the vegetables and fruit, fresh out of the cold room where they have been kept at a perfect 4ºC, place them in a whole series of little polythene bags, one for each item, before weighing and labelling them, and eventually go to the check out, where I meet the first sign that someone, somewhere, cares.
I am to be charged 2 centimos for a carrier bag ! The government has clamped down and made a decision. But honestly, is that really the problem in the scale of what I have just done to the planet ? A single supermarket carrier bag !

Before this latest tax, for that is what it is, (in Britain the number of bags issued has risen since the imposition of the charge, so make up your own mind about its effectiveness) there was a move to get you to use your bag more than once. Use it twice or even three times, and then finally use it as a bin liner, where one supposes it would have ended its life in landfill, and be there for the next 10,000 years.

And which Einstein, Newton or Hawking decided that 2 cts would be a tax sufficient to force people to change their ways. One test of value of money is whether you bother stooping to pick up a coin from the gutter. Do you pick up a 2 cts piece ? 10 euros per bag perhaps might change people’s behaviour, but 2 cts ?

2 cts may even be giving the opposite impression - that these bags are OK. Shop twice a week for a year and your total output might only be 3 or 4 euros.

And back to plastics. Plastics of most sorts can be re-cycled, warmed up, melted down, and made into the next thing. One major problem is the sheer variety of plastics now in use. There is no such thing as “plastic”, it simply means ‘bendable’. You cannot mix expanded polystyrene with polyethylene-tetraphthalate, nor polyproplylene with polytetrafluoroethylene, any more than you can mix nylon stockings and bakelite. So the difficulty, for which read cost, of sorting the stuff out can rapidly exceed any possible advantage in doing it.

Similarly incidentally with glass. In theory glass can be melted down and re-used. But glass is not just one uniform substance. It exists in many forms and qualities, from a milk bottle to the windscreen on the space shuttle; from oven-proof Pyrex to the screen on your iPad. The costs of transport and then of sorting it all out are prohibitive. Glass manufacturers would far prefer to start again with new raw materials, which on any test are abundant and inexpensive. There is a lot of sand in the world. Cullet, the technical name for broken glass, fetches 30 euros a tonne. Less than the cost of transporting it. By contrast scrap aluminium, probably the most perfect of all re-cyclable materials, is 400 euros a tonne, and the costs of re-cycling are way below smelting new product. Landfill of glass will last until the earth itself ends. It is not biodegradable. Dumping aluminium is a ridiculous waste.

So let us think about Energy.

How do we choose “green energy”. Is there such a thing ? There are only a few sources of energy available to us.

• Hydro, including classical gravity fed turbines, wave and tidal
• Nuclear
• Fossil fuels, - coal, oil and gas
• Solar, to generate electricity or to make hot water
• Geothermal
• Wind
• and precious little else. Olive stones, almond husks, and wood pellets are fun, in a hippy-teepee, organic-socks and knitted-sandals kind of way (I use olive stones by the way !) but get mankind nowhere, any more than burning cattle dung.

Of those only a few countries are geographically suited for the nearest we can get to truly green energy production, that of large scale hydo-electric generation. Norway is the best example, with a large high plateau and heavy rainfall. Also a very small population. The rest of the world lags far behind.

Wave is still developing but suffers the same problems as wind
Tidal works in a few places but is not environmentally or ecologically acceptable to many

Nuclear brings out the worst in people.

Fossil is the source of most of our green concerns

Solar is great for hot water in your home, (in the summer) and on an industrial scale for electricity. But again, since we still cannot store electricity effectively, it is available only during the day. At night you have to have another system.

Geothermal sounds as if it might be very interesting over the next decades, but is in its infancy.

