Global Warming

[HanoiVillan]

There's also a 'direct, immediate, local' impact versus 'diffuse, medium-term, widespread' impact question here. Continuing rises in atmospheric CO2 and other gases from burning fossil fuels do kill and will continue to kill far more wildlife than whatever the real number of dead birds in this situation is. It's just that you won't (necessarily) find their corpses *next to* the power station.

[Xann]

The traditional hydrocarbon energy industry is shitting bricks as it realises the next couple of decades aren't going to be great for it.

There's all sorts of shit being thrown at lithium-ion batteries, which are indeed toxic, but we've known burning hydrocarbons and fighting wars to get them has been more than iffy for years. Why was the industry developing bio-diesel, algae diesel and now trash diesel when what would have been really handy is a non toxic electrolyte? It's been the little guys and educational estabishments making the breakthroughs with glass, sugar and nanotech batteries.

Now there's going to be another wave of bullshit as they try and keep everyone going back to the pumps. Then another one as people realise where their pension contributions have been invested?

Edited November 24, 2020 by Xann

[trom_borg]

21 minutes ago, blandy said:

due to ACER and EU rules most of the profits go to shell companies abroad ”. I smell something there - where does that info come from? I might be wrong, but what you say sounds like it was gleaned from an anti EU, anti wind farm, global warming denier “source”.

Even the bit about the roads smells iffy.

Personally, concern about wildlife, raptors being killed, in particular is a real issue. Communities hosting wind farms should see benefits to counter the downsides, but what you’ve written doesn’t ring right with my understanding.

It is possible to have two thoughts in the head at the same time. It is possible to be pro EU collaboration and a believer in global warming while at the same time question and criticise implementation of the renewable energy transition. 

In my opinion global warming is a problem which exists in a bigger context which also includes resource depletion and biodiversity loss. The renewable energy brigade sometimes seems to completely ignore these other aspects and the complex landscape these issues exists in, believing we can overall continue bau as long as we switch our energy source from fossil to green. The space is filled with actors acting in their own self interest with profit as the ultimate goal, wrapped in a green and environmental wrapping. 

The day we can build and maintain wind turbines and solar panels, with the corresponding battery needs, without the need of fossil fuel or extraction of rare minerals, (both of which are in limited supply and woefully short of actually being enough for a complete green energy transition on current energy consumption levels) we can have serious talk of a proper energy transition. Currently this is far from reality, and therefore the only realistic future very much includes lowering our energy use. This doesn't really fit anyones agenda though so it's not much talked about.  

 

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

Who told you that?

Data I’ve seen tells a different story.

So 5 eagles a year, not nearly 100.

Also I saw a tv prog on wind farms, and it reported that where the community was able to benefit from some of the revenue they were accepted and popular. Where that isn’t the case, they aren’t.

you say “

due to ACER and EU rules most of the profits go to shell companies abroad ”. I smell something there - where does that info come from? I might be wrong, but what you say sounds like it was gleaned from an anti EU, anti wind farm, global warming denier “source”.

Even the bit about the roads smells iffy.

Personally, concern about wildlife, raptors being killed, in particular is a real issue. Communities hosting wind farms should see benefits to counter the downsides, but what you’ve written doesn’t ring right with my understanding.

Norwegian 'green' tax legislation means that the only tax being paid to local communities is from property tax. The companies who own said farms do not pay anything else to the communities. Water power companies have to pay normal income tax and several other taxes to the areas they disrupt. NRK (Same as BBC in Norway) have found that over 60% of all wind companies operating in Norway are owned, and transport profits, out of the country. 

Quote

 

Foreign companies own over 60 percent of wind power in Norway. The share will rise, new figures show.

According to this article, a fact checking page controlled by the biggest media companies in Norway the current number is at over 100 killed eagles, several other raptors, geese, swans, grouse etc. The Norwegian Ornithological Society is rabidly against building wind farms as it's generally taking out massive amounts of large birds, cranes, eagles, raptors, sea birds. Around the Isle of Man sea bird populations are down as much as 82%. due, in part, to the massive wind farm located there.

Quote

A comprehensive census conducted by Manx BirdLife over two years has revealed worrying declines among many of the Isle of Man’s seabird species.

