Discussion:
Ontario renewables revenue is 90% subsidy
Add Reply
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 01:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
To incentivize the development of renewables, the previous Ontario
Liberal govt signed lavish FIT contracts at far higher rates than what
the power was actually worth.

Natcherally, that creates the problem of how to make up the difference,
considering wind and solar do not come even close to paying their own way.

So you invent a magic fudge factor called the "Global Adjustment", apply
to the utility rate, then use the proceeds to honour the FIT contracts.

***

Almost all revenue earned by renewable power producers is from the GA
subsidy rather than actual power sales. From May 2017 to April 2018,
market revenues for renewable generators based on wholesale market sales
totaled about $0.5 billion, which was supplemented by $4.2 billion from
GA revenues to satisfy FIT contract requirements. In other words, almost
90 percent of the revenue to renewable generators came through the GA
subsidy, rather than through sales of actual power.

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/electricity-reform-in-ontario-getting-power-prices-down
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
2018-10-05 01:25:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
To incentivize the development of renewables, the previous Ontario
Liberal govt signed lavish FIT contracts at far higher rates than what
the power was actually worth.
Natcherally, that creates the problem of how to make up the difference,
considering wind and solar do not come even close to paying their own way.
So you invent a magic fudge factor called the "Global Adjustment", apply
to the utility rate, then use the proceeds to honour the FIT contracts.
***
Almost all revenue earned by renewable power producers is from the GA
subsidy rather than actual power sales. From May 2017 to April 2018,
market revenues for renewable generators based on wholesale market sales
totaled about $0.5 billion, which was supplemented by $4.2 billion from
GA revenues to satisfy FIT contract requirements. In other words, almost
90 percent of the revenue to renewable generators came through the GA
subsidy, rather than through sales of actual power.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/electricity-reform-in-ontario-getting-power-prices-down
Didnt the tar goopers have the government taking time and money to make the case for a pipeline, in essence saving the companies from that expenditure?
Unum
2018-10-05 01:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Post by Chom Noamsky
To incentivize the development of renewables, the previous Ontario
Liberal govt signed lavish FIT contracts at far higher rates than what
the power was actually worth.
Natcherally, that creates the problem of how to make up the difference,
considering wind and solar do not come even close to paying their own way.
So you invent a magic fudge factor called the "Global Adjustment", apply
to the utility rate, then use the proceeds to honour the FIT contracts.
***
Almost all revenue earned by renewable power producers is from the GA
subsidy rather than actual power sales. From May 2017 to April 2018,
market revenues for renewable generators based on wholesale market sales
totaled about $0.5 billion, which was supplemented by $4.2 billion from
GA revenues to satisfy FIT contract requirements. In other words, almost
90 percent of the revenue to renewable generators came through the GA
subsidy, rather than through sales of actual power.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/electricity-reform-in-ontario-getting-power-prices-down
Didnt the tar goopers have the government taking time and money to make the case for a pipeline, in essence saving the companies from that expenditure?
All we have to do to even things out is charge dearly for the emission
of GHG's into the atmosphere. Otherwise its a massive hidden subsidy
everyone pays.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 02:01:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
All we have to do to even things out is charge dearly for the emission
of GHG's into the atmosphere. Otherwise its a massive hidden subsidy
everyone pays.
Well, ya done struck out there too, boy.

A few years from now there will be rusting dilapidated hulks of once
glorious wind and solar farms littering the landscape, with the
citizenzry wondering who is gonna pay to clean those messes up.

***

Effective July 3, 2018, we cancelled the cap and trade regulation and
prohibited all trading of emission allowances.

https://www.ontario.ca/page/cap-and-trade-program-overview

***

Ontario PCs introduce legislation to scrap Green Energy Act

https://globalnews.ca/news/4468964/ontario-pcs-scrapping-green-energy-act/
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 02:08:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
All we have to do to even things out is charge dearly for the emission
of GHG's into the atmosphere. Otherwise its a massive hidden subsidy
everyone pays.
Well, ya done struck out there too, boy.
A few years from now there will be rusting dilapidated hulks of once
glorious wind and solar farms littering the landscape, with the
citizenzry wondering who is gonna pay to clean those messes up.
***
Effective July 3, 2018, we cancelled the cap and trade regulation and
prohibited all trading of emission allowances.
https://www.ontario.ca/page/cap-and-trade-program-overview
***
Ontario PCs introduce legislation to scrap Green Energy Act
https://globalnews.ca/news/4468964/ontario-pcs-scrapping-green-energy-act/
And dat ain't all.