Wind is on any test a costly disaster. Here in southern Spain in the hot windless summer months when we most want to use air conditioning and fans, or in the long windless and freezing months of winter when we long for warmth, we see the wind turbines flopping flaccidly about, ruining previously beautiful vistas, or in a strange literary reversal, looking for all the world like giant Don Quixotes, standing on guard, gaunt and motionless against the sky, scanning the plains for approaching intellectual pygmies. A permanent and pathetic testimony to the waste of many millions in the sadly illogical and unscientific pursuit of a once laudable ideal.

(For those who do not know, the Government subsidy needed to make and maintain a wind turbine is deliberately set high enough to force the price of the power to below the level of its traditional competitors. So the electricity companies have to buy the subsidised power, only to find that when the wind is not blowing within the exact range it is supposed to, the turbine people simply turn them off and say “Sorry !”. The companies are then forced to buy from the conventional producers, but now themselves force the price so low that no new technology or investment is possible. And where, pray, does the “subsidy” come from ? From you, of course. Out of other hidden taxation. Have you looked at your VAT bills recently ?)

And don’t even start me on subject of the massacre of migratory raptors ! The Hills are Alive with the Sound of Music, has been replaced with The Sound of SIlence.

And with all these systems, we still need conventional power stations of exactly the equivalent output of the green versions. Since you cannot just turn a conventional power station off and on again, with notable exceptions, they have to be kept running in parallel, providing electricity whose price is being undercut by the subsidised ones. In Britain there has been so little investment or long term planning that they are just about to allow the existing nuclear plants to run for another 15 or 20 years beyond their official de-commissioning dates. It fills one with confidence in the ability of our political appointees to think beyond the next election.

Yes, I agree. It is a mess, and like religion and politics, it is the source of many arguments.

For the moment then we are left with fossil fuels, gas, oil, and coal.
For transport we obviously need a transportable energy source, which still means oil. There is little choice. Electric cars are a designer fad, and battery technology will have to improve by several orders of magnitude before the practical difficulties are overcome. And unless the electricity is generated purely by hydro or wind they are not low on pollution. They merely leave the pollution somewhere else. We must never pretend otherwise. That would be selfish or unthinking NIMBY-ism at its best.

It is bit like geting rid of all our rubbish to India and China to be sorted out there. Instead of facing the problem and dealing with it ourselves, we wash our hands, and tell ourselves that lots of people thereby gain employment. We tend not to add - “and crippling injuries and hideous diseases”.

But then marching bravely over the horizon came the idea of bio-fuels, notably alcohol and bio-diesel. All we had to do was plant things, and then ferment them, distill them, or munch them up in some other way into fuel. Problem solved ! What a perfect world we live in ! Carbon in and carbon out. Mother Nature has a solution to every problem! Gaia lives to save us all !

Well not quite.

For a start taking that area of arable land out of food production will reduce still further the amount available for feeding the world. We shall probably buy our fuel from Brazil, where they will chop down a block of rainforest the size of Europe to grow it for us.

And secondly there is the whole issue of water.

Fresh water is one of the most precious resources the world has. Arguably the most precious, and it is cogently argued that the next few World Wars are going to be fought over drinking water supplies.

The UN declares that each person should ideally have access to between 25,000 and 50,000 litres per year.

Let us now go briefly back to power. Bear with me, there is a link !

One way of looking at the resource implications of power production is to see how much water it takes to get at that resource. In other words add up how much water is used in the entire power production cycle. Everything - from the construction of the machinery, transport, drilling, refining, delivery systems, and so on, and then divide that into the power output.

In her seminal book “Winner Take All” (2012, Penguin, at p.118) Dambisa Moyo quotes the example of the water needed to make enough energy to power a normal family home for a month, which is standardised for ease of comparison at 1,000 kWh.

For natural gas, to make that 1,000 kWh takes 83 litres of fresh water. For oil and coal rather more.

But for bio- alcohol and bio-diesel it takes between 190,000 and 950,000 litres to make that same energy equivalent.

Bio-diesel. Green ? I will let you argue that one yourselves.

