Reducing green house gases

Originally posted by @metal-brain
You said it did, not me. If you are asking me you must have lied.

Why did you ask me if they exist after we had that looong conversation about EnergyStar? Of course they exist. You haven't explained how your system is better than the leftist system that already exists.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Why did you ask me if they exist after we had that looong conversation about EnergyStar? Of course they exist. You haven't explained how your system is better than the leftist system that already exists.

I just want you to confirm it exists by providing your source of information. I'm not going to just take your word for it. You have bluffed before.

Are you going to provide your source of info or not? I don't like asking multiple times. Why are you stalling?

Originally posted by @metal-brain
I just want you to confirm it exists by providing your source of information. I'm not going to just take your word for it. You have bluffed before.

Are you going to provide your source of info or not? I don't like asking multiple times. Why are you stalling?

Read back 4-5 posts when you first asked the question.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Read back 4-5 posts when you first asked the question.

You never answered the question. You asked me the same question because you were bluffing and don't know of an efficient DVD player as you claimed.

Dishonest bluffing isn't science. If you are embarrassed you should be. If you need to lie it says something about your character.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Thanks for clarifying, that makes sense. Every long-term scalable option for renewable energy will have significant challenges to over come. This seems like a relatively minor one. Couldn't you insulate the wires in the solar cells?

The problem there is the very low frequency of the power lines, 60 Hertz or 50 Hertz usually, some 25 Hertz and some 400 Hertz (mostly military). Anyway, all of those frequencies are very low and hard to insulate, the solar cells themselves would interact with the volatge induced by the proximity to the wires in the pylon. The power leads could be insulated by having them covered by braided shielding going to ground and that would have to happen for all wiring. Dual wire coax is what that is called, two inner conductors covered by some kind of flexible plastic insulation then the braided conductor and then an outer coating of another tougher plastic outer layer. The down side is those cables are about a dollar a foot so a large installation would be expensive maybe more than a buck a foot.

That would shield for electric fields but there is also magnetic field shielding to consider. Considering the magnetic field part of the wave can also induce electric currents, you would need to shield against that also and that would be with an outer mu metal shield or some sneaky stuff like this magnetic shielding putty:

https://www.supermagnete.de/eng/thinking-putty/thinking-putty-magnetic-ferromagnetic-putty-different-colours_M-PUTTY-FERRO

Originally posted by @sonhouse
The problem there is the very low frequency of the power lines, 60 Hertz or 50 Hertz usually, some 25 Hertz and some 400 Hertz (mostly military). Anyway, all of those frequencies are very low and hard to insulate, the solar cells themselves would interact with the volatge induced by the proximity to the wires in the pylon. The power leads could be insulate ...[text shortened]... e/eng/thinking-putty/thinking-putty-magnetic-ferromagnetic-putty-different-colours_M-PUTTY-FERRO

Hmm. Ok. Someone will come up with an innovative solution at some point. I hope it comes before we raze even more undeveloped natural spaces in the name of green energy. If you ever get to Vermont, head to the NEK and see for yourself what a disaster it is. That area had more moose than people living in it, clean water, hiking/camping/hunting areas, but now its a loud wind factory, subsidized by green energy and done in the name of environmental protection. A thousand acres of pristine wilderness destroyed to power a small percentage of households in that state. Unbelievable.

What is it replacing is Yankee power, a nuclear power plant that was decommissioned after lobbying efforts by supposed environmentalists. This plant once powered the entire region, including the entire state (not a fraction of the state), on a footprint 1/100th of the size, with zero emissions.

edit: after looking it up, Yankee power plant powered 35% of the state. Its still far greater than wind power capacity.

I was recently on an airplane and spotted 2-3 wind farms that were located in what would previously have been pristine wilderness. Roads, deforestation and power infrastructure added into an undeveloped wildlife habitat. I cannot get over it: Why are we allowing developers to destroy these natural areas, and at the same time subsidizing their profitable business in the name of environmental protection? It's insane.

We're going to look back on this and wonder why.

Originally posted by @wildgrass
I was recently on an airplane and spotted 2-3 wind farms that were located in what would previously have been pristine wilderness. Roads, deforestation and power infrastructure added into an undeveloped wildlife habitat.

.

were the trees all cut down specifically because of wind farms or would they have been cut down anyway for other reasons?
How many more trees would be killed elsewhere in the world by global warming effects if we did nothing i.e. business-as-usual?

Originally posted by @humy
were the trees all cut down specifically because of wind farms or would they have been cut down anyway for other reasons?
How many more trees would be killed elsewhere in the world by global warming effects if we did nothing i.e. business-as-usual?

