It's a myth that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions | Chris Goodall and Mark Lynas

The assertion that wind turbines don't reduce carbon emissions is a myth, according to conclusive statistical data obtained from National Grid and analysed here in the Guardian for the first time.

[Earthling-1]

So what if wind turbines do reduce carbon emissions?
There'll never be enough of them to supply the ever increasing demand for power.

Meanwhile, the global population continues to increase, more mouths arrive to be fed, more power required to produce, harvest and ship the food.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

Earthling-1 wrote:

So what if wind turbines do reduce carbon emissions?

It is an obvious indication of your defeat in Topix when all you can say is 'so what' as it that changed anything.

Earthling-1 wrote:

There'll never be enough of them to supply the ever increasing demand for power.

I gather you are now a 'prophet of doom'?

Earthling-1 wrote:

Meanwhile, the global population continues to increase, more mouths arrive to be fed, more power required to produce, harvest and ship the food.

Yes. And some of those lives are worth something. A thing that cannot be said for a useless 70 years old aristocrat with delusions of adequacy.

If you would be so kind as to voluntarily cease to exist for us, we would appreciate the extra space. We need it for people that SOLVE problems, not that ARE problems.

[PHD]

Earthling-1 wrote:

So what if wind turbines do reduce carbon emissions?
There'll never be enough of them to supply the ever increasing demand for power.
Meanwhile, the global population continues to increase, more mouths arrive to be fed, more power required to produce, harvest and ship the food.

And more hot air to overcome that you produce. And not to forget the useless babble and so on.

[litesong]

steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:

So what if wind turbines do reduce carbon emissions?
There'll never be enough of them to supply the ever increasing demand for power.

"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling", not caring about power efficiency & CO2 reduction, shows his silly goose brain(sorry 'bout that--he is 'earthling has no brain).

Every time wind turbines become taller & more efficient, decreases toxic topix AGW deniers' pablum that wind turbines can't be a good element in electric power grids. Taller & more efficient wind turbines cause bird strikes to be lessened per kWhr produced. One development alone, gearless wind turbines, have increased efficiencies by 20% & dramatically decreased maintenance, & increased longevity.... a triple whammy toxic topix AGW denier butt whacker.

From the article:

the wind sceptics' case is that a scaling up in wind power will have to be "backed up" by massive investment in gas-fired open cycle turbine (OCGT) plants......

Their arguments are not borne out by current statistics

[SpaceBlues]

"Their arguments are not borne out by current statistics"

(litesong}

Agree, litesong. Also, they will never succeed because the science marches on. Technology improves.

Despite the science deniers who call themselves skeptics <dishonestly> in this forum, the humanity will make us proud by cooperating and taking proactive measures against the anthropogenic climate change.

These deniers continue lying, twisting, misrepresenting until they give up their evil ways.

[PHD]

the real DUD FIVERS wrote:

wind turbines make electricity at about 4 or 5 times the cost of conventional power stations. Not bad for "free power" is it?

Show us your work to prove your statement. Ask for help from the dirtling will result in more useless babble.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

the real DUD FIVERS wrote:

wind turbines make electricity at about 4 or 5 times the cost of conventional power stations. Not bad for "free power" is it?

If that were true, nobody would build them and you would need to say nothing. But it ISN'T true which is why you lie and spam.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/wind-energ...

[litesong]

Blast from the not distant Past:
//////////
steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
So what if wind turbines do reduce carbon emissions?
There'll never be enough of them.....
//////////
litesong wrote:
"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling", not caring about power efficiency & CO2 reduction, shows his silly goose brain(sorry 'bout that--he is 'earthling has no brain).

Every time wind turbines become taller & more efficient, decreases toxic topix AGW deniers' pablum that wind turbines can't be a good element in electric power grids. Taller & more efficient wind turbines cause bird strikes to be lessened per kWhr produced. One development alone, gearless wind turbines, have increased efficiencies by 20% & dramatically decreased maintenance, & increased longevity.... a triple whammy toxic topix AGW denier butt whacker.
/////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
Agree, litesong. Also, they will never succeed because the science marches on. Technology improves.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

Blast from the not distant Past:
//////////
steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling wrote:
So what if wind turbines do reduce carbon emissions?
There'll never be enough of them.....
//////////
litesong wrote:
"steenking piddling diddling middling mudling mudslinger dirtling", not caring about power efficiency & CO2 reduction, shows his silly goose brain(sorry 'bout that--he is 'earthling has no brain).
Every time wind turbines become taller & more efficient, decreases toxic topix AGW deniers' pablum that wind turbines can't be a good element in electric power grids. Taller & more efficient wind turbines cause bird strikes to be lessened per kWhr produced. One development alone, gearless wind turbines, have increased efficiencies by 20% & dramatically decreased maintenance, & increased longevity.... a triple whammy toxic topix AGW denier butt whacker.
/////////
SpaceBlues wrote:
Agree, litesong. Also, they will never succeed because the science marches on. Technology improves.