Norway in general is turning away from wind farms due to the fact that they are mostly placed in areas that are untouched and crucial habitats, not close to areas already disturbed by humans. The government in Norway has been able to force wind farms on local communities without anyone having the chance to say no, back out or enforce planning laws due to national law. The parliament in Norway is about to vote through a massive change in this legislation as the population has turned against the idea of ruining nature to sell clean energy to countries like Germany\UK\France etc. At the moment the protest group against wind farms in Norway outnumber the membership of the biggest parties on facebook put together.

Quote

Norway has scrapped plans for a national wind power development framework citing the strength of protests against the proposal, prompting the country's wind association to call for a strong signal of support for the sector.

What is it about the roads smelling iffy? What do you think happens when you build a massive infrastructure project in the middle of a bog? You need to drain, lay roads, lay cable and put up platforms for turbines that weigh enormously. A bog is a natural reservoir for Co2, and one of the nature types which is illegal to drain in for example Norway, Sweden and Finland to create farmland.  Bogs store Co2.

Quote

Especially draining the bogs releases a great amount of greenhouse gas emissions every year. 

I'm in no way against the idea of climate change, and I'm very acutely aware that it is a massive issue, though I'm also aware that the UN has said many times that the loss of habitat and nature is the biggest threat to our planet. Wind farms seem to try to fix one issue while causing damage to the other. Surely that's worth discussing?

I think this whole debate needs reframing. It's become a city vs. country issue. Cities want wind farms as they don't have to face the consequences of these, while if you ever went close to a wind farm you'd understand why people are so against it. Wrecking habitat, decimating biodiversity, unrecyclable materials used, enormous costs to put up (mainly in fuels such as oil), I fear that this whole thing has become a 'green wash' subject.

PS: I drive an electric vehicle and have solar panels on my roof.

Edited November 24, 2020 by magnkarl

[blandy]

5 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Norwegian 'green' tax legislation means that the only tax being paid to local communities is from property tax. The companies who own said farms do not pay anything else to the communities. Water power companies have to pay normal income tax and several other taxes to the areas they disrupt. NRK (Same as BBC in Norway) have found that over 60% of all wind companies operating in Norway are owned, and transport profits, out of the country. 

According to this article, a fact checking page controlled by the biggest media companies in Norway the current number is at over 100 killed eagles, several other raptors, geese, swans, grouse etc. The Norwegian Ornithological Society is rabidly against building wind farms as it's generally taking out massive amounts of large birds, cranes, eagles, raptors, sea birds. Around the Isle of Man sea bird populations are down as much as 82%. due, in part, to the massive wind farm located there.

Norway in general is turning away from wind farms due to the fact that they are mostly placed in areas that are untouched and crucial habitats, not close to areas already disturbed by humans. The government in Norway has been able to force wind farms on local communities without anyone having the chance to say no, back out or enforce planning laws due to national law. The parliament in Norway is about to vote through a massive change in this legislation as the population has turned against the idea of ruining nature to sell clean energy to countries like Germany\UK\France etc. At the moment the protest group against wind farms in Norway outnumber the membership of the biggest parties on facebook put together.

What is it about the roads smelling iffy? What do you think happens when you build a massive infrastructure project in the middle of a bog? You need to drain, lay roads, lay cable and put up platforms for turbines that weigh enormously. A bog is a natural reservoir for Co2, and one of the nature types which is illegal to drain in for example Norway, Sweden and Finland to create farmland.  Bogs store Co2.

I'm in no way against the idea of climate change, and I'm very acutely aware that it is a massive issue, though I'm also aware that the UN has said many times that the loss of habitat and nature is the biggest threat to our planet. Wind farms seem to try to fix one issue while causing damage to the other. Surely that's worth discussing?

I think this whole debate needs reframing. It's become a city vs. country issue. Cities want wind farms as they don't have to face the consequences of these, while if you ever went close to a wind farm you'd understand why people are so against it. Wrecking habitat, decimating biodiversity, unrecyclable materials used, enormous costs to put up (mainly in fuels such as oil), I fear that this whole thing has become a 'green wash' subject.

PS: I drive an electric vehicle and have solar panels on my roof.

I think there's 2 different things here. I agree on biodiversity, wildlife etc.

