Tuesday, 30 July 2013

 John Loftus observes that we maybe don't realize just how bad we are at thinking, and Stephen Law observes about how easy it is to fall down intellectual black holes. Very wise ideas.
   There is an interesting debate about whether wind turbines on the National Grid lead to any significant reduction in CO2 emissions. There is also a debate about whether wind turbines are an economically viable or competitive way of reducing CO2 emissions or whether they just lead to manufacturing  industry moving abroad to countries with less CO2 regulations.
   It all comes down to the question of where is the historical, statistical evidence of wind turbines leading to a reduction in CO2 when the whole electrical system of each country is considered.
   If this is not the case then wind mills are no more than homeopathy, a fraud, a con, an act of religious sacrifice like the Azteks making human sacrifices to try to influence the weather or volcanoes.  Only we are sacrificing countryside and finance for nothing.
    Until a week ago I assumed that wind turbines were beneficial because how could so many politicians be mistaken ?  Why would National Grids let it happen. Now I have discovered there are many people who give many reasons to think that there is no evidence that there is a significant reduction in CO2 from the use of wind turbines. It is to do with how too many turbines on grid can lead to conventional power stations on the grid running less efficiently = increase in CO2 emission. There are also more effective ways to reduce emissions.
  See MEP Struan Stevenson " So much wind ", John Constable of Renewable Energy Foundation, " The green mirage ", Dieter Helm, " The carbon crunch ", Gordon Hughes, " Why is wind power so expensive "
European platform against wind turbines.  Scottish wild land group article by engineer Jack Ponton.
Results published by electicity companies; Eirgrid 2004 report, E.ON Netz 2005 - CEO Martin Fuchs said there were too many turbines on gird = causing power surges.
Also an interesting speech by Rupert Soames ,grandson of Winston Churchill, to Holyrood on 12th Nov 2010 in which he warned the government to build more gas and nuclear power stations and less wind turbines to avoid increased risk of blackouts after 2016. Mr Soames is the chief of Aggreko generators which supplies emergency power world wide and is a FTSE 100 company.
    I support CO2 reductions, species conservations, preservation of biodiversity, eco-friendly etc but I wonder if there is a distorted  " Green Kampf " going on in Europe ? But maybe it is the subsidies which are warping decision making ?
   Feel free to delete this, I'll  understand if it is annoyingly off thread.  But it is about how people, myself included often fail to study enough of the detail and breadth on the subject. Are we intellectually myopic ?
Well you have to trust those around you to some extent or you'd be constantly paranoid ?

Monday, 29 July 2013

Where is the historical statistical evidence that wind turbines lead to CO2 reduction ?

In reply to #2 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee: See Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University article, " Why is wind power so expensive " p 27 21.5 GW of Combined Cycle Gas Turbine power stations would cost £13 billion and reliably produce the electricity that all the planned £130 billion worth of wind turbines in U.K would.
How can Britain afford to throw away £117 billion in times of austerity ? How can we justify taking money from the poorest and giving it to the often richer landowners ? Turbines will make our electricity less competitively priced and tend to result in industry moving to countries which do not impose CO2 regulations. Will we be happy if we lose British industry & see a brain drain to U.S.A. China, India, Brazil ? We need to look at the CO2 emitted in the production of stuff we buy from China - as pointed out by David Mackay of DECC, " Sustainable Energy without the hot air ".
Also the wind industry has no evidence that wind turbines on the National Grids lead to a significant reduction in CO2. In fact the published results of Eirgrid 2004 and E.ON Netz 2005 conclude that turbines are one of the most expensive, uneconomic ways to reduce CO2. Too many turbines on the grid cause instability and reduce the efficiency of conventional power stations. Poland and Czech republic are threatening to block transmission from Germany due to power surges on German grid due to turbines
Maybe some one would like to post links to historical case studies which prove a significant reduction in CO2 from wind turbines on the national grids ? Not just models. Where is the evidence that we are not being conned by wind turbine salesmen? But in any case there was no need to live with the threat of black outs. We could have started building new gas and nuclear plants 10 years ago to be online now.
I recommend the speech given by Mr Rupert Soames given to Holyrood 12th Nov 2010. Mr Soames is chief of Aggreko generators which provides emergency power world wide, ( Aggreko is a FTSE 100 ). My summary of what he said is that Scottish government energy policy was heading for the rocks and that they need to build new gas and nuclear power stations and reduce the number of wind turbines planned , otherwise there will be an increased risk of blackouts after 2015. Mr Soames recently pointed out that there is now 9000 MW of wind turbines but on calm days the actual output can be 20 MW.
I wonder what people who religiously ban fossil fuels will say if there are black outs, especially if it turns out to happen over a number of years before new conventional stations come online ? We need smart solutions to reduce CO2 emissions not ruinous policies based on fantasies which end in anarchy. Check out Dieter Helms, " The carbon crunch ", Master Resource - energy blog , Val Martin of European platform against wind turbines , C, Le Pair , Eirgrid report 2004 , E.ON Netz 2005 , MEP Struan Stevenson , John Constable of Renewable Energy Foundation , Ruth Lea of Civitas