Good one. I like Wind Turbines. They go roundy round for free.

[Windman]

I wonder what the "net Carbon Reduction" really is on a wind farm after you put all the infrastructure in, built the towers from dirty smelted steel, truck the sections, nacelle, and blades, erect the things with a carbon spewing crane, and 70 concrete trucks hauling concrete for each tower foundation, keep the things hopefully running for fifteen years with all the maintenance trips required, then dismantle the things, re-smelt the dirty steel and then the blades can't be recycled, nor will they decompose because they are carbon fibre. All this for about 35% efficiency over the lifespan.

I nice little 75MW gas plant with CO2 scrubbers and a 50 year lifespan looks awful good after factoring all this in....no?

[PHD]

Windman wrote:

I wonder what the "net Carbon Reduction" really is on a wind farm after you put all the infrastructure in, built the towers from dirty smelted steel, truck the sections, nacelle, and blades, erect the things with a carbon spewing crane, and 70 concrete trucks hauling concrete for each tower foundation, keep the things hopefully running for fifteen years with all the maintenance trips required, then dismantle the things, re-smelt the dirty steel and then the blades can't be recycled, nor will they decompose because they are carbon fibre. All this for about 35% efficiency over the lifespan.
I nice little 75MW gas plant with CO2 scrubbers and a 50 year lifespan looks awful good after factoring all this in....no?

In a perfect world your 75MW gas what plant?Factor in the scheduled and non scheduled outages your numbers are slightly off. But you calculate the heat rate of each and do tell all your answer.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>In a perfect world your 75MW gas what plant?Factor in the scheduled and non scheduled outages your numbers are slightly off. But you calculate the heat rate of each and do tell all your answer.

Heat rate is inapplicable to comparisons. As is the rest of your nonsense. You adapt the system to your resource, you don't adapt your resource to your system.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

And wind power can easily generate ALL the worlds power if we harnessed even a small small fraction of the total power available.

http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/03-the-f...

The only 'cost' in the equation is the manufacture and installation of the wind turbines and some adaptation of the power grid to allow storage of power to level the load vs production.

No limitations, clean and reliable. Energy independence even for the USA (which has a LOT of wind in the US midwest states from Texas to the Canadian Border.

[litesong]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

The only 'cost' in the equation is ....... and some adaptation of the power grid......

Our Pacific Northwest grid(& many other hydro-based grids) need little adaption to include wind turbine power.

[litesong]

windy boy wrote:

....... keep the things hopefully running for fifteen years with all the maintenance trips required, then dismantle the things, re-smelt the dirty steel and then the blades can't be recycled, nor will they decompose because they are carbon fibre. All this for about 35% efficiency over the lifespan.
.... nice little 75MW gas plant with CO2 scrubbers and a 50 year lifespan looks awful good......

You need to live downwind of gas plants. Bet the rich men who built the plant don't have their children living downwind.

Longevity of wind turbines have gone beyond 'hopefully running for 15 years' & expose toxic topix AGW deniers as non-tech nobodies with little science & mathematics training. One technological jump alone has doubled longevity, decreased maintenance & worker risk, increased efficiency & made more regions viable for wind power. Don't think your gas plant longevity is unchallenged by wind turbines. toxic topix AGW denier arguments are dealt a quadruple whammy death blow with one tech punch.

Many wind turbine advancements have buried wind turbine deniers deep..... very very deep.

[LessHypeMoreFact]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
Our Pacific Northwest grid(& many other hydro-based grids) need little adaption to include wind turbine power.

With high voltage DC backbone connections, Hydro power can be used to 'level the load' by reducing power generation as wind power rises, thus creating 'pumped storage' at 100% efficiency while reducing the risk of lower reservoir levels to water demands.

Progress is an 'all of the above' idea. And the fanatical anti-clean energy is running out of distractions. The 'monopoly' of fossil fuels having the economy 'over a barrel' has to end.

[PHD]

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:

<quoted text>
Heat rate is inapplicable to comparisons. As is the rest of your nonsense. You adapt the system to your resource, you don't adapt your resource to your system.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
And wind power can easily generate ALL the worlds power if we harnessed even a small small fraction of the total power available.
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/nov/03-the-f...
The only 'cost' in the equation is the manufacture and installation of the wind turbines and some adaptation of the power grid to allow storage of power to level the load vs production.
No limitations, clean and reliable. Energy independence even for the USA (which has a LOT of wind in the US midwest states from Texas to the Canadian Border.

So you can't answer the question. Again the cut and paste thing dosen't work try again.