I took some issue/suspicion about the data you presented because it very much appears to be collected together based around an innate opposition to the EU and to Windfarms - it looks like a kind of right wing inaccurate assessment aimed at persuading people of something that isn't actually true/as presented.

The EU makes the profits go abroad. "Wind farms kill nearly 100 sea eagles a year in this one place, the road made more emissions than the windfarm saves" - none of that seems to be true and no evidence is presented or cited. Indeed the link you present says it's false

Quote

Registreringen av døde fugler startet i 2006. Fra da og til april 2019 hadde det blitt funnet 96 havørner drept av vindturbiner på Smøla. Da denne faktasjekken ble publisert, hadde antall døde havørner passert 100, ifølge Norsk institutt for naturforskning (NINA).

I'm sure your wegian is better than mine, but from my German it says 96 in 13 years, not one.

Your second post is different - and if I had time /when I have time I'll try and engage with it more.

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

I think there's 2 different things here. I agree on biodiversity, wildlife etc.

I took some issue/suspicion about the data you presented because it very much appears to be collected together based around an innate opposition to the EU and to Windfarms - it looks like a kind of right wing inaccurate assessment aimed at persuading people of something that isn't actually true/as presented.

The EU makes the profits go abroad. "Wind farms kill nearly 100 sea eagles a year in this one place, the road made more emissions than the windfarm saves" - none of that seems to be true and no evidence is presented or cited. Indeed the link you present says it's false

I'm sure your wegian is better than mine, but from my German it says 96 in 13 years, not one.

Your second post is different - and if I had time /when I have time I'll try and engage with it more.

I'm sure we agree on this issue, I just think it came out a bit aggressive on my part. Sorry about that!

I have friends who live down South in Norway who live with the consequences of a government subsidising wind farms to a point where even the most scrupulous companies come in and break all manner of rules which would not be allowed in any other planning process were they not wind farms. Norway did the right thing with their oil and kept it state owned, this means that it's the 'cleanest' (yes I know) produced oil in the world. With wind farms they've thrown their high standards out of the window because of badly planned incentives, a permission process that doesn't include nature and wildlife in the picture at all in many people's opinion, and a way too long concession window which has meant that for example my friends now live in a place where originally the turbines were to be 90 meters tall and out of sight, but are now 150+ meters tall and in sight for the whole town as the tech has developed so fast since the concession was given. 

I visited my friends in Feb, the turbines are 800 meters from their house and it constantly sounds like a jet taking off in sequences, throws shade like a strobe light when the sun goes down and has generally made their life a living hell. One of Norway's bigger hydroplants still produces more power than their entire 37 strong wind turbine parks combined. Of course people are going to question the sanity in this in a 100% green energy nation.

(here's how it sounds by the way, and this one isn't even half the size of the ones near my friends' place)

 

Edited November 24, 2020 by magnkarl

[maqroll]

On 14/09/2020 at 13:12, Brumerican said:

Our demise is inevitable. Just like every civilisation who chose hubris over harmony.

For people outside the UK the whole episode can be seen here,

 

I shut it off after about 20 seconds in having watched monkeys in trees trying to escape the burning forest. It's too sad to fully consider for very long. I know we are goners, and we are bringing all the poor animals down with us.

It's unbelievable. Devastating. It's a lonely feeling.

[magnkarl]

The Viking Wind Farm on Shetland is currently being put up in a mainly peat bog environment, which leads to enormous amounts of carbon being released into the atmosphere. 

Quote

He applauds the Scottish Government for recognising the importance of peatland as a major carbon sink, yet despairs of the same administration for continuing to allow large wind farm projects to go ahead on the country’s rich peatlands.

Although covering just three per cent of the planet’s land area, peatlands store more carbon than all the world’s vegetation combined. And Scotland is particularly peat rich.

Surely there are better ways for the wind power industry to operate? 

Quote

For Richard Lindsay all this makes little sense. He says the wind industry, naturally, has the tendency to be “somewhat optimist about its impact” and doesn’t “fully appreciate the potential for problems” in relation to peat instability, drainage, and long-term impact of storing peats.

What does it help to produce 'clean' energy if it directly negatively affects the environment before it's even up and running? Should we be calling wind energy clean, when in reality, it isn't?

[HanoiVillan]

40 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Should we be calling wind energy clean, when in reality, it isn't?