Tuesday, 9 July 2013

Daniel Yergin’s book, ” The Quest ” has an interesting chapter 35, ” The great electric car experiment ”
He notes electric car concepts are struggling to deliver.
Here is my suggestion: Car sharing.
For the week ahead each person in U.S.A types into their computer their travel plans. Then a super clever computer program works out the most efficient way to transport those people and sends a travel plan to each driver so that in effect maybe only 10 % of cars get used each day ? Maybe a route could be sent to each sat nav and so people are driving according to computer program – where to go to pick up the next passenger. Also be told when you need to leave to arrive on time.
This could result in far less congestion and so faster travel times and further reductions in fuel consumption.
Maybe an even more clever computer program could match people type for a more harmonious travel experience?
Ex convicts could be transported by police car taxi.
Those on the run could be collect by security guards and taken direct to jail, do not pass go.
In reply to KevinKat , ” Argh baby penguin so cute. He can live in my apartment it’s always cold there! ”
Kind, in a way, to offer to share your cold apartment with the penguin but maybe that’s not taking in the big picture.
Air conditioning uses heat exchanger where heat is transferred from inside your apartment to the air out side. So outside gets a tiny bit warmer and inside quite a bit cooler. This process requires energy, a high percentage of which for your flat will probably come from fossil fuel. This will have released CO2 which is contributing to changing the climate for cute penguins.
However we are all locked in to systems that are difficult to change. I’ve heard using a fan uses less energy ? I drove my car to work today. I’m just looking at what is possible in theory.
I previously quoted from Jeff Rubin’s book, ” Why your world is about to get a whole lot smaller ” p 273 about energy use of houses in U.S.A. I have checked out the figures I quoted. He used a children’s reference page. I looked at another – U.S energy information administration eia.gov which is different:
” How much gasoline does the United States consume ” the answer – 3.1 billion barrels in 2011
If one barrel = 1700 kwh then 3.1 billion barrels would generate 5270 billion kwh
If one house uses 11,000 kwh per year then 3.1 billion barrels could supply 500 million houses per year
There are 125 million houses in U.S.A so transport oil could provide 4 times amount needed
From wikipedia article on ethanol production
In 2011 U.S produced 13.9 billion gallons of ethanol from corn which was added to gasoline at 10%. This matches the 134 billion total gasoline consumption by vehicles in U.S.A in 2011 quoted by eia
In 2011 U.S grew 64 million hectares of corn in total of which one third went to ethanol production
So 20 million hectares of corn for ethanol = 200,000 square kilometers
1 hectare could easily support a pony so you could support 20 million ponies from the area of land
currently used for bioethanol.
The U.S equine marketing association estimates there are already 11 million horses in U.S.A
This could bring the total to 31 million horses for pulling americans in fine carriages. Impressive ?
There are currently 250,000,000 cars in U.S.A so my scheme to turn U.S.A over to horse transport
can only find 12 % of current. Oops again. My thoughts are pie in the sky.
However at least doing this would give more crop rotation – an end the vast monoculture of GM corn.
An extra 200,000 square kilometers with grass & clovers and other plants useful to bees & other insects
would help conserve biodiversity
Looks like a 220 million bicycles will still be needed.
Growing hay for horses would only use maybe one third the fertilizer of growing corn and lots less energy – you’d only need to cut grass, turn a few times and bale. Transport of hay would be major task.
Maybe it is more energy efficient to grow oats to feed humans directly and get them to cycle ? But get to work without sweating by horse & carriage. Trouble is that if horses were on same road as cars they would probably cause road blocks and increase fuel consumption thus erasing any advantage
Probably just a tail pipe dream ?

