Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Send Topic Print
Warning on climate change (Read 8216 times)
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Warning on climate change
Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:24pm
 
Warning on climate change


CLIMATE change is not for the faint hearted - heaven forbid I'm branded a warmist, writes Lainie Anderson.
--------------------------------------------------

But this week, the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology released their latest 10-year assessment of Australia's climate, and issued some pretty sombre warnings that we'd best not ignore in the driest state on the driest continent.

Here's what State of the Climate 2012 revealed:

AUSTRALIA'S annual average daily maximum temperatures have increased by 0.75C since 1910, with record high temperatures now occurring with greater frequency across the nation.

EACH decade has been warmer than the previous decade since the 1950s.

TEMPERATURES are predicted to rise between 1C and 5C by 2070, causing more droughts and extreme rainfall events.

GLOBAL sea levels are 210mm higher than they were in 1880, with waters around northern Australia rising at up to three times higher than the global average.

THE concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2011 was 390 parts per million, higher than at any time for the past 800,000 years.


So here we are, armed with evidence from the nation's peak scientific and weather organisations that by 2070 (when my sons are 67) Australia could be enduring temperatures 5C higher than today.

Yet before the ink was dry on the report, one of Australia's most popular commentators, Andrew Bolt, was claiming that "our top climate authorities have proved once again how they've turned themselves into propagandists for the warmist faith".

I tell you, it's little wonder that psychologists across Australia are increasingly treating clients for climate-change issues. (No really - there's a section on how to deal with climate-change anxieties on the Australian Psychological Society's website).

Please don't think I'm blaming Mr Bolt for a national anxiety attack.

It's just that the whole issue of climate change feels so hopeless, not least because constructive dialogue seems to have been sacrificed in favour of political point-scoring and personal insults.

Take the scorn heaped by some on Climate Commissioner Professor Tim Flannery. It's simply infantile.

In 2007, he had the nerve to predict rainfall would become scarce in the future - now you can almost hear the sceptics snigger every time it rains.

On one hand, we've got around 97 per cent of the world's climate scientists telling us that human behaviour is warming the planet.

To do nothing is to condemn our children to higher temperatures, droughts, floods and other extreme weather events.


On the other, we're being told (by academics, politicians and commentators) that it's a left-wing conspiracy fuelled by self-interested schemers in white coats.

And if all that doesn't do your head in, we've got a carbon tax that no one wants, introduced by a Prime Minister who promised we wouldn't get one. (And yes, $23/tonne certainly seems a worry for hip pockets and Australian jobs, but that's the price you pay when the major parties can't reach consensus and minorities hold the cards.)

In the meantime, it's increasingly difficult for the rest of us to tune out the white noise and think rationally about the situation.

This much I know: Adelaide's stretch of 40C-plus days back in 2009, peaking at nearly 46C, was miserable. But they'd be a walk in the park compared with 50C.

We also know the world is digging up and burning more fossil fuels than ever. 

Mining has been Australia's saviour in tough economic times, but I'm inclined to agree with the scientists who say there is a cost to the planet in terms of unprecedented levels of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution.

Surely the chance of climate change affecting Australia by 2070 is greater than needing to defend ourselves in a war - yet we don't baulk at spending around $24 billion annually on the national defence budget.

And climate science aside, there will surely come a time when Australia runs out of natural resources.

So doesn't it make economic sense to invest now in renewable technology and have something else to offer the world when the coal runs out?


Link -
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/anderson-warning-on-climate-change/story-fn6b...
=================================
Any sizeable business, with any sort of a reasonable business plan, would include this sort of risk, as a very large & likely risk and they would include mitigation measures to ward off the worst effects, where possible!

Unfortunately, there are many powerful, vested interests, who are pushing for this and other risks not be be recognised, nor mitigation undertaken, as it would affect the short term interests of those vested interests!
 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #1 - Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:31pm
 
Climate catastrophe on our door step


The latest State of the Climate report by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO was launched at a weather monitoring station on remote Cape Grim in Tasmania. The location was an apt choice for a report that has very bad news about Australia's continuing failure to respond adequately to the climate change crisis.

The report says each decade since the 1950s has been warmer. Annual-average daily mean temperatures have increased 0.9% since 1910 and annual-average overnight minimum temperatures have warmed by more than 1.1% since 1910. 