You haven't provided evidence that 'wind energy isn't clean', you have raised questions about the location of two wind farms. 

[blandy]

36 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

What does it help to produce 'clean' energy if it directly negatively affects the environment before it's even up and running? Should we be calling wind energy clean, when in reality, it isn't?

All our energy affects the environment to one degree or another. Fossil fuels by far the most. Wind and solar and hydro far less, so yes it helps because it’s less damaging than the fossil fuel generation it’s replacing.

 But the way forward ought to be towards a mix of reduced consumption and small scale local generation rather than giant projects aimed at reaping profit from government and/or consumers.

[magnkarl]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

You haven't provided evidence that 'wind energy isn't clean', you have raised questions about the location of two wind farms. 

The energy in wind is definitely clean. The means of harvesting this appears to be having more and more trouble justifying the massive cost for nature\ecosystems and natural devastation that it brings.

As Blandy writes I think the issue is that we're letting big actors within for example the oil industry develop these projects with profitability as the main goal. The issue that I think Europe as a whole has is that the windiest areas are often places where there's peat bogs and untarnished nature. 1 hectare of peat stores 1450 metric tonnes of carbon - the math simply doesn't look good when you start looking at it with the same scepticism that we have for the oil and gas industry. 

@blandy I don't even think you can compare solar to wind tbh. Solar panels are easier to place, can go pretty much anywhere and aren't generally put in pristine nature. Wind turbines need to be put away from people in exposed areas where nature hasn't been ruined in the same capacity as for example putting solar parks next to the highways like in Germany. Just by placing solar panels on buildings in cities we could reduce our footprint a massive amount, while wind turbines carry a much greater risk to the environment around it.

[darrenm]

I can't believe that it's not legislated for every new house to put solar panels on the roof with battery storage.

Once you have most houses generating most of their own power you take away a lot of the large scale generation problems.

I know someone needs to foot the additional cost and it will be the housebuilders because first time buyers can't afford the extra etc so perhaps the government needs to subsidise it. I think housebuilders are currently doing alright though.

I just had an EPC survey done on my house and the guy doing it said the same. When you look at the report, you can't get above a B without having things like solar panels, battery storage and ground thermal source.

[blandy]

6 hours ago, magnkarl said:

@blandy I don't even think you can compare solar to wind tbh. Solar panels are easier to place, can go pretty much anywhere and aren't generally put in pristine nature. Wind turbines need to be put away from people in exposed areas where nature hasn't been ruined in the same capacity as for example putting solar parks next to the highways like in Germany. Just by placing solar panels on buildings in cities we could reduce our footprint a massive amount, while wind turbines carry a much greater risk to the environment around it.

I didn't compare them

The point I was making is that all energy generation has environmental impact - the use of materials, the real estate taken up, the impact on wildlife and so on and of course the impact on humans - via pollution, or noise, or views of the landscape and so on.

Oil and Coal and Gas are the worst - not just air pollution & climate change, but pollution through leaks, contamination of the land around the extraction sites, shipping accidents... forest destruction...water pollution (especially with fracking), pipeline leaks.....

But Solar and Wind and Hydro also have costs - diverted water, the impact on fish and birds and mammals, villages or towns deliberately flooded to make reservoirs - or as you said - local noise from turbine blades, and even with solar, there are now large expanses of desert in Australia and Spain where there are huge solar farms, and the batteries contain rare materials which in turn have to be mined and so on.

Local  generation is much better but causes problems for balancing the grid 3 phase supplies, and there's also the strong influence of existing energy companies who really don't want their business model torn up and made semi-obsolete.

All new build buildings should have to have low energy consumption by law. Also they should have to have renewable energy sources in-built, I agree with @darrenm on that, definitely. And nationally we should be looking at the roofs of warehouses, hospitals, factories and industrial units for installing solar and also places like industrial estates for small wind turbines - away from housing and forests and wildlife. There should be much more done on insulation and energy efficiency. It needs a proper effort, not just greenwashing from government. Tidal energy too is a predictable potential source of electricity generation, though there are challenges.

But it's easier to buy oil shares...

[Davkaus]

6 hours ago, darrenm said:

I can't believe that it's not legislated for every new house to put solar panels on the roof with battery storage.