Monday, 8 July 2013

Peak oil debate

It might help if everyone studied the Peak oil debate more - or it might make people go into a panic.
YT - BBCHardtalk, Fatid Birol, Chief economist of International Energy Agency Jan 11th 2013, interviewed by Stephen Sackur on 9th January.
At end of video Fatid warned of severe weather disruption due to global warming if we don't dramatically reduce burning of fossil fuel. Also he pointed out that fossil fuels are going to be used up one day.

See http://odac-info.org/peak-oil-quotes
also http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/hubecon.htm

Here are some ideas that might be just too different for most people to accept:
M. King Hubbert back in 1960 recommended moving to a steady state economy. This would involve basically giving people rations of just enough food & other essentials guaranteed for life.

A radical solution would be to ban all car use. This would make the roads much more quiet and safer for cycling and pony & trap.  If we set up pony & Hansom cab instead of taxis there would be many benefits. The ponies would require hay which would require many fields be changed to grass, this could increase amount of
clover available for bees and help save them too. The horse is the ultimate green energy engine.  A Hansom cab owner could have a pony for morning and another for afternoon. This would create many jobs. The cabs could be made of carbon fiber like a modern Smart car sealed from wind & rain.
  Battery power assisted bicycles are great fun and can be fitted with solar panels to help charge up while driving.
   Possibly a lane on roads could be designated for bicycles & horses and two lanes for lorries ? That could be tricky
    We should be reserving remaining oil for agricultural production & feedstock in manufacturing.
   Get most people to do virtual travel using computer. Ban airtravel.
  Can you imagine the economic disruption that would cause ? I think our situation is like the patient needs heart surgery but is too overweight to survive the operation.

  See also Jeff Rubin, " Why our world is about to get much smaller " for Peak oil is real point of view. He was chief economist for Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
   Daniel Yergin, " The Quest: Energy, security and the remaking of the modern world ", gives competing view that technology will get more oil out the wells than pessimists say. I think he might be like the Christian apologists - denying reality.

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Changing signs of the times

I'm changing the sign on my bedroom door from
" Jebus is coming, give him some privacy "
to " Come Lord Jebus come, even if it is prematurely or else you'll be stood up, whip your chosen ones away with you, elope and leave the rest of us to live a sustainable subsistence existence "

There are pros & cons to each issue;
It would help save Earth from run away global warming if Jebus would rapture all religious people away right now. It would preserve biodiversity. Both desirable if the biosphere is valued.

Just say there were only 1000 million people left behind on Earth in 2013. What sort of civilization would they manage to maintain ?
Would they manage to maintain all the books written or computers & an internet ? Would they be able to get enough materials from recycling stuff already in use? If they feared to burn any more fossil fuel in case it made global warming worse would they be able to do any mining of ore ? Or refining it ? After a century would most of the technology have become obsolete with no way of restoring it ? Would they manage to make enough charcoal to power manufacturing plants to make
medical or dental equipment ? Would nuclear power stations start to release radiation even if they had been shut down before abandonment ?
If the nuclear power station hasn't been fully decommissioned does it eventually blow up ?