The recent two years of wetter weather, due to the La Nina effect, do not mean this long-term warming trend has ended. The report said last year “was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Nina event”.

The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all been in the past 15 years.

La Nina is related to warmer-than-average ocean temperatures around Australia and sea-surface temperatures around Australia have risen faster than the global average, the report said.

The report projected an average temperature rise in Australia of 1-5ーC by 2070, long-term drying over southern and eastern Australia and more extreme weather such as floods, droughts and cyclones.

CSIRO research says an average temperature rise of just 1-2ーC would bleach 58-81% of the Great Barrier Reef each year. Core habitat for vertebrates in the northern tropics would drop 90%.

Three to four degrees would kill 95% of Great Barrier Reef species, shrink 20-85% of total snow-covered area in the Australian Alps and ruin 30–70% of core habitat for Victoria and highland tropical vertebrate species.


...

If average temperatures rise above 5°C, Australia will lose 90–100% of core habitat for most vertebrates.

The State of the Climate report said the global average sea level last year was 210mm above 1880 levels and rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the entire 20th century.

The report said greenhouse gases continue to rise exponentially. Carbon dioxide has reached 390 parts per million in the atmosphere.

Link -
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50388
==================================
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #2 - Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:41pm
 
State of the Climate - 2012 (CSIRO)


Future Australian temperature, rainfall and extreme weather events

Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 °C by 2030 when compared with the climate of 1980 to 1999.  The warming is projected to be in the range of 1.0 to 5.0 °C by 2070 if global greenhouse gas emissions are within the range of projected future emission scenarios considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These changes will be felt through an increase in the number of hot days and warm nights, and a decline in cool days and cold nights.

Climate models suggest long-term drying over southern areas during winter and over southern and eastern areas during spring. This will be superimposed on large natural variability, so wet years are likely to become less frequent and dry years more frequent. Droughts are expected to become more frequent in southern Australia; however, periods of heavy rainfall are still likely to occur.

Models generally indicate an increase in rainfall near the equator globally, but the direction of projected changes to average rainfall over northern Australia is unclear as there is a lack of consensus among the models.

For Australia as a whole, an increase in the number of dry days is expected, but it is also likely that rainfall will be heavier during wet periods.

It is likely (with more than 66 per cent probability) that there will be fewer tropical cyclones in the Australian region, on average, but the proportion of intense cyclones is expected to increase. 

Climate change is continuing
Multiple lines of evidence show that global warming continues and that human activities are mainly responsible.

The fundamental physical and chemical processes leading to climate change are well understood. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology observations provide further evidence that climate change is real.

Link-
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.asp...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BatteriesNotIncluded
Gold Member
*****
Offline


MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #3 - Mar 19th, 2012 at 6:42pm
 
How much subsidised solar thermal could you build and then throw to the market with half that 24 billion dollars!??!

Wait, why would you have to even throw it to the market?

....hmmn, we could compare and contrast to the NBN as it is all infrastructure built with the proceeds of the mining boom isn't it?

What do the children get from this alleged once in a century boom first witnessed by the Howard era?

How much did the Howard era spend on advertising again?

HOW MUCH HAVE THE MINERS SPENT ON PROPGANDA AGAIN??


All very very interesting [ ...and pertinent  Cheesy ] questions that no silver spooner dares go near no matter how much crack they've smoked!


Embarrassed Embarrassed

-->> WE ARE THE CLEVER COUNTRY BUT...  Roll Eyes Cry Cry
Back to top
 

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is.  It wouldn't be there without the tax payer.  Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know....  (swaggy) *
 
IP Logged
 
juliar
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 22966
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #4 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:31pm
 
Is this PM Bob Brown of the Communist Greens waking up from his bad dreem ?

Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain's 'wind rush'?

By Tom Leonard  PUBLISHED: 01:00 GMT, 19 March 2012  | UPDATED: 07:54 GMT, 19 March 2012

Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii. A breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.

Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it. In other parts of the U.S., working wind turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds and bats each year, but here the wildlife can perch on the motionless steel blades. If any spot was tailor-made for a wind farm it would surely be here. The gales are so strong and relentless on the tip of South Point that trees grow almost horizontally. Yet the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America’s so-called ‘wind rush’, the world’s first major experiment in wind energy.