Once you have most houses generating most of their own power you take away a lot of the large scale generation problems.

I know someone needs to foot the additional cost and it will be the housebuilders because first time buyers can't afford the extra etc so perhaps the government needs to subsidise it. I think housebuilders are currently doing alright though.

I just had an EPC survey done on my house and the guy doing it said the same. When you look at the report, you can't get above a B without having things like solar panels, battery storage and ground thermal source.

There's a lot of talk of gas boilers being banned in new builds from 2025. Solar panels as standard will be likely unless they think they can sell houses with no running hot water (or much more inefficient heat pumps).

Edited November 30, 2020 by Davkaus

[villakram]

People getting all mad and such about the Paris accords, because they are obviously designed to improve things...

 

[Xann]

 

[magnkarl]

My grandad always said "Mother nature does not like to be naked". With it he meant that humans have a tendency to cut forests, kill 'weeds', tear up marshes, woodlands and other areas of the world that actually kept it cool. Soil erosion, heating and forest fires can all be combatted if natural forest is allowed to grow. Instead humans like to cut down the natural forest to plant monoculture log friendly areas which devastate the local biodiversity, flood and fire security and emits more carbon.

Scotland used to be one of the areas with most boreal forest in the world. The English came in, logged, burned and pastured the country beyond repair. I have a standing gift request for all my birthdays to go to https://treesforlife.org.uk/support/plant-a-tree/ - they fence in, plant and cultivate the forests of the highlands. 

[It's Your Round]

On 19/12/2020 at 14:40, Xann said:

 

Thanks for sharing that. I watched the Planet of the Humans film and found it quite depressing, I suspected that it wasn’t all as it seemed seeing as Michael Moore was involved.
 

This one provides some hope, although I still don’t believe it will be enough. Too little too late IMHO. 

[sne]

Quote

Norway Top Court Rules Against Climate Activists Over Arctic Oil

Norway’s top court dismissed an attempt by climate activists to halt Arctic oil exploration by Western Europe’s biggest petroleum-producing nation.

The Nordic government beat back a lawsuit by environmental groups in the country’s Supreme Court, which ruled on Tuesday the authorities had acted lawfully by awarding exploration licenses in the Barents Sea to companies including Equinor ASA, Aker BP ASA and Lundin Petroleum AB.

The case highlights a growing global trend of governments and companies being challenged in courts over policies to tackle climate change. In a landmark case, the highest court in the Netherlands recently ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Norway’s case centers around 10 licenses awarded in the Arctic Barents Sea, including three in a new area bordering Russian waters. Drilling there has so far been a disappointment for state-controlled Equinor and its partners, with no commercial discoveries.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-22/norway-top-court-rules-against-climate-activists-over-arctic-oil

Edit: Perfect quote cut off there  

Edit: Fixed it for you.

 

[ender4]

This is good progress towards renewables:

https://futurism.com/the-byte/india-green-energy-megapark-singapore

Quote

INDIA IS BUILDING A GREEN ENERGY “MEGAPARK” THE SIZE OF SINGAPORE

 

India just laid the foundations for what officials are claiming will be the world’s largest renewable energy park. The gigantic project, in the Kutch region of western Gujarat, will cover an area of 180,000 acres — an area roughly the size of Singapore, as Agence France-Presse reports.

Once finished, the park will produce 30 gigawatts of electricity from both wind turbines and solar arrays, thereby cutting carbon dioxide emissions by up to 50 million tons per year. For perspective, the protagonists in the 1985 film “Back to the Future” needed to generate a staggering 1.21 gigawatts of power to activate their time machine — and this new facility will produce more than 24 times that figure.

“The hybrid renewable energy park will be largest in the world and generate 30,000 megawatts of power,” prime minister Narendra Modi said during the park’s official inauguration, according to AFP.

Those figures dwarf the current largest solar farms in the world. India’s Bhadla solar park, which currently holds the title of the largest solar park in the world, produces just 2.245 gigawatts.

 

The Gujarat facility will be built next to a desalination plant that will process 100 million litres of water a day, enough for roughly 800,000 people.

According to AFP, India has an ambitious timeline for renewables. The country is planning to generate 175 gigawatts in renewable energy by 2022 and 450 gigawatts  by 2030.