An advantage of fossil fuels is that it has allowed us to find out a myriad interesting things about our world, thoroughly refute Bable
based texts and make life more pleasant in many ways. Maybe the advances wouldn't have been achieved if population had been restricted to two per woman using contraception ? However it is going to be a pity to have learned so much only to see it evaporate.

If all world leaders ( including misleaders like ministers, imams etc ) had advized a 1-2 child policy starting in 1920 or even 1960 then  could the human race have had all the technology and be looking forward to another million years of existence- having given themselves 3 times longer to develop Thermonuclear fusion & succeeded Vs running out of resources & power ? The wheels falling off civilization ?

It has been both fortunate and unfortunate to have so much fossil fuel


Parody on John 3v16: For God so loved the world that he let it go to rack and ruin

Parody on Good Samaritan story of Luke 10v31:
And there came a God who wasn’t trained in scientific method, when he looked down on humanity and thought they looked like bacteria in a Petri dish, he wasn’t interested to study them, so he crossed over to the other side of the road and walked on by.


Parody on John 3v16: For God so loved the world that he let it go to rack and ruin

Parody on Good Samaritan story of Luke 10v31:
And there came a God who wasn’t trained in scientific method, when he looked down on humanity and thought they looked like bacteria in a Petri dish, he wasn’t interested to study them, so he crossed over to the other side of the road and walked on by.

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

Review of "God or godless " by John W. Loftus & Randal Rauser

REVIEW OF " God or godless " by John ". Loftus & Randal Rauser:
 It is intellectual manna from an i-cloud, unfortunately Randal's left over's from prescientific error has maggots and smell's ( Ex16v20). Well I suppose maggots are extra protein, unappetizing but good for you in a way ? - when fried by John's rebuttals ! Don't eat live & squirming.
” god or godless ?” has a great recommended reading list because it has books like ” Why evolution is true ” listed at Debate 14 & 18,
RE Chpt 12 ” The babble god does not care much for animals “. John made the most intelligent, reality based comments. He mentions Genesis 1v28 which has to be one of the most ruinous ideas to life on Earth : ” And god cursed them by saying, ‘ Be fruitful and increase in number, fill the earth and subdue it ‘”.
Now this wasn’t such a hazardous aim 500 BCE when it was actually nigh impossible to do so given high death rate due to disease and fossil fuel hadn’t been discovered to reduce malnutrition & increase carrying capacity. However if a real god had cared for the amazing diversity that had evolved on Earth over 3.5 billion years then Gen 1v28 should maybe have said, ” And god blessed them by saying, ‘ Only have a maximum 2 children per woman, never exceed 1 billion world population and do not burn fossil fuel. Here is how to make contraceptives…And here is all the other information about the universe… ”
[ Well actually a real god could have supernaturally controlled fertility and death rate to prevent population rising above 1 billion & prevent ill health etc. ]
The bable is written by barbarians, witchdoctors & peasants and, by it’s own admission, following it’s advise will lead to an apocalypse,[ though not the real one ]. where too many people could result in them burning all the trees & eating all the animals.
If Jesus or his creators had any supernatural powers of insight he would have said, ” The Septuagint is mostly mistaken. It was for Before Civilization but is now ADdled. In the future you need to aim for sustainable living. 2 child policy or your world will head toward armageddon; species extinction, degradation of habitat etc, p.s build composting toilets and here’s how… And again I say to you, do not get on the god damn run away mine train or
in 2015 years from my official birthday you will be facing world peak oil ( if you are a pessimist or 2030 if you are an optimist )
Like JWL said p102 : god should simply have made us all vegetarian or vegan.
Yet Genesis 9v3 Has god saying Noah can eat everything that lives and moves.
Again Gen 9v1 advises, ” increase and fill the earth.”- which is a recipe for conflict & war
Again Gen 22v17 Abrahams descendants like grains of sand on seashore = obviously god is not great at statistics either- he should have consulted Albert Bartlett on YT.
It may turn out that the babble contributed to extinction of life on Earth ( worst case scenario ) or at least significant degradation ( best case scenario )