At a time when the EU and the British Government are fully paid-up evangelists for wind power, the lesson from America — and the ghostly hulks on this far-flung coast — should be a warning of their folly. Few people were talking about saving the planet back in the early Eighties. The wind rush was a free-for-all in which get-rich-quick companies exploited ridiculously generous tax breaks to pepper  the States with thousands of  wind turbines.

For anyone who has questioned Downing Street’s controversial pledge — spurred on by EU green targets — to give £400 million-a-year subsidies to wind farms as well as hefty bribes to landowners in order to spur the building of an additional 4,500 turbines, the wind rush may sound eerily familiar.

Indeed, America’s growing band of wind sceptics insist that what happened three decades ago in the U.S. could easily recur over the next few years in the UK if the wheels come off the wind energy gravy train once again. So what went wrong? It started with the late Seventies oil crisis that convinced America it had to look around for other sources of power. For a time, wind power was considered to be a serious alternative to fossil fuels.

Turbines were built across several states, though there was a preponderance in California, where nearly 17,000 sprouted up from the  dusty earth. Nearly all of these were concentrated in three giant wind farms: Altamont, east of San Francisco; Tehachapi, on the edge of the Mojave desert; and San Gorgonio near  Palm Springs. In theory, conditions couldn’t have been better. Each of these are passes that benefit from just the right sort of wind that turbines need — strong and almost continual.

Better still, they were crossed by under-used high voltage lines to take away the power. But most importantly for the scrum of investors who were thrusting their snouts into the trough, there was the extraordinary generosity of the government. Between 1981 and 1985, federal and state subsidies in California were so favourable that investors could recover 50 per cent of the cost of a wind turbine. Even better, the amount they were paid for their electricity was tied to the price of oil, which had shot through the roof.

Turbines on the island of Hawaii which is soon to benefit from new subsides for larger wind farms Paul GIPE, a former California wind company executive, calls what happened next a ‘tax credit frenzy’. ‘The lure of quick riches resulted in shoddy products that littered California with poorly operating — sometimes non-operating — turbines.’  They were expensive and badly designed. Some were far too small to make a difference, others were just clunky machines designed by the aero industry with blades the length of a rugby pitch.

But thanks to the subsidies, it hardly mattered that some of the untested turbines were so sub-standard they barely even worked.

Not to put too fine a point on it, for some wind energy investors it was simply a tax scam. But as tends to happen with a business that is driven by financial incentives, it lasted only as long as the subsidies. In 1986, the price of oil tumbled and the subsidies started to die out. Suddenly, the wind energy sums didn’t add up any more.

And just like the gold rush miners who had rushed to the same Californian passes a century earlier, the wind prospectors departed in such a hurry that they didn’t even bother to take down the turbines they had littered across the state. With so many moving parts to worry about, maintaining turbines is expensive — too expensive when the electricity they could produce was suddenly worth so little.  ‘So when something broke, you simply didn’t send a repairman because it just didn’t make financial sense,’ Hawaii wind sceptic Andrew Walden told me. With some turbine makers going out of business, there were no spare parts either.

According to the California Energy Commission, the collapse in subsidies stalled the state’s huge wind energy industry for nearly two decades. No one who has driven past one of America’s mega wind farms today can fail to be struck by how few have blades that are turning, even in strong winds. The truth is that even fewer may be producing electricity than it appears. Many are switched to a mode in which the blades continue to turn just to keep oil moving around the mechanism, but no electricity is produced.

Unfortunately, the frenzy of windmill building during the wind rush didn’t just ruin the view, but also devastated the wildlife.

No one noticed until far too late that the 5,000-turbine wind farm at Altamont Pass is on a major migratory path for birds. The National Audubon Society, America’s RSPB, has called it ‘probably the worst  site ever chosen for a wind  energy project’.

Hawaiian Island of Maui, utilizes an array of 1.5 megawatt wind turbines to produce electricity

An estimated 10,000 birds including up to 80 protected golden eagles, 380 burrowing owls, 300 red-tailed hawks and 330 falcons were being shredded each year in Altamont’s massed banks of turbine blades — to say nothing of thousands of bats — until outraged conservationists sued America’s ‘deadliest’ wind farm four years ago. As a result, it has agreed to grind to a halt for four months every year to avoid causing more carnage during the migration season. Go further south to the Tehachapi pass on the edge of the Mojave desert and you’ll find golden eagle carcasses under the wind turbines, too. Tragically, the size of these majestic creatures makes it difficult for them to manoeuvre through forests of wind turbine blades spinning at speeds of up to 200mph, especially when they are concentrating on looking for prey. The problem is so serious that in Minnesota and Oregon, wind farms have drawn national condemnation by applying for an eagle hunting licence. In the U.S., one of the great ironies about wind energy is that the people you might expect to cheer for it most — wildlife conservationists who care about the planet — are its most vociferous critics. It’s not hard to see why when you glance at the statistics. The American Bird Conservancy estimates wind turbines kill between 75,000 and 275,000 birds each year.

