|
Post by missouriboy on Aug 28, 2015 2:56:41 GMT
As with most remains of fallen civilizations it is religious relics that survive. It gives a bit of an insight into how the last days of the Roman empire operated. "Great leaders" debating false problems and diverting by edict resources away from the source of the wealth. Strange you should mention the Roman Empire - the fall of Rome was assisted by huge influxes of foreign migrants. Not sure that they managed to create subsidy farms, but they had lots of circuses. The subsidy farms were where they trained the sword-fodder for the circuses! Maybe like college athletic departments.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2015 3:57:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 18, 2015 22:43:44 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 19, 2015 4:46:15 GMT
Unless you live in Wisconsin or Massachusetts. There are lawsuits in place in both states in regards to human health effects and wind turbines.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 21, 2015 2:34:59 GMT
Well, there’s one more wrinkle. Typically, wind is bid at the lowest prices — because you don’t need fuel, it doesn’t really cost that much money to keep wind turbines moving once they’ve been built. But wind operators have another advantage over generators that use coal or natural gas: A federal production tax credit of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour that applies to every kilowatt of power produced. And that means that even if wind operators give the power away or offer the system money to take it, they still receive a tax credit equal to $23 per megawatt-hour. Those tax credits have a monetary value — either to the wind-farm owner or to a third party that might want to buy them. As a result, in periods of slack overall demand and high wind production, it makes all the economic sense in the world for wind-farm owners to offer to sell lots of power into the system at negative prices. Only in Texas, folks. Only in Texas. www.businessinsider.com/the-impossible-just-happened-in-texas-2015-9
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 14, 2015 13:08:05 GMT
When they have succeeded in reducing the CO2 level to 150ppm and all plants start dying can we watch these researchers starve first? And yes I am completely serious this level of ignorant geoengineering is extremely dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 15, 2015 11:31:26 GMT
As a follow up to the above point. IFF the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1750 just before the industrial revolution was actually around 250ppm (and I am not sure I believe any figures from any agency that were not printed in books published before 1950) and as I do not believe some of the histrionic claims of centuries of residence for CO2. Should Astromet be right the ocean temperatures will soon (continue to) drop and CO2 will dissolve back into the oceans following Henry's Law and we could return to the atmospheric CO2 levels of 1750 or even lower. So not only will things get colder, and as is normally the case drier, and grow lines move south, but also the level of CO2 will become dangerously low for plant life and crop yields will drop. This could lead to rather unpleasant times.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 15, 2015 13:04:52 GMT
I don't think that CO2 levels will drop rapidly nautonnier. AS far as previous to 1750, there is plant stoma paleo data that clealy shows CO2 was closer to 300 than 250ppmv.
There are some things that the AGW folks are getting by with.
1. Sea Levels: They are going to continue to rise no matter what, unless we get durn cold! That is what has happened during previous interglacials, and most certainly will continue to happen during this one................unless we get durn cold!
2. Temperatures: 1.0C general rise is not earth ending. The gloom and doom folks would like you to think that, but the overall variability of temp, even during one day, is much greater than 1.0C
3. Storms etc: This one I am not so sure about. One thing that I know is that we have had violent storms on earth prior to 1750, heck we have violent storms all the time. If the wind is 10mph faster, or it rains 1.0" more during an event than previous events does it really matter? No.
4. The AGW folks seem to have convinced a lot of folks that CO2 is a pollutant. They can equate it to mercury or sulfur, or NO2 or other actual pollutants. The problem is CO2 at current levels is not a pollutant, but a lot of folks don't understand this.
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Jan 19, 2016 22:06:11 GMT
www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/This is a live site that shows what fuel is being used to produce electricity in the UK, at the present time wind is producing 0.26% of our electricity, what a waste of millions of pounds or is it billions.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 20, 2016 0:59:19 GMT
Billions.....isn't tech just grand when it doesn't work?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 20, 2016 14:23:44 GMT
Billions.....isn't tech just grand when it doesn't work? " Technology is a word that describes something that doesn't work yet." Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 20, 2016 18:01:08 GMT
So I guess it would be correct to define long range weather models as technology???
|
|
|
Post by fredzl4dh on Jan 21, 2016 13:34:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 21, 2016 18:18:29 GMT
I live next to one. Loosing money on them, even with a subsidy doesn't surprise me.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 26, 2016 16:32:03 GMT
|
|