Regardless of where this leaves us, other than either totally confused or in the opposite state - “Don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up” - humankind clearly has to change gear and slow down a bit.

The oil-shales of the northern USA and the oil-sands of Canada have been barely studied, there are trials to release natural gas from under Blackpool, most of the vastness of Siberia and a very large part of Africa have not yet been prospected in detail, and the seas round the Falklands and the whole of the South American continental shelf is still shrouded in mystery. Much clearly remains to be found and extracted.

Whether we should do so is another story. We cannot allow a glut of oil. Put simply the price of oil cannot be allowed to drop below 65 dollars a barrel. Below that figure civil unrest would spread from the Middle East as their social programmes would collapse, and their failure to invest their wealth in production and employment would be exposed to the world. And no one wants that. Or more accurately no Politician is prepared to allow that to happen.

And just before we draw this rant to a close, how are we to reconcile the concerns of the ‘greens’ with those of the conservation and ecology lobbies ? We wanted ‘biodegradable’ but found it generated greenhouse gases. We want hydo-electric but recognise that dams are a disaster. Not one has been to the net benefit of mankind. Tidal barrages interfere with fish migrations and inundate tidal wetlands where birds feed and breed. Wind turbines chop up birds and bats. Solar panels are a hideous blot on the landscape and use up agricultural land. Bio-diesel may exacerbate food shortages throughout the world. Re-cycling causes more pollution and uses more energy than it saves resource. Even burning olive stones in my boiler in the winter puts CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Is there an answer ? Are there any answers ?

Do we in fact even really understand the question ?

So there we have it. A unfocussed ramble through the intellectual brambles getting spiked by all sorts of apparently unrelated subjects which have been lumped together under the heading “green”.

Whether ‘green’ is a useful label to attach is itself another question. For the moment I can’t think of an alternative though I suspect that using just the one label is having the effect of blurring the different issues.

Someone out there might suggest a better classification, and from that we might develop a tighter focus on what we can do.

For clearly we must do something. Urgently.


____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by tigger on 13.08.12 8:31

Brilliant 'two cents' worth! Thanks.

The carbon myth has been proved to be just that. There are measurements going back over 35000 + years. This started when Libby worked out a way to date archaeological finds by means of the C12/C14 ratio. This was tested against known dates and worked quite well untill the 70's and 80's when it was found that it wasn't a simple curve, since the ratio naturally changed a great deal - up and down - and therefore a whole new calibration method had to be devised.

In short, the ratio of C12/C14 goes up and down naturally. The most humans do is to add an infinitesimal amount to this. The main culprits are volcanic eruptions and emissions from airplanes.

We shouldn't worry about the greenhouse effect. The next ice-age is just around the corner. The last glacial maximum was about 18000 years ago.

The energy debate is about money. All we can do is to get away from the big boys and work with geothermal and solar energy, once you've invested in that, it's pretty nearly free energy. Now why would that not appeal to politicians with a limited timescale to set themselves up for life?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by monkey mind on 13.08.12 10:08

The fact that these monstrosities are subsidised should be all the proof one needs that they are cost ineffective. If private business were asked to power the country using unsubsidised wind turbine power there would be no takers, not a one. And when the subsidies are stopped as they inevitably one day will be then who will foot the bill for the removal of these gargantuan eyesores? Not the power companies for sure as has already been proven in California. In prime sites for wind power when the subsidies ceased the power companies immediately walked away and have left the things to rot as the state doesn’t have tthe money or will to remove the useless things. In short they cannot stand on their own feet and when the crutches are taken away they will be left to fall.

Necessity is the mother of invention so whilst the pockets of private business are being filled with easy money their minds are not directed toward truly useful purpose.

