Topic: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit

Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Coal lobbyists warn that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit if too many of the devices are installed globally.


http://www.ecobob.co.nz/EcoArticle/2289/0/Warning-that-wind-farms-could-blow-the-earth-off-its-orbit.aspx

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Wind turbines are far to closed to the earths surface to do so.
It's a joke

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Promote coal by all means but this sceptic treats this claim as a joke.
How gullible can the American public be?
But you can bet your CO2 filled Coke can that some will believe it!

The world has vast reserves of coal that may in the interim, be one of the world best economical clean burning (yes you read that correctly) fuel options to replace oil fired power plants in some areas of the world without hydro capacity.
Just remember that with scrubbers on a Chinese coal fired power station, all you emit is 0.02% of harmful emissions along with a little CO2 a harmless trace ‘green house’ gas, but mostly H2O, which is by far the largest ‘green house’ gas. So what?

I happen to support using clean coal fired energy for industry requirements, rather than further depleting our ‘peak oil’ that should be used more efficiently in say jet engines rather than power plants, fertilizer, plastics or vehicle fuel.
Even better, let us concentrate our science on more efficient and clean ‘fracking’ of horizontal drilled gas rich shale which one ‘estimate’ suggests, we have up to 300 years reserves to completely replace oil.

Shale gas drilling has minimal disturbance to the environment and a valve tap on the top of the exit pipe is all that results – now that is really clean and green.

Rex

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Fracking consumes a lot of water and it is a serious threat to drinking water reserves.
Water is and will be our most important resource
whatever compromises water is not at all clean and green.

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Quess what is right to say that 'fracking' consumes alot of water, not to forget the toxic wastewater left over after drilling.
Rex, you may have or may not have read the article on shale gas in "Time magazine April 11 2011" It sounds a good alterative until you investigate into it further and discover what affects on people and land it has. In the US state of Pennsylvania where drilling is mushrooming the dept of environmental protection issued 1,218 violations out of 1,944 inspected wells.
Greed, ie the folding stuff is first on the minds of these people and to hell with environment and its people (a bit like Pike River).
Getting back to the subject at the beginning, yes what a joke!
All our answers lie with that big orange thing in the sky, ancient civilisations knew and used it and worshiped it, why can't we with modern advancing technology?
Rex, sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no such thing as "clean coal"!
We can put man into space but for the last 150yrs or more we cannot come up with a better, saver way of extracting coal other than sending a man into a tunnel. Crazy!
M

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Hello ‘Guess what?’ and ‘Just do it’,
Someone is telling ‘porkies’ according to verifiable data from Matt Ridley.

I suggest more research, both for and against as I don’t believe only propaganda from a ‘green’ website or Time magazine - Eg:

http://thehill.com/images/stories/blogs/energy/howarth.pdf

The Howarth ‘paper’ compares CO2 production between Shale gas, Conventional gas, Coal, and Diesel oil and concludes that the GHG footprint for Shale gas is similar to coal, therefore by implication must be ‘bad’.
This ‘paper’ sets out to ‘prove’ the irrelevant and is a nonsense but what is more frightening, is that the UK ‘greens’ are so desperate to discredit economical clean green Shale recovery gas that they are recommending NUCLEAR instead!

I consider anthropogenic CO2 production from ALL forms of carbon combustion to be almost irrelevant to our climate.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture2.pdf

Physics shows us that the effect of increasing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere is not linear but logarithmic (meaning the more CO2 you have up there, the less the temperature change in the ‘green house’ effect), so increasing the carbon dioxide content to 620 ppmv, projected by 2150, results in only a further 0.16°C increase in atmospheric temperature.

Now, in support of Shale recovery gas, here is a précis of paragraphs from the Matt Ridley study:

http://thegwpf.org/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=url&urlid=469&mailid=141&subid=180

Water depletion:
56. The shale gas industry uses water: 1-5 million gallons per well, (similar to) the quantity used in a domestic appliance. Gas drilling in Pennsylvania uses less than 60 million gallons per day, compared with 1,550 used in public water systems, 1,680 used in industry and 5,930 used in power generation in the state.
A single shale gas well uses in total about the same amount of water as a golf course uses in three weeks.
Waste water:

53. Approximately one-third of the water pumped down the well for fracking returns eventually to the surface together with gas during production. The water is extracted from the gas, and either re-used for fracking in other wells or desalinated, or treated the same as waste water in any other industrial process.
Pollution incidents involving such `produced water‘ are rare.

49. Shale gas operations in the United States are heavily regulated and closely monitored.
State regulators have all asserted in writing that there have been no verified or documented cases of groundwater contamination as a result of hydraulic Fracking.