By the time Ford gets done, Ontario will be emitting with impunity, and
all you loons can do is cross your arms, stomp your feet and make the
frowny face.

***

Ontario carbon tax to be removed from natural gas bill by Oct. 1

https://globalnews.ca/news/4415682/premier-doug-ford-announcement-milton/

***

Ontario is ‘proud’ to join Saskatchewan’s constitutional challenge of
carbon tax

https://globalnews.ca/video/4518019/ontario-is-proud-to-join-saskachewans-constitutional-challenge-of-carbon-tax
Unum
2018-10-05 02:41:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
All we have to do to even things out is charge dearly for the emission
of GHG's into the atmosphere. Otherwise its a massive hidden subsidy
everyone pays.
Well, ya done struck out there too, boy.
A few years from now there will be rusting dilapidated hulks of once glorious
wind and solar farms littering the landscape, with the citizenzry wondering
who is gonna pay to clean those messes up.
In like 30 years? Who is going to pay for 40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into
the atmosphere every year, dimwit? And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.

https://calgaryherald.com/business/energy/study-traces-organic-aerosol-air-pollution-to-oilsands-production
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 04:22:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
All we have to do to even things out is charge dearly for the emission
of GHG's into the atmosphere. Otherwise its a massive hidden subsidy
everyone pays.
Well, ya done struck out there too, boy.
A few years from now there will be rusting dilapidated hulks of once
glorious wind and solar farms littering the landscape, with the
citizenzry wondering who is gonna pay to clean those messes up.
In like 30 years? Who is going to pay for 40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into
the atmosphere every year,
Nobody.

Tee-hee!
Nobody
2018-10-05 18:02:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
All we have to do to even things out is charge dearly for the
emission of GHG's into the atmosphere. Otherwise its a massive
hidden subsidy everyone pays.
Well, ya done struck out there too, boy.
A few years from now there will be rusting dilapidated hulks of
once glorious wind and solar farms littering the landscape, with
the citizenzry wondering who is gonna pay to clean those messes
up.
In like 30 years? Who is going to pay for 40 gigatons of CO2
dumped into the atmosphere every year,
Nobody.
Tee-hee!
I blocked Unum.
It is amazing how much cleaner my feed is now.
I know you like making him look like an idiot but you should consider
it.
Some are not worth the effort.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 20:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and abusive
language, but sometimes you can't help it.
Unum
2018-10-05 21:49:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and abusive language,
but sometimes you can't help it.
If all you've got is a big fat nasty yap, you are welcome to not read
or respond to my posts. Keep on running, boy!
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 22:38:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and abusive
language, but sometimes you can't help it.
If all you've got is a big fat nasty yap, you are welcome to not read
or respond to my posts. Keep on running, boy!
See, nasty and abusive.
Unum
2018-10-06 00:01:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and abusive language,
but sometimes you can't help it.
If all you've got is a big fat nasty yap, you are welcome to not read
or respond to my posts. Keep on running, boy!
See, nasty and abusive.
Still running?
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 01:11:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and abusive
language, but sometimes you can't help it.
If all you've got is a big fat nasty yap, you are welcome to not read
or respond to my posts. Keep on running, boy!
See, nasty and abusive.
Still running?
I forgot to mention the juvenile taunts.
Unum
2018-10-06 01:16:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and abusive
language, but sometimes you can't help it.
If all you've got is a big fat nasty yap, you are welcome to not read
or respond to my posts. Keep on running, boy!
See, nasty and abusive.
Still running?
I forgot to mention the juvenile taunts.
Now comes the whining?
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 01:38:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and abusive
language, but sometimes you can't help it.
If all you've got is a big fat nasty yap, you are welcome to not read
or respond to my posts. Keep on running, boy!
See, nasty and abusive.
Still running?
I forgot to mention the juvenile taunts.
Now comes the whining?
And... another juvenile taunt.
Nobody
2018-10-08 01:09:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Nobody
Some are not worth the effort.
I normally don't engage with people who rely on nasty and
abusive language, but sometimes you can't help it.
If all you've got is a big fat nasty yap, you are welcome to not
read or respond to my posts. Keep on running, boy!
See, nasty and abusive.
My feed is MUCH cleaner now with Unum blocked.
Unum
2018-10-05 21:46:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
All we have to do to even things out is charge dearly for the emission
of GHG's into the atmosphere. Otherwise its a massive hidden subsidy
everyone pays.
Well, ya done struck out there too, boy.
A few years from now there will be rusting dilapidated hulks of once
glorious wind and solar farms littering the landscape, with the citizenzry
wondering who is gonna pay to clean those messes up.
In like 30 years? Who is going to pay for 40 gigatons of CO2 dumped into
the atmosphere every year,
Nobody.
Tee-hee!
Hee hee, the nutjob is so proud of himself!
John Smith
2018-10-05 16:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/

To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 16:54:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.