The conservation cause is not the only issue. There are horror stories about turbines falling over, catching fire after being struck by lightning, lethal shards of ice being hurled from the blades, the nerve-racking low frequency noise (like a pulsing disco) and the disorientating strobe effect in sunlight. While Hawaii has six abandoned wind farms, most of California’s derelict turbines are only now being removed — decades late — after disgusted local authorities threatened to sue.
In Palm Springs, those who campaigned against the turbines included the late singer Sonny Bono, former husband of Cher.

But if a turbine’s owner had walked away from his investment or gone bankrupt, it was sometimes the hapless farmer or rancher who owned the land who had to foot the $1,000-a-tower clean-up bill.
So how many windmills have been abandoned across the U.S.? It is  an intensely sensitive subject for wind enthusiasts, who will quibble that it depends on how you define ‘abandoned’. They wouldn’t, for instance, count ones that are working again today, even if they were switched off for years. They also argue that many of those that were left to rust were technologically outdated and set for the scrapheap anyway.

Wind power sceptics estimate 14,000 turbines across the U.S. have become derelict since the Eighties, while there are around 38,000 in operation across the country. Paul Gipe claims the number abandoned in his state of California is around 4,500, of which 500 are still standing.

In Hawaii, which is soon to get a new subsidised wind farm, Andrew Walden argues that whatever turbine makers boast about their machines’ impressive kilowatt per hour output, there remains an intractable problem with any industry that can survive only with government help.‘The key lesson from history is that when the subsidies go, the wind farms go,’ he told me. ‘It costs too much to maintain them and they just get abandoned.’ How ironic that the British government is pushing through permissions for thousands of new turbines just as the Americans are going cool on the idea.

More dismal stories of Bob Brown failures in ref:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.htm...
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Doctor Jolly
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3808
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #5 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:47pm
 
Abandoned wind farms is a political problem created by politicians looking at short term only fixes.

To quote:

From 1981 through 1985 federal and state tax subsidies in California were so great that wealthy investors could recover up to 50 percent of a wind turbine's cost. The lure of quick riches resulted in a flood of development using new and mostly untested wind turbines. By the end of 1986, when projects already underway in 1985 were completed, developers had installed nearly 15,000 wind turbines. These machines represented 1,200 MW of capacity worth US$2.4 billion in 1986 dollars.

It took nearly a decade from the time the first flimsy wind turbines were installed before the performance of California wind projects could dispel the widespread belief among the public and investors that wind energy was just a tax scam.

Ben Lieberman, a senior policy analyst focusing on energy and environmental issues for the Heritage Foundation, is not surprised.  He asks:

"If wind power made sense, why would it need a government subsidy in the first place?  It's a bubble which bursts as soon as the government subsidies end."


Firstly, no renewable can compete with cheap coal, so if you want renewables, you need to do two things:
1) Provide ongoing subsidies
2) Price coal generation up to a similar level to renewables.

Obviously, option (1) is going to be at the whim of the current government, and any sort of belt tightening is going to hit it hard.  (2) is the long term solution.

That is why we need a price on co2.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Doctor Jolly
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3808
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #6 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm
 
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #7 - Mar 21st, 2012 at 4:00am
 
Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.


The problem is the cost of pulling down the towers though...(and a wind farm covers a much greater area than nuclear or coal power plants..)
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
chicken_lipsforme
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7090
Townsville NQ
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #8 - Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:06pm
 
perceptions_now wrote on Mar 19th, 2012 at 5:31pm:
Climate catastrophe on our door step


The latest State of the Climate report by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO was launched at a weather monitoring station on remote Cape Grim in Tasmania. The location was an apt choice for a report that has very bad news about Australia's continuing failure to respond adequately to the climate change crisis.