36. Here is a typical statement:
No groundwater pollution or disruption of underground sources of drinking water
has been attributed to hydraulic fracturing of deep gas formations. --Joseph J. Lee,
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 1 June 200937.

Finding: groundwater contamination by fracking fluid is possible but unlikely if proper procedures are followed.

I will look further into your suggestion ‘Just do it’ and report back (clean coal was a tongue in cheek comment but that’s for another discussion).

Thanks Rex

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Rex and others, you might be interested in this article. I think it's very insightful.

http://www.ecobob.co.nz/EcoArticle/2291/0/Taking-a-safe-bet-renewables.aspx

There's always so much information on both sides of the argument (pro and anti fossil fuels). I think that looking at the motives is always very useful.

If you haven't already seen it, check out the film 'Inside Job', http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/ it really shows how corrupted information can become once there are hidden motives. We need to continue questioning our beliefs and looking below the surface information we are fed by the media - that goes for sceptics and environmentalists.

I think main culprit that has seen the rapid and highly visible decline of our natural eco system has been our short term thinking and risk taking along with our insatiable need to satisfy our egos (e.g. buying luxury cars, purchasing endless amounts of consumer goods that we then throw away within a few years).

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Hello Carlin,
I completely agree with your comment - “shows how corrupted information can become once there are hidden motives. We need to continue questioning our beliefs and looking below the surface information we are fed by the media - that goes for sceptics and environmentalists” and your last paragraph also mirrors my thinking.

When I read a ‘Greenpeace’ article such as this, I do so with a jaundiced eye.
The joint founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore left Greenpeace when it was taken over by the ‘radical green communists’ and I did the same.

This article claim that wind power and solar energy are economically viable without subsidies, and I wish this was true but is it?
(Quote from the Matt Ridley study – post above)

61. According to the Institute of Energy Research, the cost of electricity from new plants designed to open in 2016 from different sources will be approximately as follows :
(in dollars per megawatt-hour):
Solar thermal ..............................................312
Offshore Wind ............................................243
Solar photovoltaic ........................................211
Coal with CCS ............................................136
Nuclear ......................................................114
Biomass ......................................................112
Wind ..........................................................97
Coal ..........................................................95
Gas with CCS ..............................................89
Hydro ........................................................86
Gas, combined cycle ..................................63

Shale gas recovery looks pretty good to me if these figures are accurate.

If Greenpeace distorts economic facts such as these, to boost and support its green propaganda and some in Industry continue to view only the bottom line and not sustainability and the ecology, then I will continue to be a sceptic of both.
However I note that there is a gradual change occurring in Industrial thinking, to be more aware of waste recovery be it materials or energy as this is proving to be good for the bottom line as well as the environment. Not all Industry is 'bad'.
Long may it continue but NOT if it is driven by artificial subsidies (read taxpayer surcharges on electricity), to dishonest carbon tax incentives (foresters planting for carbon credits and not to grow wood) – these distortions only muddy true environmental and ecological thinking.

Rex

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Shale gas "recovery" is a further danger to the World's most important resource WATER.
Before we destroy so much water to squeeze a bit more out of this planet, or going nuclear (which is the most costly form of energy production with high risk of irreversable damage to our living environment) WE NEED TO USE LESS ENERGY UNTIL IT IS ENOUGH !!!!!!!!

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Maybe the carbon stored in the earth( and other natural hazardous minerals) over millions of years is earth's way of naturally regulating the planet so it is habitable for life. Think about it.
Now we exploit these natural resources in the ground for our own narrow thinking and greed.
Meanwhile the sun comes up every single day without fail. A natural resource that I think is grossly negected.
Give it 20yrs or so Rex and then we'll see what has happened in regard to shale gas, but don't just rely on one Matt Ridley study to convince you, remember, we are all skeptical.
It is only one view on the topic and a slightly bias slant to the positive, what about the effects on local residence of these towns in the US where drilling is taking place, are they not aloud to voice what is ACTUALLY happening?

Very interesting video ecobob, thanks.
The fat cats get fatter. Governments all over are corrupt.
M

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Hello “Guess what”, I think you have the decimal point in the wrong place.

Global water footprint for the world in the period 1996-2005 equalled 9087 Gm3/yr (74% green, 11% blue, 15% grey) of which agricultural production contributed 92% to this footprint.

Beef production per kilogram, one of the largest users, required 15,000 litres of water (93% green, 4% blue, 3% grey water footprint).

The water footprint for a Natural Gas Shale well is about 37,850 Lt / week (my approx. calculation based on the Ridley report) of which 50% or greater could be grey water (water not potable but semi treated).

