More warming worries

What does the IPCC have to say about the warming effect of windmills?

The Harvard researchers found that the warming effect of wind turbines in the continental U.S. was actually larger than the effect of reduced emissions for the first century of its operation. This is because the warming effect is predominantly local to the wind farm, while greenhouse gas concentrations must be reduced globally before the benefits are realized.

Incidentally. Wind doing 6% of demand at 6am 7.5% at 8.30 and 5.5% at 10.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to More warming worries

  1. Dr Fred Lenin

    Rafe , some questions , question does the US federal or state government pay subsidies to the power scammers ? Is the climate scam industry expanding like it is here ? The way it expanding here the carpetbaggers will keep building till they have stolen all the workers and pensioers money,encouraged by corrupt politicians . Thanks for the continual-dates on the inefficiency and correctness of the climate scam industry.

  2. Rafe Champion

    I think it is entirely state subsidies, hence the massive development in places like California. The Feds do the damage with tax credits (see Warren Buffet’s statement that these are the only thing that makes wind a worthwhile investment).
    So it is expanding in some places more than others. No comparative figures in hand but probably not too hard to find if it matters.

  3. Dave of Reedy Creek, Qld

    The cure is always worse than the disease when it comes to the green/leftist/Marxist/communists. I wonder if construction costs of these monstrous horrors is taken into the equation as well. Plus no one has ever mentioned that the lifespan of a wind turbine is about 20 years and is virtually all non recyclable, plus what happens to the huge and enormously expensive concrete bases if they are not reused? I don’t seem them as eco friendly and imagine the volume of material littering the landscape!

  4. Dave;

    I wonder if construction costs of these monstrous horrors is taken into the equation as well.

    Of course not. That would be poor optics.
    QFB (Question for Bruce.) Are the rare earth magnets recyclable?
    Answer = maybe.

  5. So unicorn farts create greenhouse gas emissions! Who would have guessed?

  6. Genghis

    Read the BP Global Energy output document. Global Energy increased by +2.2% and CO2 emissions GREW by +1.6%. All going very well in la la land.
    Renewables grew by a staggering 17% in 2017. That is the capacity factor not the real output of 209% solar and 30% wind but when that power comes no one really knows but I suspect it will not be when you and I want it.

  7. Chris M

    Yes the larger windmills mess with the local climate immediately downstream resulting in a drying effect due to thermal air layer mixing.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle

    QFB (Question for Bruce.) Are the rare earth magnets recyclable?

    Of course. They’re mainly either Nd based or Sm based. If you keep the kinds apart it would be vastly cheaper to recover the rare earth element, either Nd or Sm, than if you start with an ore – which has 17 of the things with very similar chemistry. Rare earths are only expensive because they’re so hard to separate from one another. But if you just start with one all you have to do is reject the other elements, like iron and boron for Nd magnets. Very easy.

  9. Bruce of Newcastle

    I was dropping by to make a comment on solar panels. The thread is about wind turbines heating the atmosphere but solar panels have to be worse.

    A solar panel is about 20% efficient. Therefore the other 80% of incident energy, which is falling onto a black silicon surface, is being converted mainly to heat. So every solar panel is making a lot of heat.

    I wonder how much it adds up to in CO2 equivalents?

Comments are closed.