Very interesting.
John Smith
2018-10-05 17:11:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft
while simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.
Very interesting.
And for solar:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.0f112c01d105

Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have
the potential to cause regional changes in temperature and precipitation
by altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth or
disrupting local airflow patterns.

Solar panels change the way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by the
Earth. Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed
by the Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region surrounding
the array. In fact, the first two simulations in this study, which
assumed solar panel installations throughout the world’s desert and
urban areas, produced a 2-degree Celsius regional cooling in the desert
regions. This cooling was also associated with a 20 percent decrease in
precipitation in the deserts. Other, slightly broader changes in
precipitation and wind patterns occurred as a result in the regions
surrounding the deserts.

In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is an
average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the
temperature that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate
scenario with no solar parks. In the second simulation, where the heat
island effect is taken into account, there would be an average increase
in global temperature of about 0.09 degrees Celsius.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Unum
2018-10-05 21:51:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the continental
U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand.
The researchers found this scenario would warm the surface temperature of
the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes
occurring at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5
degrees. This warming is the result of wind turbines actively mixing the
atmosphere near the ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from
the atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.
Very interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.0f112c01d105
Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have the
potential to cause regional changes in temperature and precipitation by
altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth or disrupting
local airflow patterns.
Solar panels change the way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by the Earth.
Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by the
Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region surrounding the array. In
fact, the first two simulations in this study, which assumed solar panel
installations throughout the world’s desert and urban areas, produced a
2-degree Celsius regional cooling in the desert regions. This cooling was also
associated with a 20 percent decrease in precipitation in the deserts. Other,
slightly broader changes in precipitation and wind patterns occurred as a
result in the regions surrounding the deserts.
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is an
average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the temperature
that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate scenario with no
solar parks. In the second simulation, where the heat island effect is taken
into account, there would be an average increase in global temperature of
about 0.09 degrees Celsius.
So, a sufficient quantity of solar PV would actually *cause* cooling.

Very interesting.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:08:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established
a baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm
the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees
Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface
temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the
result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the
ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the
atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.
Very interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.0f112c01d105
Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have
the potential to cause regional changes in temperature and
precipitation by altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by
the Earth or disrupting local airflow patterns.
Solar panels change the way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by the
Earth. Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being
absorbed by the Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region
surrounding the array. In fact, the first two simulations in this
study, which assumed solar panel installations throughout the world’s
desert and urban areas, produced a 2-degree Celsius regional cooling
in the desert regions. This cooling was also associated with a 20
percent decrease in precipitation in the deserts. Other, slightly
broader changes in precipitation and wind patterns occurred as a
result in the regions surrounding the deserts.
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is
an average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the
temperature that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate
scenario with no solar parks. In the second simulation, where the heat
island effect is taken into account, there would be an average
increase in global temperature of about 0.09 degrees Celsius.
So, a sufficient quantity of solar PV would actually *cause* cooling.
Very interesting.
It also may not.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html

The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the main
effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase average
daily precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the Sahara and 0.59
of a millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water would induce more
plant growth, further reducing albedo and allowing the cycle to continue.

These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by more
than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.