This compares to the green or blue water (potable) footprint for two humans of 41,000 Lt / week or the equivalent of eating 2.5 kg of beef / week.

Now we look at a comparison with the Primary energy carriers -
Global average water footprint (m3/GJ)
Non-renewable:
Natural gas 0.11
Coal 0.16
Crude oil 1.06
Uranium 0.09
Renewable
Wind energy 0.00
Solar thermal energy 0.27
Hydropower 22.00 (100% water recovered)
Biomass energy 70 (range: 10-250)

Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/home

It seems to me “Guess what”, that we can dispense with two humans or 2.5kg of prime beef in the making 2 hamburgers per day to balance the water footprint for a Shale gas well operation – hardly a massive draw on an acknowledged scarce resource, you would agree?

Hello ”Just do it” – You may well be right on all counts, and I acknowledge that for ‘every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction’.
That does not mean that we should not drill for Shale gas, the most economical hydrocarbon recovery, but that we should mitigate for the negative results even if that increases the cost of recovery to eventually prove the whole exercise uneconomical.
That is what is starting to happen with drilling for oil.

The cost of recovery is now heading up to two barrels of oil recovered for one barrel of oil recovery cost.

Rex.

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Following your philosophy the earth is like a sponge.
We have already squeezed it quite a bit and now we put it in the vice to get the rest out of it.
Resources built up in 1000's of years gone in 200.
What a thinking? How selfish and greedy?
At least Beef is food but what is shale gas?
Just more fossil fuel to fed the greed and waste thinking in humans.
Now matter how much figures you throw around
you are thinking in the wrong direction.

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Hello “guess what”,

If you have read my ‘bio’ and followed any of my early posts you would know that I do not subscribe to that philosophy.

Like me, I bet you own a nice house, not a cave, have a car or two, not only your legs, a computer, not a slate and chalk and an electric oven rather than a dung fuelled cooking fire inside a hut.

That cooking method kills tens of thousands of poor Africans by carcinogenic emissions every year and what they need most from you and I in the developed world is ELECTRICITY to raise them out of this misery, but you deny them that basic gift that you take for granted.

Above all other charitable gifts, Shale gas fired electricity production can economically do that for them now, in the short term.
Wind and solar energy CAN NOT.

Don’t’ be so hypocritical. I preach a balance for all rather than just preach pious platitudes.

Rex

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

So you want to "recover" shale gas in Africa by using their last clean water and build power stations
to provide electricity for cooking ??
Once they all depend on the power companies and oil multies I guess then they buy their bottled water of some large retail chain.
They have an abundance of solar potential there (like many other places on earth) and the solar power technology has a huge potential to be improved in all aspects and it will become highly economic without leaving an environmental mess in the process.
Solar can offer simple local solutions to provide energy for Africa and other places.
And there are simple solutions like the solar cooker already in use for many years.
Shale gas is good to keep the oil giants alive but it comes at the expense of an environmental mess and at the expense of the general population.
I don't know what "pious platitudes" mean and I don't look it up. You try to sound very scientific and knowledgeable with endless posts but this time you sound like the "environmental speaker" of BP or Exxon.

Even big $$$ companies think solar rather than shale gas or should I say cave man gas??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/6823151/Worlds-largest-solar-energy-project-planned-for-Africa-desert.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/06/16/us-germany-solar-idUSTRE55F1F620090616

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

The stirling motor is making a come back in regards to generating solar power in the worlds hot spots.
Why re invent the wheel, we have the sterling concept already (designed in 1816), so lets use modern technology to improve it even more!
The best part of this is, the fuel source is free!!
Like the arcticle 'guess what' has posted above.

Rex, thats why they invented the rocket stove to help reduce smoke related deaths in these developing countries.

Sun, sun, sun,..................Its a no brainer.
(its free of charge and environmentally beneficial very single person and thing on earth).
M

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Wrong “Guess what”.

I do not want Shale gas powered electricity for domestic use (that was what your links were about)but Industrial use to lift the developing countries out of third world conditions. This was what they were demanding from the developed countries at the Copenhagen Treaty and why the Treaty failed in deadlock.
The African block leaders all said “give us economical energy to power our young industries, as this will lift our standard of living faster than any $$$ handouts”.

They cannot get cheap energy from hydro, have no expertise in and distrust nuclear, and recognise the limits of oil. Now both you gentlemen tell them to get it from the sun – which is a completely unrealistic option.

They laughed at the suggestion of Solar at 6 times the cost of Shale gas, as being completely uneconomical, so tell me, where are you getting the capital from - the Germans intend to take the energy from Africa for their own use - not for African use.

And when you install only Solar with Wind derived energy, tell me how to plan to run a blast furnace using only that source of electrical energy. As I said before it is impossible – so much for your naive comment on ‘cave man gas’.