Question 1: Yes. "An estimated 5.3 million acres (roughly the size of New Jersey) of this new energy-related development is most likely to occur in forested areas." [1] Keep in mind it's not just the footprint of the actual turbine but all the roads and infrastructure surrounding it. It very clearly destroys animal habitats, and will ultimately reduce biodiversity.

Question 2: I don't have any idea. Are you asking how many more trees we'd have now if it weren't for electricity-generating carbon emissions? How would you go about calculating this? My guess is 0. In my understanding of wind power, in terms of carbon emissions reduction, the capacity isn't even enough to off-set the decommissioning of existing nuclear energy power plants (which are zero emissions). Assuming we kept building nuclear instead of going to wind, and assuming that each wind turbine (estimated US total ~84,000) costs about 25 trees, we have 2.1 million fewer trees with wind vs. nuclear. Does that answer your question?

[1] https://blog.nature.org/science/2015/03/05/new-study-offers-first-comprehensive-picture-of-appalachian-energy-development/

Originally posted by @wildgrass
Question 1: Yes. "An estimated 5.3 million acres (roughly the size of New Jersey) of this new energy-related development is most likely to occur in forested areas." [1] Keep in mind it's not just the footprint of the actual turbine but all the roads and infrastructure surrounding it. It very clearly destroys animal habitats, and will ultimately reduce bio ...[text shortened]... ience/2015/03/05/new-study-offers-first-comprehensive-picture-of-appalachian-energy-development/

Question 1: Yes. "An estimated 5.3 million acres (roughly the size of New Jersey) of this new energy-related development is most likely to occur in forested areas."

NO; some wind turbines put into a 'forested area' does NOT mean cutting down all the trees in that 'forested area'.
I live in an area with wind turbines and they are in a 'forested area' and I see the tree are still there!
They are nearly always put in clearings in the forested area that where already there, just like in my area. I have never once seen any tree being cut down specifically to put up a wind turbine and I assume the local cancel would generally block such a move as it would obviously would be in most cases environmentally counterproductive.

Question 2: I don't have any idea.

Exactly! So, how is it that you both, as you just admitted, have "no idea", and assume that trees elsewhere in the world will not be killed by the additional global warming effects by not erecting those wind turbines thus the wind turbines giving net benefit to most trees?

Are you asking how many more trees we'd have now if it weren't for electricity-generating carbon emissions?

No. I am asking would trees elsewhere in the world be killed by the additional global warming effects (more hurricanes blowing them down etc) by NOT erecting more wind turbines. In other words, how do you know there isn't a global net benefit to most trees from erecting more wind turbines? I don't make the assumption of either net benefit nor net cost but, either way, erecting loads more wind turbines certainly wouldn't be used to devastate forests world wide.
In general, a proposal to cut down significant numbers of trees (or just one relatively large tree) to make room for a wind turbine would be strongly rejected and therefore prevented by governments or local cancels and for obvious reasons. It would be the same for solar panels; forests won't be cut down to make way for them because the authorities simply won't allow it and for obvious reasons.
Most wind turbines aren't erected at an exact spot where there was a tree. And what about off-shore wind and wind turbines NOT put in forested areas? There is no shortage of such places left to erect huge numbers of them if necessary thus wind power is still a massively under-exploited resource that can be scaled-up without chopping down a single tree.

Originally posted by @humy
They are nearly always put in clearings in the forested area that where already there

False. Did you see the photo in the link I sent? Another quote from that article summarizing an environmental study on wind power stated that 'More than 150 watersheds are at high potential risk for development' and they only looked at the region of Appalachia. In the midwest it's a little different (Because they don't have mountains and they have large tracts of farmland that are already in use by humans) but around the country these wind projects often involve deforesting mountain tops and building the roads and turbines on these previously-wooded mountain tops. That's where the wind is.

Exactly! So, how is it that you, as you just admitted, have "no idea"

Obviously. This goes back to my original question of why we are building wind turbines (and heavily subsidizing very profitable energy companies) in the name of environmental protection when we have no idea what the actual environmental impact is? The only impact that is clear is the destruction of wildlife habitats.

assume that trees elsewhere in the world will not be killed by the additional global warming effects by not erecting those wind turbines?

I did not assume this. What is your rationale for making this assumption? You seem to be wrongly assuming that wind turbines have NO negative environmental impact.

In general, a proposal to cut down significant numbers of trees to make room for a wind turbine would be strongly rejected and therefore prevented by governments or local cancels and for obvious reasons.

This is wrong. It's being done currently. Open your eyes.