If wind and solar farms were combined, these effects would be
“enhanced,” they said. Average daily precipitation would increase to
0.59 of a millimeter. That’s nearly 1.5 times higher than the Sahara
would be in its natural state.
But the rain wouldn’t be spread evenly everywhere. The computer
simulations predicted that parts of the Sahel could get as much as
nearly 20 inches of additional precipitation per year. All that extra
water could have “major ecological, environmental, and societal
impacts,” Li and his colleagues wrote.
Average temperature would also rise, by nearly 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
Unum
2018-10-07 01:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with
the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.
Very interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.0f112c01d105
Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have the
potential to cause regional changes in temperature and precipitation by
altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth or disrupting
local airflow patterns.
Solar panels change the way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by the
Earth. Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed by
the Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region surrounding the
array. In fact, the first two simulations in this study, which assumed
solar panel installations throughout the world’s desert and urban areas,
produced a 2-degree Celsius regional cooling in the desert regions. This
cooling was also associated with a 20 percent decrease in precipitation in
the deserts. Other, slightly broader changes in precipitation and wind
patterns occurred as a result in the regions surrounding the deserts.
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is an
average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the temperature
that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate scenario with no
solar parks. In the second simulation, where the heat island effect is
taken into account, there would be an average increase in global
temperature of about 0.09 degrees Celsius.
So, a sufficient quantity of solar PV would actually *cause* cooling.
Very interesting.
It also may not.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Not acording to the article you posted a few lines up;
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is an
average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the temperature
that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate scenario with no
solar parks.
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:00:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller
established a baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a
standard weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third
of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet
present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this
scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental
U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes occurring
at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees.
This warming is the result of wind turbines actively mixing the
atmosphere near the ground and aloft while simultaneously
extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.
Very interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.0f112c01d105
Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms
have the potential to cause regional changes in temperature and
precipitation by altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by
the Earth or disrupting local airflow patterns.
Solar panels change the way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by
the Earth. Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being
absorbed by the Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region
surrounding the array. In fact, the first two simulations in this
study, which assumed solar panel installations throughout the
world’s desert and urban areas, produced a 2-degree Celsius regional
cooling in the desert regions. This cooling was also associated with
a 20 percent decrease in precipitation in the deserts. Other,
slightly broader changes in precipitation and wind patterns occurred
as a result in the regions surrounding the deserts.
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is
an average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the
temperature that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate
scenario with no solar parks. In the second simulation, where the
heat island effect is taken into account, there would be an average
increase in global temperature of about 0.09 degrees Celsius.
So, a sufficient quantity of solar PV would actually *cause* cooling.
Very interesting.
It also may not.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Not acording to the article you posted a few lines up;
Can you imagine that so-called expert sources contradict each other, indeed!
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature
is an
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the
temperature
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate scenario
with no
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
solar parks.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 01:51:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm
the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees
Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface
temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the
result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the
ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the
atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.
Very interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.0f112c01d105
Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have
the potential to cause regional changes in temperature and precipitation
by altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by the Earth or
disrupting local airflow patterns.
Solar panels change the way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by the
Earth. Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being absorbed
by the Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region surrounding
the array. In fact, the first two simulations in this study, which
assumed solar panel installations throughout the world’s desert and
urban areas, produced a 2-degree Celsius regional cooling in the desert
regions. This cooling was also associated with a 20 percent decrease in
precipitation in the deserts. Other, slightly broader changes in
precipitation and wind patterns occurred as a result in the regions
surrounding the deserts.
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is an
average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the
temperature that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate
scenario with no solar parks. In the second simulation, where the heat
island effect is taken into account, there would be an average increase
in global temperature of about 0.09 degrees Celsius.
Okay I'm sold, nuclear power it is.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:29:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established
a baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm
the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees
Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface
temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the
result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the
ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the
atmosphere’s motion.
So, a sufficient quantity of wind turbines would actually *cause* warming.
Very interesting.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/02/surprising-study-finds-that-solar-energy-can-also-cause-climate-change-a-little/?utm_term=.0f112c01d105
Previous studies have shown that both solar arrays and wind farms have
the potential to cause regional changes in temperature and
precipitation by altering the amount of solar radiation absorbed by
the Earth or disrupting local airflow patterns.
Solar panels change the way sunlight is reflected and absorbed by the
Earth. Any radiation they take in is radiation that’s not being
absorbed by the Earth. This leads to a cooling effect in the region
surrounding the array. In fact, the first two simulations in this
study, which assumed solar panel installations throughout the world’s
desert and urban areas, produced a 2-degree Celsius regional cooling
in the desert regions. This cooling was also associated with a 20
percent decrease in precipitation in the deserts. Other, slightly
broader changes in precipitation and wind patterns occurred as a
result in the regions surrounding the deserts.
In the first simulation, the average change in global temperature is
an average decline of about 0.34 degrees Celsius, relative to the
temperature that would be expected under the same low-carbon climate
scenario with no solar parks. In the second simulation, where the heat
island effect is taken into account, there would be an average
increase in global temperature of about 0.09 degrees Celsius.
Okay I'm sold, nuclear power it is.
But not next to active fault zones and such, please.
Unum
2018-10-05 21:48:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a baseline
for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard weather-forecasting model.
Then, they covered one-third of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines
to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this
scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24
degrees Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface
temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of
wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface. And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:06:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft
while simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?