Now, I know a little about Solar powering a family dwelling, having over 38 years ago, installed a 9 panel system feeding a 13000Lt insulated water tank with heat exchanger. It was crude by today’s standards, but cutting edge back then.

So I obviously support Solar and will promote the Solar cooker / Stirling motor / Rocket stove, as all are laudable but Solar is NOT the answer for industry, or are you suggesting that only the developed nations are allowed Industry?

Rex

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Out of interest Rex, could you explain a bit more about the insulated water tank with heat exchanger setup you had. Was this used for central heating ie radiators?
Most interested to hear.
M

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Rex

the third world countries have oild and gas too but shale gas is not a solution.
The third world countries have the opportunity to use better technology which was not available in the past.
The Germans still have to reach some aggrements with those countries in Afrika before installing this. And I can imagine that the Governments of this countries want their share of the technology and the power generated.
There are many ways to utilize the sun for power generation besides the solar panels and the potential for technical advancement is huge.
We just can't afford to carry on like this. Whether global warming is happening or not, change is needed. Radical change. Can we? Yes we can!!
The future is SOLAR in many different ways.

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Hello “Just do it”.
It was back in my Keith Hay days.
Government funded a solar expert from Canada to suggest how we could take a standard NZ “group house’ and improve its energy efficiency within a limited budget. They selected Keith Hay to work with as we were known to be rather innovative. My job as project manager was to work with the expert to design and produce the prototype.

First we doubled the insulation (which was radical for the time), but we could not justify the differential cost of double glazed windows (for Auckland climate) so they were rejected. The design was ‘standard’ expect we minimized the size of the south facing glazing and doubled the north glazed windows then orientated the house east west.

Nine solar panels were fitted to the roof and the roof plane increased to 32o and solar heated water pumped reticulation fed into a 13000 Lt PVC ‘bladder’ set between the bearers and supported within a polystyrene insulated braced plywood rectangular long box.
(As an aside, this house featured in the Easter Show, and it was being set up at the Show on temporary foundations. The day the Show opened, I thought I had better check the engineering calcs. To my horror, I found they were about half the strength required to support this weight of water – the bracing was hurriedly doubled. However, we accidentally left the bladder filling hose on overnight and in the morning found the house lifted off its foundation and ‘floating’ on a swollen bladder with more like 15000 Lt inside!)

A heat exchanger (not anything as sophisticated as today) pumped ducted hot air though the house and also heated the hot water cylinder through an internal heat exchanger coil. The windows were covered in heavy insulated drapes which were opened and closed by solenoid operated motors when the temperature dropped to a preset evening setting.

Conclusion: It worked very well, except some pumps kept breaking down and we calculated that although we did not save any energy compared to a conventionally heated house, the comfort level increased markedly.
The capital cost was ‘out of this world’ and the whole exercise could not be economically justified and so that ended that experiment.

Hello “Guess what”. You may not believe me but I actually want your suggested scenario for the future to come true, and believe that man will always find an answer, however I always temper my dreams with a solid dose of reality and recognise that as an interim measure before science develops Solar as a viable substitute, we must fill the ‘gap’.

Exactly the same applies to peak oil. It will take a minimum of 25 years for science to develop and industry to adapt and I fear that jet aircraft will stop flying well before that happens unless we stretch our oil reserves. For example, this can be done by removing oil (petrol) as a vehicle fuel as we have other practical alternatives such as battery power.

I am suggesting viable options in case we don’t make it in time.

Rex

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

I like the floating "water bed" story!!

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

I would like to bet that the figures used do not account for any remediation of the environment. The nuclear power industry has only ever considered the cost of building the power plants and getting the fuel, not what happens after, the same with the coal and gas industries. The whole life cost of all these systems should be factored into the cost.

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

If my memory serves me correctly, a firm involved with solar thermal electric generation has calculated that the amount of area required to supply the world's electricity demand is 100miles square. That is a big area but on the world scale is tiny. There is no need for the other options.

Re: Warning that wind farms could blow the earth off its orbit 

Hello Smeaton,

Industry needs a constant local power supply – the Sahara desert may be perfect for generating solar energy but it is a long way from Invercargille.

If you were to try and run the Tiwai Smelter on only solar power derived from the Nelson area (highest sunlight hours) you would have to take into consideration the upwards of 25% losses in transmission, and how to store the energy for overnight requirements when the sun did not shine.

Without a base load supply from hydro, gas or oil you could not even start one pot burner let alone run the whole plant.
If you read all the posts above you will see that I support solar power generation but this is not a viable option on its own - I suggest a little more research.

Rex