Bonam Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 Apparently the opposite might be true according to L.M. Miller, F. Gans, & A. Kleidon who wrote the paper I found in your link above. That paper makes some excellent points and is likely correct. I had been thinking in the same way that the other paper (Archer & Caldeira) did, but the points brought up in Miller et all likely make that analysis incorrect. In any case, it's just another illustration of how such seemingly vast forces as the Earth's wind patterns actually represent only really quite limited amounts of power that could be tapped. Renewable energies are not the panacea they are hailed as... wherever you remove energy from a system, it will have some effect, and there is no way to escape that. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 The above ground footprint of gas wells is extremely small compared to windfarms. The added advantage is natural gas adds wealth to the economy instead of sucking it out. Well, they pump poison into the ground and make your drinking water flammable. I suppose you think that's better than wrecking the view. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 Well, they pump poison into the ground and make your drinking water flammable. I suppose you think that's better than wrecking the view.Claims that have been shown to be false. Quote
bleeding heart Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 here, gain some needed perspective: Wow. Ok, so "bird deaths" are yet ANOTHER in a long line of issues in which those professing concern actually have none, none whatsoever....another political football. Quote “There is a limit to how much we can constantly say no to the political masters in Washington. All we had was Afghanistan to wave. On every other file we were offside. Eventually we came onside on Haiti, so we got another arrow in our quiver." --Bill Graham, Former Canadian Foreign Minister, 2007
jbg Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Posted December 2, 2013 Well, they pump poison into the ground and make your drinking water flammable. I suppose you think that's better than wrecking the view.I guess you own the DVD of "Gasland." Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
jbg Posted December 2, 2013 Author Report Posted December 2, 2013 Wow. Ok, so "bird deaths" are yet ANOTHER in a long line of issues in which those professing concern actually have none, none whatsoever....another political football. You ignored my earlier response to a similar post. While you're right that I may not be overly concerned about bird deaths or other collateral damage (since fracking, which I do advocate, clearly has collateral damage) my point and the point of others is that no energy source is perfect. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
eyeball Posted December 2, 2013 Report Posted December 2, 2013 That paper makes some excellent points and is likely correct. I had been thinking in the same way that the other paper (Archer & Caldeira) did, but the points brought up in Miller et all likely make that analysis incorrect. In any case, it's just another illustration of how such seemingly vast forces as the Earth's wind patterns actually represent only really quite limited amounts of power that could be tapped. Renewable energies are not the panacea they are hailed as... wherever you remove energy from a system, it will have some effect, and there is no way to escape that. What strikes me is how much smaller and less abundant that paper makes our planet seem. It brings home the adage that we either need more planets or we need to scale back our economic consumption of the only planet we have and may have at our disposal. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.