The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
Post by Unum
And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html

The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the main
effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase average
daily precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the Sahara and 0.59
of a millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water would induce more
plant growth, further reducing albedo and allowing the cycle to continue.

These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by more
than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.
Unum
2018-10-07 01:16:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the continental
U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S. electricity demand.
The researchers found this scenario would warm the surface temperature of
the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes
occurring at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5
degrees. This warming is the result of wind turbines actively mixing the
atmosphere near the ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from
the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?
The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
So what? Wind turbine effect is local to the turbines, and it is
not global warming.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the main
effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase average daily
precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the Sahara and 0.59 of a
millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water would induce more plant growth,
further reducing albedo and allowing the cycle to continue.
These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by more than
2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.
Imagined in "a setup that would produce about 82 terawatts of electrical
power. That’s far more power than the world currently needs, said study
co-leader Yan Li.

Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Wally W.
2018-10-07 02:08:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Haven't you heard? **All** climate change is bad, even making a desert
suitable for increased plant growth.
JTEM is right
2018-10-07 18:21:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Haven't you heard? **All** climate change is bad, even making a desert
suitable for increased plant growth.
And "Climate Change" is **Always** an archaic
French term which means "Global Warming," and
**Everything** is "Global Warming!"

EVERYTHING IS BAD!





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178825163138
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:11:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Haven't you heard? **All** climate change is bad, even making a desert
suitable for increased plant growth.
At the expense of which native arid species?
Wally W.
2018-10-09 03:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Haven't you heard? **All** climate change is bad, even making a desert
suitable for increased plant growth.
At the expense of which native arid species?
Ask Unum the complainer. The prospect didn't seem to bother him. And
how many things don't bother Unum?
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:32:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by John Smith
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Haven't you heard? **All** climate change is bad, even making a desert
suitable for increased plant growth.
At the expense of which native arid species?
Ask Unum the complainer. The prospect didn't seem to bother him. And
how many things don't bother Unum?
Point.
John Smith
2018-10-08 17:59:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established
a baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm
the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees
Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface
temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the
result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the
ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the
atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?
The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
So what?
Brilliant response.
Post by Unum
Wind turbine effect is local to the turbines, and it is
not global warming.
Build enough and it becomes global, that really is the point.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the
main effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase
average daily precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the
Sahara and 0.59 of a millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water
would induce more plant growth, further reducing albedo and allowing
the cycle to continue.
These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by
more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.
Imagined in "a setup that would produce about 82 terawatts of electrical
power. That’s far more power than the world currently needs, said study
co-leader Yan Li.
Sounds Chinese, no they'd never need more power, not at all...
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Well doggies, there we go they really do cause "climate change"!