The report says each decade since the 1950s has been warmer. Annual-average daily mean temperatures have increased 0.9% since 1910 and annual-average overnight minimum temperatures have warmed by more than 1.1% since 1910. 

The recent two years of wetter weather, due to the La Nina effect, do not mean this long-term warming trend has ended. The report said last year “was the world’s 11th warmest year and the warmest year on record during a La Nina event”.

The world’s 13 warmest years on record have all been in the past 15 years.

La Nina is related to warmer-than-average ocean temperatures around Australia and sea-surface temperatures around Australia have risen faster than the global average, the report said.

The report projected an average temperature rise in Australia of 1-5ーC by 2070, long-term drying over southern and eastern Australia and more extreme weather such as floods, droughts and cyclones.

CSIRO research says an average temperature rise of just 1-2ーC would bleach 58-81% of the Great Barrier Reef each year. Core habitat for vertebrates in the northern tropics would drop 90%.

Three to four degrees would kill 95% of Great Barrier Reef species, shrink 20-85% of total snow-covered area in the Australian Alps and ruin 30–70% of core habitat for Victoria and highland tropical vertebrate species.


http://climatechangesocialchange.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/atmospheric-ghgs-by...

If average temperatures rise above 5°C, Australia will lose 90–100% of core habitat for most vertebrates.

The State of the Climate report said the global average sea level last year was 210mm above 1880 levels and rose faster between 1993 and 2011 than during the entire 20th century.

The report said greenhouse gases continue to rise exponentially. Carbon dioxide has reached 390 parts per million in the atmosphere.

Link -
http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/50388
==================================


That's impressive those planetary CO2 stats from 1000AD to 1850AD.
Very detailed.
Just too bad their guesstimated.
Back to top
 

"Another boat, another policy failure from the Howard government"

Julia Gillard
Shadow Health Minister
2003.
 
IP Logged
 
Doctor Jolly
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3808
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #9 - Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:18pm
 
gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 4:00am:
Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.


The problem is the cost of pulling down the towers though...(and a wind farm covers a much greater area than nuclear or coal power plants..)


Well you dont have to pull them down at all for the land to return to farming. Its purely as aesthetic thing.


The cost of pulling them down is 10000x times less than decomissioning a coal or nuclear plant.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Uncle Meat
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2434
Tasmania
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #10 - Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:28pm
 
chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:06pm:
That's impressive those planetary CO2 stats from 1000AD to 1850AD.
Very detailed.
Just too bad their guesstimated.



That's a bit unfair.

Without guesstimates, the AGW disciples don't have a theory.     Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Doctor Jolly
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3808
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #11 - Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:32pm
 
chicken_lipsforme wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:06pm:
That's impressive those planetary CO2 stats from 1000AD to 1850AD.
Very detailed.
Just too bad their guesstimated.


Deliciously ironic, since the general denier view was that data prior to 1850AD "proved" the case that the climate change is natural.

Although in fairness, they seem to have dropped that line nowdays.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #12 - Mar 22nd, 2012 at 12:47am
 
Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 2:18pm:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 21st, 2012 at 4:00am:
Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
But the good thing about an abandoned wind farm is that the land is in as good a condition as it was (once you pull down the towers).

Compare that to an abandoned nuclear or coal generator where the land is left poisoned and unusable.


The problem is the cost of pulling down the towers though...(and a wind farm covers a much greater area than nuclear or coal power plants..)


Well you dont have to pull them down at all for the land to return to farming. Its purely as aesthetic thing.


The cost of pulling them down is 10000x times less than decomissioning a coal or nuclear plant.


Not even close Doc....It costs over $5000 per turbine/tower to remove them, and, (in Australia for example) there are between 20 and 80 turbines in each farm....

A nuclear power plant has a much longer life span than wind farms currently do, and therefore a longer process to remove, but still doesn't cost much more than 100X what windfarms cost....

For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Emma
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 9853
OZ
Gender: female
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #13 - Mar 22nd, 2012 at 2:21am
 
What? Shocked Shocked
For coal I'll agree with you about the environmental residue, but
a correctly built, run and decommissioned nuclear plant leaves no residue behind...


How can you possibly say that.?  What happens to the spent uranium.???
Sent into space perhaps? Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

live every day
 
IP Logged
 
____
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 33410
Australia
Gender: male
Re: Warning on climate change
Reply #14 - Mar 22nd, 2012 at 3:51am
 
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 6
Send Topic Print