As Tigger has stated this whole CO2 nonsense is nothing more than a myth, I would say a scam for the obscenely rich, those that are truly responsible for poisoning the planet to get even richer. CO2 is one of the absolute necessities for life on this planet along with sunlight and water. Taxation of such would be the biggest hoax implemented upon humanity outstripping any other scam by a country mile. As with all other taxations it would by stealth become steadily more burdensome upon the individual where every item imaginable will be hit at the point of purchase, ultimately farmers will be taxed for the CO2 their animals breathe out as will individual households and the wealthy landowners, the ones perpetrating this obscenity will fill their land with trees and forests in order to reap the rewards and credits for all the “good” they are doing whilst you, you nasty little person killing the planet will pay for it and it will be business as usual for the multinational oil companies and their ilk, the ones truly doing the damage. Don’t take my word for it, either disbelieve me or just watch it happen.

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by bobbin on 13.08.12 11:09

@monkey mind wrote:The fact that these monstrosities are subsidised should be all the proof one needs that they are cost ineffective. If private business were asked to power the country using unsubsidised wind turbine power there would be no takers, not a one. And when the subsidies are stopped as they inevitably one day will be then who will foot the bill for the removal of these gargantuan eyesores? Not the power companies for sure as has already been proven in California. In prime sites for wind power when the subsidies ceased the power companies immediately walked away and have left the things to rot as the state doesn’t have tthe money or will to remove the useless things. In short they cannot stand on their own feet and when the crutches are taken away they will be left to fall.

Necessity is the mother of invention so whilst the pockets of private business are being filled with easy money their minds are not directed toward truly useful purpose.

As Tigger has stated this whole CO2 nonsense is nothing more than a myth, I would say a scam for the obscenely rich, those that are truly responsible for poisoning the planet to get even richer. CO2 is one of the absolute necessities for life on this planet along with sunlight and water. Taxation of such would be the biggest hoax implemented upon humanity outstripping any other scam by a country mile.
As with all other taxations it would by stealth become steadily more burdensome upon the individual where every item imaginable will be hit at the point of purchase, ultimately farmers will be taxed for the CO2 their animals breathe out as will individual households and the wealthy landowners, the ones perpetrating this obscenity will fill their land with trees and forests in order to reap the rewards and credits for all the “good” they are doing whilst you, you nasty little person killing the planet will pay for it and it will be business as usual for the multinational oil companies and their ilk, the ones truly doing the damage. Don’t take my word for it, either disbelieve me or just watch it happen.

Even a child would deduce, that if trees and plants use CO2 to grow, and give off oxygen which we use, and carbon which we again use, along with oxygen to burn it, that a natural cycle is occurring. Surely then, the more CO2, the more plants, the more oxygen, the more fuel, the more CO2, etc.

Stripping trees out, relative to the number of people consuming the carbon and oxygen, is the area that we should be addressing.

I agree that stripping the earth of its stores, minerals, oil etc. and producing toxic wastes which pollute the globe, are issues that need urgent addressing.

To blame it on CO2 production, to tax the same, by stealth, to render the poor even poorer, and to expect people not to question the scientific argument (propaganda) being broadcast, is the most shameful of political acts, and the worst possible guardianship of our planet which we should leave in a better state than we find it, for our children and their children. That should be the aim.

We know the CO2 tax is an act full of shame and guilt and fear of exposure and discovery because laws are stealthily put in place to vanquish and silence the 'whistle-blowers'.

Truth, however is like water. it will find the slightest fault to burst its way through. The guilty are guilty whether they cover their asses or not.