TNSTAAFL you ought to know by now.
Unum
2018-10-08 23:22:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with
the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?
The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
So what?
Brilliant response.
You don't seem to have an answer.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Wind turbine effect is local to the turbines, and it is
not global warming.
Build enough and it becomes global, that really is the point.
The number of wind turbines would have to be astronomical, so you don't
have anything to worry about.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the main
effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase average
daily precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the Sahara and 0.59 of
a millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water would induce more plant
growth, further reducing albedo and allowing the cycle to continue.
These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by more
than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.
Imagined in "a setup that would produce about 82 terawatts of electrical
power. That’s far more power than the world currently needs, said study
co-leader Yan Li.
Sounds Chinese, no they'd never need more power, not at all...
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Well doggies, there we go they really do cause "climate change"!
TNSTAAFL you ought to know by now.
Apparently the change is for the better. Aren't you glad?
Wally W.
2018-10-09 03:04:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012?2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with
the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?
The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
So what?
Brilliant response.
You don't seem to have an answer.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Wind turbine effect is local to the turbines, and it is
not global warming.
Build enough and it becomes global, that really is the point.
The number of wind turbines would have to be astronomical, so you don't
have anything to worry about.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the main
effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase average
daily precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the Sahara and 0.59 of
a millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water would induce more plant
growth, further reducing albedo and allowing the cycle to continue.
These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by more
than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.
Imagined in "a setup that would produce about 82 terawatts of electrical
power. That’s far more power than the world currently needs, said study
co-leader Yan Li.
Sounds Chinese, no they'd never need more power, not at all...
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Well doggies, there we go they really do cause "climate change"!
TNSTAAFL you ought to know by now.
Apparently the change is for the better. Aren't you glad?
See, he's willing to sacrifice the arid species -- except if it's with
SLR. All SLR is bad, just like all climate change is bad (Unless Unum
likes it ... and how far must one search for something Unum likes?).
Ask any black-and-white thinking greenie.
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wally W.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012?2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with
the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?
The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
So what?
Brilliant response.
You don't seem to have an answer.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Wind turbine effect is local to the turbines, and it is
not global warming.
Build enough and it becomes global, that really is the point.
The number of wind turbines would have to be astronomical, so you don't
have anything to worry about.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the main
effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase average
daily precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the Sahara and 0.59 of
a millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water would induce more plant
growth, further reducing albedo and allowing the cycle to continue.
These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by more
than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.
Imagined in "a setup that would produce about 82 terawatts of electrical
power. That’s far more power than the world currently needs, said study
co-leader Yan Li.
Sounds Chinese, no they'd never need more power, not at all...
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Well doggies, there we go they really do cause "climate change"!
TNSTAAFL you ought to know by now.
Apparently the change is for the better. Aren't you glad?
See, he's willing to sacrifice the arid species -- except if it's with
SLR. All SLR is bad, just like all climate change is bad (Unless Unum
likes it ... and how far must one search for something Unum likes?).
Ask any black-and-white thinking greenie.
Maybe he's deeply into the PreCambrian.
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:22:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller
established a baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a
standard weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third
of the continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet
present-day U.S. electricity demand. The researchers found this
scenario would warm the surface temperature of the continental
U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius, with the largest changes occurring
at night when surface temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees.
This warming is the result of wind turbines actively mixing the
atmosphere near the ground and aloft while simultaneously
extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?
The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
So what?
Brilliant response.
You don't seem to have an answer.
Wrong.

You had my answer.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Wind turbine effect is local to the turbines, and it is
not global warming.
Build enough and it becomes global, that really is the point.
The number of wind turbines would have to be astronomical, so you don't
have anything to worry about.
The 7 billion plus humans make it astronomical, globally speaking
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And then
they didn't account for the inputs of solar PV at all, did they.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-wind-solar-farms-precipitation-20180906-story.html
The story is a little different for solar farms.
Instead of slowing the wind or causing hot and cool air to mix, the
main effect of solar panels is to reduce albedo. That would increase
average daily precipitation by about 0.13 of a millimeter in the
Sahara and 0.59 of a millimeter in the Sahel. The additional water
would induce more plant growth, further reducing albedo and allowing
the cycle to continue.
These changes were predicted to increase the maximum temperature by
more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, the researchers reported.
Imagined in "a setup that would produce about 82 terawatts of electrical
power. That’s far more power than the world currently needs, said
study co-leader Yan Li.
Sounds Chinese, no they'd never need more power, not at all...
Post by Unum
Also from your cite;
"If wind turbines and solar panels were deployed across the Sahara, more rain
would fall and more plants would grow in the massive African desert, according
to research published in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.
Well doggies, there we go they really do cause "climate change"!
TNSTAAFL you ought to know by now.
Apparently the change is for the better. Aren't you glad?
The better for which desert-adapted species?

List them.
Unum
2018-10-11 00:42:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So?
The data applies to any place large wind farms are built.
So what?
Brilliant response.
You don't seem to have an answer.
Wrong.
You had my answer.
So, nothing.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Wind turbine effect is local to the turbines, and it is
not global warming.
Build enough and it becomes global, that really is the point.
The number of wind turbines would have to be astronomical, so you don't
have anything to worry about.
The 7 billion plus humans make it astronomical, globally speaking
And you know this how? Wind farms can only be built on land or near
coastlines for power transmission, and only effect local temps by
0.24 degrees Celsius due to mixing. Oceans are 71% of the surface
of the Earth.

Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 16:51:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft
while simultaneously extracting from the atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So, only Merka gonna have wind turbines?
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:53:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And who is going to pay for millions
acres of blight.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012‒2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm
the surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees
Celsius, with the largest changes occurring at night when surface
temperatures increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the
result of wind turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the
ground and aloft while simultaneously extracting from the
atmosphere’s motion.
The continental USA landmass is only about 2% of the Earth's surface.
So, only Merka gonna have wind turbines?
He seems to have no ability to scale effects out globally.
max headroom
2018-10-05 22:01:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has
-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012ƒ '2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphereƒ Ts motion.
There are only two choices. Wind power or oil. Looks like they'll be
converting all power plants to oil soon, destroying President Trump's dream
of making America great again using coal.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:17:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by max headroom
Post by John Smith
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has
-its-down-side/
To estimate the impacts of wind power, Keith and Miller established a
baseline for the 2012ƒ '2014 U.S. climate using a standard
weather-forecasting model. Then, they covered one-third of the
continental U.S. with enough wind turbines to meet present-day U.S.
electricity demand. The researchers found this scenario would warm the
surface temperature of the continental U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius,
with the largest changes occurring at night when surface temperatures
increased by up to 1.5 degrees. This warming is the result of wind
turbines actively mixing the atmosphere near the ground and aloft while
simultaneously extracting from the atmosphereƒ Ts motion.
There are only two choices. Wind power or oil. Looks like they'll be
converting all power plants to oil soon, destroying President Trump's dream
of making America great again using coal.
Oil runs fractionally few power plants. Perhaps you confused it with
nat. gas.


https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

U.S. electricity generation by source, amount, and share of total in 20171
Energy source
Billion kWh
Share of total
Total - all sources
4,015

Fossil fuels (total)
2,516
62.7%
Natural gas
1,273
31.7%
Coal
1,208
30.1%
Petroleum (total)
21
0.5%
Petroleum liquids
13
0.3%
Petroleum coke
9
0.2%
Other gases
14
0.4%
Nuclear
805
20.0%
Renewables (total)
687
17.1%
Hydropower
300
7.5%
Wind
254
6.3%
Biomass (total)
64
1.6%
Wood
43
1.1%
Landfill gas
11
0.3%
Municipal solid waste (biogenic)
7
0.2%
Other biomass waste
3
0.1%
Solar (total)
53
1.3%
Photovoltaic
50
1.2%
Solar thermal
3
0.1%
Geothermal
16
0.4%
Pumped storage hydropower3
-6
-0.2%
Other sources
13
0.3%


As for coal, isn't it nice to have a 2-300 year supply in the ground we
can rely on if oil or gas does run out?

So many good choices we have.
Senior Fellow
2018-10-05 21:57:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/electricity-reform-in-ontario-get
ting-power-prices-down
Hmmm. Consider the source. It's just more leftist partisan claptrap from
the ultra socialist Fraser Institute, funded by Canada's liberal government
and the Communists. Examine their books and you will soon find out that
they are 100% subsidized by special interest groups.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 01:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Senior Fellow
Post by Chom Noamsky
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/electricity-reform-in-ontario-get
ting-power-prices-down
Hmmm. Consider the source. It's just more leftist partisan claptrap from
the ultra socialist Fraser Institute, funded by Canada's liberal government
and the Communists. Examine their books and you will soon find out that
they are 100% subsidized by special interest groups.
Kook.
Bret Cahill
2018-10-06 03:06:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
tRUMP, a well known denier / perveyor of pertectionist economics, sez that you owe me a semi load of beer.

Where is it?
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 05:00:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
tRUMP, a well known denier / perveyor of pertectionist economics, sez that you owe me a semi load of beer.
Where is it?
Right here, pal, right here:

Loading Image...
$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2018-10-07 22:08:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
To incentivize the development of renewables, the previous Ontario
Liberal govt signed lavish FIT contracts at far higher rates than what
the power was actually worth.
Natcherally, that creates the problem of how to make up the difference,
considering wind and solar do not come even close to paying their own way.
So you invent a magic fudge factor called the "Global Adjustment", apply
to the utility rate, then use the proceeds to honour the FIT contracts.
***
Almost all revenue earned by renewable power producers is from the GA
subsidy rather than actual power sales. From May 2017 to April 2018,
market revenues for renewable generators based on wholesale market sales
totaled about $0.5 billion, which was supplemented by $4.2 billion from
GA revenues to satisfy FIT contract requirements. In other words, almost
90 percent of the revenue to renewable generators came through the GA
subsidy, rather than through sales of actual power.
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/electricity-reform-in-ontario-getting-power-prices-down
They were paying solar energy installers $0.90/KWh to feed power back to the grid while the going rate at peak times for normal power was $0.14/KWh. Talk about robbery.
Loading...