It is a matter of time before the manipulating politicians are called to task by sufficient numbers of the populace who will be pushed so far, via taxation, loss of liberty, freedom to speak, to question and to debate, but no further. Time doesn't stop still either....anyone with a fear over their shoulder can hear the 'tick tock' too.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by PeterMac on 13.08.12 11:56

In the jurassic (200m - 145m years ago) the problem was different. The higher levels of oxygen allowed animals to grow to vast size, carbon dioxide levels were 7 times higher than they were before the modern era, and in the oceans, which were very warm, there was an explosion of algae and things with calcite skeletons. Hence the enormous deposit of limestone. That limestone took and retained all that carbon, (as calcium carbonate - CaCO3 ) and gradually the planet settled into a new and different form. In the cretaceous the carbon dioxide was somewhat reduced, but again the formation of chalk took carbon out of the atmosphere, and held it.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by tigger on 13.08.12 14:26

I think they stopped teaching history and geology some time ago Petermac, your little lecture is like manna in the wilderness for me, for Kev, Nev, Trev and Tracy it might as well be in Mandarin Chinese.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by PeterMac on 13.08.12 17:17

I think you may be right. Who would have thought that limestone and chalk contain most of the globe's reserves of carbon dioxide. Oil and coal are minuscule in comparison. Have a look at what happens when they make cement !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by tigger on 13.08.12 17:29

CO2 levels were measured rigorously when they built the Eden project. That is: after it was completed they measured it continuously since it was to all intents and purposes a closed system.
They had no idea where all the CO2 came from - it was off the scale. Turned out to be the freshly laid floors which take quite a few years to settle down and become stable without emissions.
It follows that new-built houses must be rather unhealthy.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by PeterMac on 13.08.12 18:39

One is also reminded of the invention of the "Hole in the Ozone Layer".
The layer itself was discovered only recently and the hole even more recently.
No one has any idea whether it is supposed to be there, has existed for centuries or aeons.
But the politicians got to work and aerosols and fridges were banned because of the CFCs. (Chloro-fluoro-carbons)
We were assured it was to do with the free chlorine and fluorine ions.
What they failed to point out was that the active volcano on Antarctica, Mount Erebus, spews out between 7 and 14 Gg (Giga grams = kilo tonnes, = 7,000 tonnes) of hydrogen chloride, and 4 - 6 Gg hydrogen fluoride per annum. Straight up into the ozone layer directly above.
The whole thing is thus very likely to be a natural phenomenon, over which man has absolutely no control and in the scale of which his wife's hair-sprays are insignificant.
But climatologists are not vulcanologists.
And there was, yet again, big money involved in organising the changeover to a more inert gas.
Incidentally, there are now fears that the closing of the ozone hole might cause warming of the Antarctic.
You couldn't make it up.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by tigger on 13.08.12 19:08

O fantastic! You've made my day because to date the believers in the ozone hole are many. It's a religion. Princess Diana had to stop using hairspray....


Here is another one:
Where is the acid rain that was to destroy us all in the 70's? All gone like the snows of yesteryear.

Fear is the key, keep a population in a permanent state of anxiety about something you can tax. Problem is, it seems that fear is addictive, I get the impression that people just love having that little frisson of fear. Beats me why.

As Bird and Fortune said in one of their conversations - one has to have a 'war on terror' - can't possibly have a 'war on something mildly annoying...'.
Together with climate change, ozone holes etc. the war on terror is the biggest confidence trick ever.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What happened when there was little or no wind last week

Post by monkey mind on 13.08.12 22:19

@tigger wrote:O fantastic! You've made my day because to date the believers in the ozone hole are many. It's a religion. Princess Diana had to stop using hairspray....


Here is another one:
Where is the acid rain that was to destroy us all in the 70's? All gone like the snows of yesteryear.

Fear is the key, keep a population in a permanent state of anxiety about something you can tax. Problem is, it seems that fear is addictive, I get the impression that people just love having that little frisson of fear. Beats me why.

As Bird and Fortune said in one of their conversations - one has to have a 'war on terror' - can't possibly have a 'war on something mildly annoying...'.
Together with climate change, ozone holes etc. the war on terror is the biggest confidence trick ever.

Yes, fear the key. In the last decade a massive influx of dark legislation in the name of freedom. Give up your liberty to be free!

The war on the closet demon - your mama will tell you they don't exist, your government will fill that vacuum..

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum