Now's your chance, AI, to do good. Protect endangered eagles from wind turbines

The German government hopes AI-powered cameras will its protect endangered eagles from crashing into wind turbines. As Moscow puts the squeeze on gas supplies to Europe, Chancellor Olaf Scholz reckons building more and more wind turbine farms will – along with reactivated coal and oil power stations – help his nation wean …

[hoola]

Snake-Oil

I am struggling to see how this actually works.

I claims that the blades can be slowed in a matter of seconds, and I simply don't believe it. The overhead of running, loss of output and wear on the equipment just don't stack up.

To slow a large turbine "in a matter of seconds" so that it does not mince wildlife requires a substantial brake and that is going to put significant stresses on everything.

Something does not stack up.

[imanidiot]

Re: Snake-Oil

Probably it means feathering the blades to be flat on to the rotation direction, meaning you have the drag of most of the blade being stalled to slow it down. That can indeed slow a turbine down in a matter of seconds. Pretty sure however the feathering and generating equipment in the wind turbine and the grid in general won't like it.

(Also, don't underestimate just how strong the brakes in one of those turbines is. If they're able to stop a turbine in high wind conditions when one of the blades can't feather, they should also be capable of slowing the rotor down in lower wind, especially if the blades feather out too)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Snake-Oil

don't underestimate just how strong the brakes in one of those turbines is

Strength isn't the issue, it's the dynamic forces that matter. Brake a spinning turbine & the torque is converted into a force on the turbine support, which will flex. Brake too much, and you risk snapping the support or breaking the turbine head off it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Snake-Oil

If the algorithms predict a bird is about to fly into a spinning wind turbine, the arms are slowed in a matter of seconds to reduce the risk of a lethal collision.

Bummer if the bird has chosen a trajectory to miss the blades.

This sounds a bit like the ski-slope issue. When you're coming down a slope and see slower skiers below, you have an obligation to avoid them and it's fairly easy to do so provided they continue with their same, slow, path. Collisions happen when they look up, see you coming, and either stop or veer off, thus throwing your avoidance maneouvre off track.

Just make the blades as visible as possible, so the birds see them. Darwinism will take care of the rest.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Snake-Oil

Assuming sound project network topology and not much congestion, a typical avian curtailment that feathers the blades will bring a turbine to nearly a complete stop (braking is not a significant component here) on the order of 30-60 seconds from when it receives the stop command from the SCADA. While this is hardly immediate, the deceleration within those first 10 seconds can be sufficient to greatly reduce the likelihood of a "collision", although there's no escaping the fact that a bird crossing the blade path at this point may still be killed or maimed by a slowing blade. (Some species, like vultures and pelicans are especially bad about not even attempting to get out of the way.)

I’ll maintain that stop times like these are already plenty fast so long as curtailments are made before birds are in close vicinity of running turbines, and so exaggerations like “within seconds” are unnecessary and only serve to undermine trust in the company’s many bold claims.

[tiggity]

Unconvinced

As mentioned by others, that's a lot of heavy braking to slow the turbines in time.

Having seen an eagle (short toed) hit a turbine*, its not a good sight

* Spain, near Gibraltar straits, a big bird migration area. The turbines did get "turned off" at certain "peak" migratory times to avoid fatalities, unfortunately this is a decision based on number of birds passing through the area - and in this case, numbers were below the "critical amount" so turbines were on.

[Spazturtle]

Or they could just paint one of the blades a different colour which allows the birds to understand that there is an object moving and stay away.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or mount fake coyotes on the turbines.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Or introduce real coyotes in the suburbs.

Most non-eagle birds are killed by cats, want to reduce the number of cats prowling the neighbourhood? Add coyotes.

Ironically when the coyotes become a problem the solution is also to introduce bigger cats

[Andy the ex-Brit]

When do we send in the cane toads?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

After the Zombie invasion obviously

[imanidiot]

Single black blade helps tremendously

Recent studies have also shown that putting a black band on only one of the blades (or even making the entire blade black) helps tremendously in making birds understand their motion and stay away. Operators don't like it because the black blade heats up much more in the sun and it's lifetime is severely reduced because of it. GFRP doesn't like heat.

[Ian Johnston]

Re: Single black blade helps tremendously

That's why the registration numbers on GFRP gliders are grey, not black.

[steelpillow]

Re: Single black blade helps tremendously

Yay! Came here to say exactly that.

As far as I know only the single-black-blade scheme has been tried. But would a more balanced match of thermal absorption across other colours be feasible? Depending on the paint mixes, maybe a yellow blade and two green ones? Or say two light grey and one with a broad red stripe? This is really important research that needs to be done.

[Filippo]

Re: Single black blade helps tremendously

I suspect that having to suddenly slow down the entire turbine every time a bird is nearby would reduce the turbine's lifetime much more than the black paint.

Also, it could well be that it doesn't need to be black. There's got to be some study on what colors eagles can see better than others.

[imanidiot]

Re: Single black blade helps tremendously

IIRC black is one of the only colors that's universal between all species as easily identifiable against the bright sky with the vision of all relevant birds. The problem is you're not (usually) protecting only a single species and there's marked difference between sparrows, hawks, peregrine falcons, tower falcons, cranes, herons, etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Single black blade helps tremendously

The problem isn’t that they can’t see turbine blades. Most of the species we talk about here see them just fine, having visual acuity and reflexes unfathomable to any clothed ape. The problem is either that—perhaps being unfamiliar with them—that they do not recognise the moving blades as a threat, or that—being a bit one-track about things—they're wholly distracted by prey or an intruder and aren’t paying enough mind to the blades. I'll wager black paint is little more than a new spin on the scarecrow, and that after some time getting used to it, they'll more or less carry on with getting whacked as before the paint.

Also, there is generally the assumption that turbine encounters are usually fatal. While newer, larger MW turbines have very fast blade speeds, their rotation speed is typically slow enough that birds can (and very often do) pass through the blade path without incident as they make their daily rounds. (This is in contrast to many earlier generation wind projects that used smaller turbines with slower blade speeds but appreciably faster rotation speeds.) What this means is that an eagle nesting near a newer wind project might pass through spinning blades hunting in and around that project several times a day for weeks or even months without incident before finally getting knocked out of the sky.

[John Sager]

We could, of course, can this shit and remove the wind turbines

[Naich]

If you are worried about birds being killed by wind turbines, you will shit yourself when you realise how many birds are going to be killed by climate change.

[codejunky]

@Naich

"If you are worried about birds being killed by wind turbines, you will shit yourself when you realise how many birds are going to be killed by climate change."

Guessing that would be around the bugger all number of the migratory variety, But then the climate has always changed yet I assume you believe you can stop it? Command the tide back!!

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

But then the climate has always changed ...

Yes, yes it has... over timescales measured in 10s - 100s of thousands of years, rather than the decades we are seeing now (see icon).

... yet I assume you believe you can stop it?

Yup, we can reverse the change we are seeing on human (as opposed to geological) time scales - by ceasing to pump gazillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Yes, yes it has... over timescales measured in 10s - 100s of thousands of years, rather than the decades we are seeing now (see icon)."

Are you sure? Remember you are working on very few decades of what we consider accurate data and a lot of much more fuzzy data which leads to the conclusion that within huge error bars we dont have much to worry about.

"Yup, we can reverse the change"

I command you tide!!! Back I tell you!!!

"by ceasing to pump gazillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere."

And that would reverse the theoretical change already made? Is this will a mass extermination of life on earth? I say life not just humans as cows and sheep are attacked for their 'gasses' so should we cull most of the life on the planet? Or should we not be so stupid?

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"Yes, yes it has... over timescales measured in 10s - 100s of thousands of years, rather than the decades we are seeing now (see icon)."

Are you sure?

As a statistician and scientist myself, yes, I am reasonably sure - certainly sure enough to be very, very worried.

... which leads to the conclusion that within huge error bars we dont have much to worry about.

The evidence to date most certainly does not support that conclusion - quite the opposite!

"by ceasing to pump gazillions of tons of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere."

And that would reverse the theoretical change already made?

In time (measured in human years), yes - that would reverse the evident (i.e., measured) change.

Is this will a mass extermination of life on earth? I say life not just humans as cows and sheep are attacked for their 'gasses' so should we cull most of the life on the planet? Or should we not be so stupid?

Failed to parse [some weird stuff no-one is suggesting].

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"As a statistician and scientist myself, yes, I am reasonably sure - certainly sure enough to be very, very worried."

Worried about what? Which bit? The ice age was abandoned. The global warming was abandoned. Run away climate change was abandoned. The apocalypse we all gonna fry still occasionally gets mentioned but isnt realistic. So now we dont want the world to warm a couple of degrees so we must embrace communism and mud hut lifestyle depending on the version of nutter proposing the 'solution'.

Also as a statistician and scientist you must surely be aware of the severe uncertainty and large gaps in knowledge for the claim. You must also be vastly aware that the topic left science and is now politics?

"The evidence to date most certainly does not support that conclusion - quite the opposite!"

Eh? Evidence to date is that the economic impact has been ignored and that mitigation needs to be looked at because it is likely more cost effective and realistic. Evidence to date is that monuments to a sky god dont work and we aint generating enough electricity, never mind dreamily moving towards electric vehicles.

"In time (measured in human years), yes - that would reverse the evident (i.e., measured) change."..."Failed to parse [some weird stuff no-one is suggesting]."

You failed to parse? Really? So nobody is suggesting going veg to save the planet? How do you think we support the population without enough energy being generated (the problem of these monuments instead of power generation)? Remember this is about your fanciful comment about reversing the climate change. Something as fanciful as the 'all gonna fry' scenario.

We dont have the technology to undo what was put out, we dont have the technology to generate the so called 'green' energy which has to be revised to include burning wood chips from half way around the world and nuclear.

Instead of the question being how do we get birds to avoid the bird choppas, we should start asking if we should be putting up the bird choppas in the first place. It quickly resolves both questions with one answer.

[imanidiot]

Re: @Naich

"Ice age" got a lot of media attention but was never really broadly supported by climate scientists (warming trends were already predicted and known in the 80s!)

Global warming isn't abandoned as such but was (again) a media phrase and inaccurate. A lot of the world is warming, some parts of it, due to changing weather and climate patterns are cooling. Which some people (possibly like you) were using to dismiss the whole thing outright because "how can there be global warming when "Area X" is getting colder! Run away climate change isn't really abandoned but it currently looks like we MIGHT if everybody sticks to the agreements and keeps up the effort to not just fart out CO2 at high rates dodge that particular bullet. Which is immediately linked to the "we're all gonna fry" mantra. Which we might well still do.

As to evidence the current warming is unusual, I know it's a webcomic, but if you disagree with the data please give a source because I've never found a reason to doubt any particular point about this graph: https://xkcd.com/1732/ (And as noted in the graphic itself, yes there will have been some short term swinging around but upsweeps as seen in the last 50 years are VERY unlikely to have happened without being detectable by the methods used to get this data in the first place.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@imanidiot

""Ice age" got a lot of media attention but was never really broadly supported by climate scientists (warming trends were already predicted and known in the 80s!)"

Kinda like x number of days to save the earth I expect. Or various others- https://extinctionclock.org/

I would hazard a guess that the new messiah (Gretta) says plenty the scientists dont back too. Nor back the media rush to blame weather events on MMCC. Nor adverts of a drowning cartoon dog if you dont turn your lights out.

"Global warming isn't abandoned as such but was (again) a media phrase and inaccurate."

And yet you had to be a heretic to disagree with it! Yup outside the world of science. Just as a lot of this garbage is outside the world of science.

"Which some people (possibly like you) were using to dismiss the whole thing outright"

Nope. But I dont believe in religious political bull. Or as you called it inaccurate media phrases.

"Run away climate change isn't really abandoned"

They couldnt figure out how to cause their nightmare scenario in the real world because they kept missing bits of how the world works. The model would claim doom and the world would not do so.

"Which is immediately linked to the "we're all gonna fry" mantra. Which we might well still do."

Even by its own 'science' the answer to that is no unless we time travel back and then burn everything. Not realistic, just a framing device in a chart. Kinda like the extreme one at the other end where the temperature magically cools because we magically suck all the GHG out. Framing device.

"particular point about this graph"

That starts at an ice age and shows warming? Using what we know of (very little) historical global temperatures going back to... the ice age. Knowing bugger all for the variations that naturally occur but knowing that warmer temperatures are better for life than colder ones. So based on bugger all knowledge we should assume this is weird?

"yes there will have been some short term swinging around but upsweeps as seen in the last 50 years are VERY unlikely to have happened without being detectable by the methods used to get this data in the first place."

So you know there will have been short term swinging, but you think this one is odd based on extremely limited data over an almost nothing timespan for the event? I struggle to buy it.

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

Well, I stand corrected on "undoing" CO2 levels in the atmosphere - seems we're basically stuck with what we've got for millennia. Ouch. Seems like a damn good reason to cut back on emissions with great urgency.

That said, I am not going to even attempt to argue your science-denialism, but I admit to being somewhat morbidly intrigued in what exactly it is that you do believe: so do you believe (against all evidence) that global temperatures are not rising? Or, if you at least accept that, do you believe (against all evidence) that a few degrees of warming will not have serious consequences? Are you content that we go about business-as-usual with fossil fuels? Are you unconcerned about the social, economic and political consequences of flooding, drought, fires, storm devastation, sea-level rise, crop failure, etc. that evidence suggests are already ramping up as a result of warming? What is your plan?

[Dimmer]

Re:

Want to change something? Start by doing yourself and not trying to force someone else to do it your way.

So

I planted about 180,000 trees on 200 acres. Now I hear the we need to rid ourselves of the co2. My trees need it. I have yet to see a study on how the increase in co2 is linked to the increase in we are seeing green stuff flourishing.

Watch the big birds when they are wind surfing. They get the rise when over open fields and roads. That is where the heat is, and if we go by that, we need to ban all roads.

[LionelB]

Re: Re:

"Want to change something? Start by doing yourself ..."

An admirable sentiment.

"... and not trying to force someone else to do it your way."

Well, I'm certainly not in a position to force anyone to do anything, nor would I wish to. I would be happy if I could help persuade people to listen to what climate science is telling us, and avoid getting sucked into science-denialism and conspiracy-theorising.

"Now I hear the we need to rid ourselves of the co2. My trees need it."

Well trees seemed to do just fine with pre-industrial CO2 levels. There is absolutely no suggestion that anyone would like (even if it were possible, which practically-speaking it isn't) to reduce CO2 levels to below that! What would be the point?

"Watch the big birds when they are wind surfing. They get the rise when over open fields and roads. That is where the heat is, and if we go by that, we need to ban all roads."

An insane suggestion that no-one is actually suggesting.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Well, I stand corrected on "undoing" CO2 levels in the atmosphere - seems we're basically stuck with what we've got for millennia."

If it makes you feel any better these are the model predictions which might again change tomorrow when they account for the next natural process they didnt realise.

"Seems like a damn good reason to cut back on emissions with great urgency."

If you want to go ahead. You are going to emit something and you are going to affect the world around you by merely existing.

"That said, I am not going to even attempt to argue your science-denialism"

Thats fine, that denialism has already brought you to realise a science mistake you acknowledge at the start of your comment, and you have so much faith in your belief you call science that it cannot be challenged (the antithesis of science) I dont feel any loss.

"but I admit to being somewhat morbidly intrigued in what exactly it is that you do believe"

>The climate changes naturally. It does, has done and continues to do so.

>It is possible (even potentially probable) we have an affect of some sort but we are still trying to understand what.

>MMCC theory has left the world of science and is now politics and religion which is why there is so much propaganda and constant stream of bull that any actual science is lost in the noise.

>People are so eager to believe whatever fast lie leaves the gate that the 'science' looks stupid by the constant rebuttals by truth and science.

>The entire 'propaganda' is so fragile they allowed a child to be scared by fiction (she can see Co2 in the air!) and put up as a meat shield who cant be criticized due to her age and disability no matter how much garbage she spouts.

>If the pushers of the fiction believed in it they would not be acting counter to the 'science'. How green is burning wood chips from new trees shipped from around the world? Why buy beach front property where it will be washed away in the great floods? The 'science' says we need economic growth yet so much effort to hamper it. A heavy push back against gas and nukes even though they are ways we can hit Co2 targets in favour of technology that doesnt work.

>Wind and solar were deployed without being able to do the job. Bills went up to support the deployment of monuments to a sky god in hope he farts. Solar works in parts of the world where it works. Spain built a concentrated solar plant to make plenty cheap energy only to find it will never pay for itself. But we tax and bill payers support inflated prices fed in from a solar panel on top of some rich/upper middle class roof in the UK.

The unreliables of course rely on gas as a backup, so we need to inefficiently run a gas power station to provide the power we dont get from them and here we are reliant on foreign gas but unwilling to look below our own feet. That wouldnt be green.

"so do you believe (against all evidence) that global temperatures are not rising?"

This is a question you should look at seriously for a while (seriously). Think about it. You would think that was a climate change denier, I know I would. Instead a climate change denier is someone who doesnt believe in the current half baked theory of MMCC. Look at how incorrect that is, how stupid, how wrong.

"Or, if you at least accept that, do you believe (against all evidence) that a few degrees of warming will not have serious consequences?"

As with everything there will be trade offs. One serious consequence is being better for life on earth. I am not stupid enough to command the tide out.

"Are you content that we go about business-as-usual with fossil fuels?"

Yes and no. Increasing efficiency, less tolerant of actual pollution and modern civilisation which requires cheap and plentiful energy. The part I say no to is the vilification of energy production while demanding energy that we need,

"Are you unconcerned about the social, economic and political consequences of flooding, drought, fires, storm devastation, sea-level rise, crop failure, etc."

Very shaky beliefs there sorry. Plenty of fire, flood and drought has been through political mismanagement (here in the UK, over in the US etc). Trying to claim crop failure on MMCC is funny but neglects being better conditions for growing crops. You say storms but previous claims of increased activity got shot down by a lack of increase. I like how you put sea level in there when I keep mocking about commanding the tide back, it wont listen to you!

However mitigation is an option. And increasing the prosperity of people on the globe makes it easier for mitigation technologies to be applied where needed. Instead of praying your monument to the sky gods will stop the climate from changing (that seems close to climate change denial).

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"If it makes you feel any better these are the model predictions which might again change tomorrow when they account for the next natural process they didnt realise."

This seems to speak to a deep misunderstanding about how science works.

Firstly, science is pretty much all models (E = mc^2, for example, is a fine model for the relationship between energy and mass). But the role of models in science is frequently misunderstood. The purpose of a model is not, as frequently imagined, to mimic physical reality as closely as possible (hence the famous quote: "The best material model for a cat is another cat, or preferably the same cat." Rather, it is to have good predictive power, or to explain some aspect of physical reality well (hence another famous quote: "All models are wrong (but some are useful)".

There's a beautiful example of this in the well-known Ising model in statistical physics (something I know a little about). The Ising model is, on the face of it, a model for the phenomenon of ferromagnetism. But in terms of physical veracity it's an absolutely rubbish model. It is desperately naive, and overall behaves nothing like real-world ferromagnetism - for starters, the classic version is a 2D model, whereas of course ferromagnets are 3D. And yet... it absolutely nails one crucial aspect of ferromagnetism, the phase transition at the Curie point (the critical temperature where a ferromagnet abruptly demagnetises). In fact just about everything we know about phase transitions in physics (and we know a lot!) can be traced back to studying the Ising model. So, it may be a "rubbish" model, but it's certainly an extraordinarily useful one.

So to what extent should we "believe" science? Ultimately, current science -- pretty much by definition -- represents our best state of knowledge about a given field given the available evidence to date. And yes, of course new or more accurate evidence can come to light which will force the science to update itself. But ask yourself: can you, even in principle, do better than current knowledge based on up-to-date evidence?

So if you choose "not to believe" current science, where does that leave you? Well, I suppose you can just throw up your hands and say "the science is rubbish - we know nothing about such-and-such". But that would simply be wrong, because in reality we (probably) do know quite a lot.

As for climate science, here's an interesting story: nearly 40 years ago scientists at Exxon knew about anthropogenic climate change (their bosses, of course, chose to bury or misrepresent their findings). They were good scientists. Their predictions of warming, it turns out, were frighteningly accurate.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"So to what extent should we "believe" science?"

Everything you said above this point seems to demonstrate why we should be critical of the climate bull spouted so far. You talk about stuff that works, which is very different to the climate stuff we are talking about.

"Ultimately, current science -- pretty much by definition -- represents our best state of knowledge about a given field given the available evidence to date."

I agree. Very good. And if we dont know enough then that is the current state of the science.

"But ask yourself: can you, even in principle, do better than current knowledge based on up-to-date evidence?"

Thats fine, if the answer is we dont know enough then we dont burn ourselves assuming an answer.

"So if you choose "not to believe" current science, where does that leave you? Well, I suppose you can just throw up your hands and say "the science is rubbish - we know nothing about such-and-such". But that would simply be wrong, because in reality we (probably) do know quite a lot."

Agreed. We await facts instead of abusing what little we know and then spinning it into a religion with its own messiah. This has moved away from being science. We have politicians telling us we have x days to save the earth (blown past these a few times) and even had adverts of drowning cartoon dogs if we didnt turn out the lights. We are throwing out energy generation and replacing it with technology that doesnt work.

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"Thats fine, if the answer is we dont know enough then we dont burn ourselves assuming an answer."

However, we actually do know rather a lot about climate science (note my point that warming predictions made in the 70s by Exxon climatologists were already pretty damn good). The picture you paint of our current state of knowledge is, if I may use your turn of phrase, "bull".

"We await facts instead of abusing what little we know and then spinning it into a religion with its own messiah."

But we know very much more than "little", and are not merely sitting around "awaiting facts". The evidence for anthropogenic warming and its consequences has been steadily accumulating for decades, to the point that trying to write it off as "inconclusive" (ironically, even the fossil-fuel companies no longer even bother trying to pull that one) comes across as either ignorant or downright duplicitous.

And I most certainly do not treat climate science as a religion. As a scientist myself, I naturally treat it the same as I do any other science (do you...? honestly...?) It seems very much to me that the climate-change denialist lobby has spun its very own anti-climate science mythology, replete with satanic "messiahs" and cabals of conspiratorial scientists owned by their shape-shifting Green lizard masters.

"We are throwing out energy generation and replacing it with technology that doesnt work."

There you go. A religious belief, against all real-world evidence, that renewable energy technologies "don't work" - as I sit here writing this on a machine powered by my local offshore wind farm.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"However, we actually do know rather a lot about climate science"

Yes. We know we dont know enough. The doom stories keep changing and falling away after enough time facing reality but the self inflicted damage is very visible and very real.

"The evidence for anthropogenic warming and its consequences has been steadily accumulating for decades"

And the failed predictions again and again and again. The same old same old crackpots shouting doom and still only causing problems with no results.

"And I most certainly do not treat climate science as a religion"

Congrats. So the 'science' has been caught pants down false, failed and abused. Its paraded around with a meat shield little girl as if its a challenge to reality. That is the reality of the so called 'science'. Any actual science is lost behind all that garbage and the pushed solutions dont work. Why would I take that seriously? How can you?

"It seems very much to me that the climate-change denialist lobby has spun its very own anti-climate science mythology"

Or just observed the claims, how crazy they are and them failing to come true. The rebranding exercises to cope with the failures while continuing with the same stupidity. Note how you call not believing in this bull 'mythology' when this garbage is tall tails on half truths.

"There you go. A religious belief, against all real-world evidence, that renewable energy technologies "don't work" - as I sit here writing this on a machine powered by my local offshore wind farm."

So your computer falls off when the turbines dont provide enough power? Its a statement of fact that the technology doesnt work, it cant work until energy storage is solved. I quote you elsewhere in this comment section- "Plus there are some promising energy storage options on the not-too-distant horizon.".

You believe that something that may or may not turn out to work will make the unreliable and currently doesnt work technology work. Is this science or belief? For how many years have we deployed technology that doesnt work? How long until this new technology works and is scalable?

Here is a good one for you. Schools were considering opening for only 3 days because of energy costs. 25% of our energy bills was green madness and the gov put even more into it behind the scenes. Vast investment in green energy and less energy, more expensive, energy poverty, etc. These are the observable reality. Is this worth your mythological fear?

Next problem is the solutions deployed dont fix the problem. Wind and solar need gas backup because it doesnt work (see your power supply). The majority of green energy in the EU is burning wood! Something considered more polluting in Co2 terms. Obama and co believe so badly they bought property next to the water they claim will go under with sea rise.

I suggest you sit back, relax and enjoy this amusing clip- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBf2PU_Bvog

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"There you go. A religious belief, against all real-world evidence, that renewable energy technologies "don't work" - as I sit here writing this on a machine powered by my local offshore wind farm."

So your computer falls off when the turbines dont provide enough power? Its a statement of fact that the technology doesnt work, it cant work until energy storage is solved. I quote you elsewhere in this comment section- "Plus there are some promising energy storage options on the not-too-distant horizon."

Thanks for selectively failing to quote the bit where I said that my local offshore windfarm is functional most of the time, and that I did not expect an immediate full switch-over to renewables. But I guess in your black-and-white world that is the only way it could happen... In the mean time, renewable energy is working. For me. Now.

You have still pointedly failed to answer my earlier questions; in brief:

1. Do you think it likely that anthropogenic warming is happening?

2. Assuming you accept that's at least a reasonable possibility, what do you think the likely consequences will be (with regard to quality of life, socially, economically and politically), and do you have any concerns about them?

3. Assuming that anthropogenic warming may actually be happening, and that the consequences may be, let's say, undesirable, what do you think we should be doing about that?

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Thanks for selectively failing to quote the bit where I said that my local offshore windfarm is functional most of the time"

Most!=all. So answer the question- "So your computer falls off when the turbines dont provide enough power?". We know the answer and it does you no favours.

"and that I did not expect an immediate full switch-over to renewables"

As it doesnt work. See Germany. See energy bills rising as energy production didnt thanks to... renewables. It isnt even about a full switch over to only using renewables, its the bloody tech doesnt work. See your PC not turning off when the power drops.

"In the mean time, renewable energy is working."

Derp. No. Again still waiting on battery technology to make the renewable tech work. Without that it dont. This is reality.

"You have still pointedly failed to answer my earlier questions; in brief:"

Wow you lie. Not even grey area you lie. See below-

https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/09/21/germany_ai_eagles_turbines/#c_4535162

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

Wow you lie. Not even grey area you lie. See below-

https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/09/21/germany_ai_eagles_turbines/#c_4535162

Oops, my bad (to be honest, that was so verbose and incoherent I don't think I even realised you were actually attempting to answer my questions).

Most!=all. So answer the question- "So your computer falls off when the turbines dont provide enough power?". We know the answer and it does you no favours.

Of course there is backup from the fossil-fuel and nuclear grid when the windfarm is not generating sufficient power. But, of course, for the majority of the time it is functional, that means less gas to burn. How is that not a good thing?

So... around we go again: most of my power is supplied by renewables most of the time. How that is twisted into "doesn't work" is quite beyond me.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Oops, my bad (to be honest, that was so verbose and incoherent I don't think I even realised you were actually attempting to answer my questions)."

I thought you were a scientist, surely you read? I could understand you asking for clarification if I wasnt clear about something or disagreeing with me, but that you would ask my view and then not even read it doesnt increase my opinion of random stranger on the internet claiming to know stuff.

"Of course there is backup from the fossil-fuel and nuclear grid when the windfarm is not generating sufficient power. But, of course, for the majority of the time it is functional, that means less gas to burn. How is that not a good thing?"

That is a good and valid question. So to run the wind farm it needs gas backup, which means not only having to construct the wind farms but also a gas power generator to produce enough power to cover the unreliable supply. By itself increasing costs with the only 'benefit' being a reduction in gas burning.

However instead of efficiently running a gas power plant which reduces costs further there is increased wear and tear on a gas power plant for ramping up and down. Yet based on the 'science' gas power gives off less co2 and so meeting targets could be achieved with more gas generation without the wind farm.

"So... around we go again: most of my power is supplied by renewables most of the time. How that is twisted into "doesn't work" is quite beyond me."

I say wind doesnt work (until the storage problem is solved) because (for example) if you had a working car you would expect it to take you from A to B under normal operation. If your car was intermittent it wouldnt be working. This is energy supply which isnt an intermittent requirement, its a requirement for our civilisation. It could be argued its less like a car and more like an ambulance.

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"That is a good and valid question. ... [some hokey 'analysis']"

And you have accurately costed the economics and worked out CO2 balances? I don't think so.

"However instead of efficiently running a gas power plant which reduces costs further there is increased wear and tear on a gas power plant for ramping up and down. Yet based on the 'science' gas power gives off less co2 ..."

Less CO2 than what, exactly? According to whom? Sorry, don't buy it.

"I say wind doesnt work (until the storage problem is solved) ..."

I completely disagree. That's disingenuous goalpost-shifting. Would you say that your car doesn't work because sometimes there's too much snow on the road to drive safely? Or that your mobile phone doesn't work because sometimes the battery runs out and you've no available recharging point, or there's no reception where you happen to be? Or your favourite jumper doesn't work because sometimes it's just too cold? Sorry, that's a rubbish argument.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"And you have accurately costed the economics and worked out CO2 balances? I don't think so."

Interesting that you put '[some hokey 'analysis']' to the entire section that burns down your piss poor argument and shows clearly that your beliefs dont make any sense. That you would moronically assume I would need to cost the economics of *your approch* expensive vs what we have already done previously is humorous but stupid.

"Less CO2 than what, exactly? According to whom? Sorry, don't buy it."

Not sure what you find confusing but here is some data for you- https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-fuel

"I completely disagree. That's disingenuous goalpost-shifting."

Its goalpost shifting to insist the technology we are to rely on works? And to point out technology that doesnt work? You might disagree except for your comments agreeing the technology doesnt keep your lights on, it 'mostly' does while relying on fossil fuel (gas).

"Would you say that your car doesn't work because sometimes there's too much snow on the road to drive safely?"

Would that be called normal operation? I am not talking about extreme situations I am talking about normal, day to day.

"Or that your mobile phone doesn't work because sometimes the battery runs out and you've no available recharging point, or there's no reception where you happen to be?"

What is it people say when their mobile has no reception? 'My mobile isnt working'! Failing to maintain your battery as not putting fuel in your car is not normal operation. Come back with the goal posts. If your mobile works intermittently it is considered not working!

"Or your favourite jumper doesn't work because sometimes it's just too cold?"

How is it not working? It is working just as a T-Shirt would be working but you are not using it correctly. Not normal operation. Getting it yet?

"Sorry, that's a rubbish argument."

Good luck with your next set of claims.

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"Would you say that your car doesn't work because sometimes there's too much snow on the road to drive safely?"

Would that be called normal operation? I am not talking about extreme situations I am talking about normal, day to day.

Um, yeah, snow is pretty normal in this (and many other) countries. Then you require expensive back-up options, like snow-ploughs and road-gritting. (And, BTW, you might describe the wind not blowing in the Channel as pretty abnormal ;-))

"Or that your mobile phone doesn't work because sometimes the battery runs out and you've no available recharging point, or there's no reception where you happen to be?"

What is it people say when their mobile has no reception? 'My mobile isnt working'! Failing to maintain your battery as not putting fuel in your car is not normal operation.

Don't know about you, but it is hardly uncommon to find oneself in a situation where your battery is going to run out even if you started out fully charged. (Yeah, I suppose you could carry a mobile charger... but I guess that means that your phone's own battery "doesn't work".) And it is pretty normal (in this and other countries) to find yourself in an area where there is simply no mobile (or mobile data) reception.

So by your logic, we should forget about mobile phones since, like windfarms, they don't work all the time (in non-extreme situations), and you need expensive back-up options like mobile chargers and satellite phones.

"Or your favourite jumper doesn't work because sometimes it's just too cold?"

How is it not working? It is working just as a T-Shirt would be working but you are not using it correctly. Not normal operation.

Hm, that's not what the instructions said. They said it would keep me warm, nothing about "extreme cold". Now I need an expensive back-up option like an overcoat.

Okay. Not all technologies work all the time under "normal" (whatever that means) situations. So, you know what? We use back-up options, and sometimes they are expensive, but hopefully we don't need to use them often enough that we'd write off the technology as "doesn't work".

PS. Were you not accusing me earlier of ad hominem abuse? Perhaps we can both tone down the language (sarcasm entirely acceptable, though).

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Um, yeah, snow is pretty normal in this (and many other) countries."

I am in the UK. I dont know where you live to have snow all the time as the norm. Or to have so much snow as normal not to be able to drive. You talk about the channel but sound like a guy I know living in Canada.

"(And, BTW, you might describe the wind not blowing in the Channel as pretty abnormal ;-))"

So the power output is reliable and doesnt need a gas backup then! Or no? Is it a variable output that requires the gas generation to make up the shortfall as normal operation?

"Don't know about you, but it is hardly uncommon to find oneself in a situation where your battery is going to run out even if you started out fully charged."

Never not once but I can believe it happens. Normal operation is to charge the battery if you expect the battery to work. Do you stand on the coast and blow to keep the turbines spinning?

"And it is pretty normal (in this and other countries) to find yourself in an area where there is simply no mobile (or mobile data) reception."

And when that happens what does it mean? (Read my previous comment but I will repeat) your phone doesnt work!!! People even say it when it happens!!!! How is this difficult to get?

"and you need expensive back-up options like mobile chargers and satellite phones."

In normal operation you carry a satphone? Definitely out of touch with reality. And how expensive is your phone charger? And do you keep buying new ones every time your gonna charge your phone? Wtf planet are you on?

"Hm, that's not what the instructions said. They said it would keep me warm, nothing about "extreme cold"."

You get instructions when you buy a jumper? I want you to know you have me laughing my arse off. This is funny.

"Okay. Not all technologies work all the time under "normal" (whatever that means) situations."

Try again. So far yet to give an example.

"PS. Were you not accusing me earlier of ad hominem abuse? Perhaps we can both tone down the language (sarcasm entirely acceptable, though)."

No that was John Sager. I called you a sandwich board nutter shouting about the end of the world. And Johns comment about your ad hominem abuse was in response to your insults to me so dont expect respect where you dont give it (although there is often a healthy amount of sarcasm in my comments).

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"I am in the UK. I dont know where you live to have snow all the time as the norm."

Didn't say that. But it happens.

"So the power output is reliable and doesnt need a gas backup then!"

Didn't say that. But it's pretty reliable most of the time.

"Never not once but I can believe it happens."

Oh, sure. Never gone out rambling in the countryside for a day? Travelled by train where reception comes and goes? Maybe you need to get out more. Or your ISP throws a wobble? (ISP technology "doesn't work".)

"your phone doesnt work!!! "

Okay, mobile phones are rubbish technology. They don't work. We shouldn't bother manufacturing or using them. Because (like windfarms) they don't work (sometimes).

"In normal operation you carry a satphone? ... Wtf planet are you on?"

Please look up "irony" and "sarcasm".

"You get instructions when you buy a jumper? I want you to know you have me laughing my arse off. This is funny."

Excellent. It was supposed to be. Please look up "irony", "sarcasm" and "taking the piss".

"So far yet to give an example."

Cars. Mobile phones. Jumpers.

"And Johns comment about your ad hominem abuse was in response to your insults to me ..."

Indeed, hands up, and I apologise. That's why I suggested we tone down the language.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Didn't say that. But it happens."

Yes you did- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2022/09/21/germany_ai_eagles_turbines/#c_4535971

In your response to normal day to day operation you said- "Um, yeah, snow is pretty normal in this (and many other) countries".

"Didn't say that. But it's pretty reliable most of the time."

Aka you agree it doesnt work as we have spent the last however many comments discussing. That it requires batteries to actually provide useful reliable power to the grid. Instead it needs a gas power plant which provides actually reliable energy on demand when the wind wont do.

"Oh, sure. Never gone out rambling in the countryside for a day?"

I guess I have been lucky with where I travel. I know there are places where signals dont reach but I cant say I have had that issue in the UK or in Europe. As for battery I kinda cheat as I only buy phones with high capacity batteries and my last dumb phone had a spare. But also when it runs low I charge it.

"Okay, mobile phones are rubbish technology. They don't work. We shouldn't bother manufacturing or using them. Because (like windfarms) they don't work (sometimes)."

You really need to buy a better phone. If yours is so bad its comparable to a wind farm in terms of reliability I can only hope you have a dud.

"Please look up "irony" and "sarcasm"."

Actually I was being sarcastic when I said- "In normal operation you carry a satphone? ... Wtf planet are you on?". I would have been surprised if you meant you did.

"Cars. Mobile phones. Jumpers."

Still being sarcastic and ironic or am I laughing at you being serious now?

"Indeed, hands up, and I apologise. That's why I suggested we tone down the language."

It happens and sure. To be fair I have only been responding recently to see what the next ridiculous comment you make is. Thank you for making me laugh while I finish these boring jobs off.

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"To be fair I have only been responding recently to see what the next ridiculous comment you make is."

And I for the desultory amusement of watching you bluster and squirm.

The point I was making, of course, is that your interpretation of "doesn't work" with regard to renewable energy technology (as compared with the everyday understanding of the phrase) is ludicrous, selective, disingenuous and inconsistent.

But I accept that you have painted yourself into that corner in order to maintain your belief system, so there is little point continuing with this conversation, which has become repetitive, circular, and increasingly dull.

See ya.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"The point I was making, of course, is that your interpretation of "doesn't work" with regard to renewable energy technology (as compared with the everyday understanding of the phrase) is ludicrous, selective, disingenuous and inconsistent."

Then you might want to make that point. Instead you have shown yourself wrong consistently and claim things that work dont, while things that dont work do. But then you claim your world is the right way around. The fact that I have consistently shown you incorrect and unable to present a case for your 'beliefs' and you hold on to them suggests they are too much a part of you for reality to persuade you different.

"But I accept that you have painted yourself into that corner in order to maintain your belief system, so there is little point continuing with this conversation, which has become repetitive, circular, and increasingly dull."

Tail between legs and over the horizon you go. But again thanks for the amusement. Just in case you are not trolling you do realise the reason for the 'circular' aspect of the conversation is I ask you for an example to prove your point and you cant give one, instead trying to justify your examples proving my point.

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

"I suggest you sit back, relax and enjoy this amusing clip- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBf2PU_Bvog"

Oh, great. I need to be lectured to by an alt-right non-climate-scientist culture warrior misrepresenting climate science? A self-publicist who epitomises the "stupid person's clever person"?

Pffsh.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@LionelB

"Oh, great. I need to be lectured to by an alt-right non-climate-scientist culture warrior misrepresenting climate science?"

Yeah ok I think I can see why you hold your beliefs as you do. Guessing you got stumped for a decent response or you also find him verbose and incoherent.

[LionelB]

Re: @Naich

Actually, he is very articulate - he lies with great panache. If scoundrels like him are your gurus, I can see where your beliefs are coming from. You're being suckered.

No thanks, if we're talking about climate science I'll rather pay attention to, y'know, actual climate scientists.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: @Naich

Epic post by Sir Bufton de Tufton?

[Tom 7]

Re: @Naich

I dont know if you heard of the Severn Barrage plan to extract power from the river flow and tides. It was stopped because it was thought it would annoy 85000 migratory birds that wont be migrating through there in 30 years because of sea level rise.

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@Tom 7

"I dont know if you heard of the Severn Barrage plan"..."wont be migrating through there in 30 years because of sea level rise."

I did not. But not migrating through there and the birds being killed are two extremely different things.

[Tom 7]

Re: @Naich

I live in an area with lots of turbines and lots of birds. The turbines dont seem to bring down many birds but the swallow population is dropping like a stone due to lack of insects. Something they are spraying on the crops may be the cause but whatever it is is killing a lot more than the turbines are.

One thing that baffles me is if they make all this noise people complain about why the bird dont avoid that. I wonder if little whistles on the blade tips might help. Or possibly church bells via pa - was out waling the dog on Monday watching a buzzard getting a lift of a thermal and the church nearby started up and it headed away from the row (I think they thought it would be a good time to blood their kids on the bells!)

[codejunky]

Re: @Naich

@Tom 7

"I live in an area with lots of turbines and lots of birds. The turbines dont seem to bring down many birds"

Cool. Glad to hear it. The Germans seem to think they do kill birds according to the article hence the point of the article.

"One thing that baffles me is if they make all this noise people complain about why the bird dont avoid that. I wonder if little whistles on the blade tips might help."

No idea, and maybe if they did make more noise it could help birds avoid them. The question worth starting with however is if we should be mass deploying these things anyway and thats not a positive answer. And if we shouldnt be mass deploying monuments to a sky god then this entire issue goes away pretty quickly.

[imanidiot]

Re: @Naich

Bird hearing isn't THAT great and they don't rely on it for navigation. A whistle on the blades probably won't make much of a difference for the birds but will drive any humans in the area absolutely batty. The biggest problem is that birds can't see the white gleaming blades very well against the bright sky, and even if there's anti-collision warnings on the tips their bird brains don't connect that that something moving around in a big circle is connected to the tower by a giant blade of death. As mentioned above painting one of the blades black (or putting a big black stripe down the front and back) let's birds see the motion and the fact that it's in fact a big thing moving in large circles and they'll steer clear.

[DrSunshine0104]

Kind of like the complaints put forth about the cost of mitigating climate change. Think it is expensive now? Wait until millions potentially billions of people have to migrate to avoid sea level rise. All the money in infrastructure and real estate that is now underwater. Having to move food production to new areas because they are now too wet or too dry. Our economy is based upon how the climate has been for the last 20,000 years. Yeah there has been blips in the 20,000 years where global avg temperature has risen or fallen but it has always returned to the mean and still yet, it killed a lot of people/animals in the process. Climate change is talking long-term permanent changes in a incredibly short geological time scale. Way too fast for evolution or adaptation to adjust, and potentially to fast for humans to compensate technologically.

[codejunky]

@John Sager

"We could, of course, can this shit and remove the wind turbines"

And admit this stuff doesnt work, ha! The green madness continues, energy prices rise and the return to dirtier forms of fossil fuel generation is the chosen way. But gives em the feel goodz

[John Sager]

Re: @John Sager

You would tend to hope that the commentards here would be of an engineering bent, so they would think a bit more about the downsides of where we are being forced to go. But no, the downvotes keep on coming ☹️

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going.

As far as I can see, many commentards of an engineering bent here clearly have been thinking about the problem at hand - and indeed have chipped in with interesting and plausible suggestions. As opposed to, like yourself, throwing up their hands and going "Oh, noes, there are some downsides, let's just give up and 'can this shit'."

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going."

Aka you feel guilty for whatever religious sins you hold in your head and not only wanna lash your own back in repentance but want everyone else lashed for your 'beliefs'.

"and indeed have chipped in with interesting and plausible suggestions."

To not munch up birds, but why are the birds being munched? For monuments to a sky god to make you feel better while the gas generators are fired up to provide the energy to keep lights on. The monuments are a problem because they are applied as a solution but they dont work in the first place.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

"Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going."

Aka you feel guilty for whatever religious sins you hold in your head and not only wanna lash your own back in repentance but want everyone else lashed for your 'beliefs'.

Sorry, not religious, don't deal in beliefs. As a scientist, I'm much more comfortable with evidence.

And as a human, I am genuinely concerned for the future of human and other species. If anyone's to be "lashed" for "beliefs", that lashing will be climate-induced, and those "beliefs" will be anthropogenic climate-change denialism (and "belief" it is, as it is most certainly not evidence-based).

To not munch up birds, ...

More gobbledegook. Wind, solar, and other renewable/sustainable energy sources are extremely effective, and already cheaper than fossil fuel generation (as we speak, where I live most of the power most of the time comes from an offshore wind farm). Nor do I discount nuclear, since you didn't ask.

[John Sager]

Re: @John Sager

I gather they don't switch you off when the wind doesn't blow, so where do you think your power comes from then? It's probably a gas-fired power station that isn't allowed to operate when the wind blows so its costs are thereby increased (amortised capital cost). Wind is only cheaper when you don't include the backup costs.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: @John Sager

And gas is only cheaper when you include the cancelling your defence budget because your enemy is now in charge of your economy, so why bother having all those shiny new f35s ?

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@Yet Another Anonymous coward

"And gas is only cheaper"

We have gas. We choose not to dig it up but we have gas. Think Germany does too and a few others.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

Happily, the Channel is a pretty damn windy place, and modern turbines don't actually need terribly high wind speeds (about 7 mph does it).

Of course I don't expect an instant switch-over to wind/solar/tidal, etc. But as new technologies and economies of scale kick in, renewables are becoming ever cheaper and more efficient, while fossil-fuel options, errm, are not (in case it had escaped your notice). Plus there are some promising energy storage options on the not-too-distant horizon.

Bottom line is, once you amortise the future (and, increasingly, present) costs of the consequences of burning fossil fuels at scale - flooding, storm damage, fires, drought, sea-level rise, crop failure, ... plus the millions of refugees from, and political instability cased by those things (cf. Pakistan), there is only one conclusion: simply, the world cannot afford (neither figuratively nor economically) to carry on business-as-usual with fossil fuels.

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Sorry, not religious, don't deal in beliefs. As a scientist, I'm much more comfortable with evidence."

Excellent so you can clearly call your previous statement hyperbole or plain bull- "Well, yes; we are being forced to go there by the far more calamitous downsides of where we have been going"

Assuming I understand your comment as hyping up the doom of MMCC co2 theory *all bow now*.

"And as a human, I am genuinely concerned for the future of human and other species."

Cool. I am human too and also have those concerns.

"If anyone's to be "lashed" for "beliefs", that lashing will be climate-induced, and those "beliefs" will be anthropogenic climate-change denialism"

Oh damn there you go with a belief in a myth. ACC has gone when they found their models missed out how things work in the real world and they couldnt find how to cause a tipping point into runaway climate change (previously run away global warming, previously global warming, previously global cooling). The modern one is climate change where we fear between 1-3C and not any time soon.

"Wind, solar, and other renewable/sustainable energy sources are extremely effective"

Back to beliefs. Sorry but nope. Solar works in places where it has enough sun to work and is applicable during daytime hours. Wind is very intermittent, goes dead over vast distances and fails to provide power when it is needed. That is why the 'saving grace' is energy storage if they can ever figure out a way to make it work and then make it cost effective.

"and already cheaper than fossil fuel generation"

Eh? In what world? It is currently cheaper than gas, and thats because we choose not to extract gas. Instead we claim to be green, beg Russia and others to dig theirs up and then condemn them for not being green. The hope in the UK was to frack thereby concealing the cost of green energy until greenies didnt like that either. That is why energy bills had been rising and 25% of our bills was green crap even though we were spending stupid amounts on monuments to a sky god.

"Nor do I discount nuclear, since you didn't ask."

Thats good. I dont bother asking because one green and the next cant agree if its good or bad. In fact we would have more nukes if the green nuts didnt stop them being built all the way back to when labour was in charge (and probably before too). Clegg's fighting against building them because it would only come online by 2022 should bring serious criticism considering the situation today.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

<sigh>Dammit, first it was the flat-earthers, then the creationists, then the 5Gers and anti-vaxxers... I know there's no point trying to reason with science-denialism, yet I fall for it every time. Just can't resist a tin-hat challenge, I guess.</sigh>

[John Sager]

Re: @John Sager

Ah well, I suppose an Ad Hominem will always close the argument. At least we don't get Godwin's Law on this topic.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

Make that "ad hominems" (plural) - dedicated to all the conspiracy nuts, tin hats and science deniers out there.

You're welcome.

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"<sigh>Dammit, first it was the flat-earthers, then the creationists, then the 5Gers and anti-vaxxers... I know there's no point trying to reason with science-denialism, yet I fall for it every time. Just can't resist a tin-hat challenge, I guess.</sigh>"

Sorry to hold up a mirror but your standing on a street corner with a sandwich board shouting 'the end is nigh'. Kinda like a lady I used to pass in town with a loud speaker shouting about how Christ is coming back soon.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

So following mainstream science is now some sort of extremist position? Depressing.

PS. My sandwich board actually reads: "I'm really quite concerned about this".

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"So following mainstream science is now some sort of extremist position? Depressing."

What science? Mainstream media and politics yes but where is the science? That you think you are peddling science is depressing.

"PS. My sandwich board actually reads: "I'm really quite concerned about this"."

Thanks for letting me know. If I spot you on a corner I will recognise you. Do you just stand there or shout out to try and save souls?

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

"What science?"

Seriously?!? Well, there go the remaining shreds of your credibility.

"If I spot you on a corner I will recognise you. Do you just stand there or shout out to try and save souls?"

I have a very quiet voice. I prefer to listen rather than shout. (Try that sometime.)

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"Seriously?!? Well, there go the remaining shreds of your credibility."

You say that without answering the line. Your credibility is with you standing quietly with your sandwich board on the street corner. The fact that you failed to answer the comment but again run away with insults again doesnt make me feel like I am losing anything.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

The question was risible. Shall I spell out the answer? The science is, as always, in the scientific journals* and reports. But of course you knew that.

*Annoyingly, some of it may be behind paywalls, although that is slowly changing (at my research centre we have a strict policy to only publish open-access).

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"The question was risible. Shall I spell out the answer? The science is, as always, in the scientific journals* and reports. But of course you knew that."

Which does not spell out doom.

"But of course you knew that."

Yup

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

You asked "What science?" - deeply disingenuous, since you obviously knew the answer. You then replied with... I don't know, a response to a different question?

"Which does not spell out doom."

Hmm, for various values of "doom"... let's agree It's not looking like increasing the total sum of human (or any other) well-being.

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"You asked "What science?" - deeply disingenuous, since you obviously knew the answer. You then replied with... I don't know, a response to a different question?"

I ask what science because as you point out in this comment, your on about doom. You seem to have the media if not the greta version of climate change which is why I am not convinced you are talking from the science.

"Hmm, for various values of "doom"... let's agree It's not looking like increasing the total sum of human (or any other) well-being."

Why would I agree to that? The climate changes and historically we have been even less prepared for the changes yet managed to survive through it. Climate change back towards an ice period would be deadly, a little warming improved life on earth.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

Why would I agree to that? The climate changes and historically we have been even less prepared for the changes yet managed to survive through it. Climate change back towards an ice period would be deadly, a little warming improved life on earth.

The climate changes naturally on geological time scales. The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. Current warming goes back less than a couple of centuries, in which time the global population has increased enormously, and human culture become far more globally interlinked and interdependent (e.g., in terms of agriculture and food supply). A "little warming" (and what does "a little" even mean to you?) in the current scenario, with the consequential effects of changing climate patterns, increased frequency of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, etc., seems highly unlikely to "improve life" on earth. Quite the opposite.

The science of which I speak (i.e., the science in the geological, meteorological and climate science journals) gives us a good idea of warming rates given the rate at which we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (also taking into account other factors such as deforestation and sea acidification), and also gives us a good idea of the consequences of warming for the climate and geophysical phenomena such as polar ice shrinkage, permafrost thaw and sea level rise. Yet I do not, and have not, spoken of "doom" - because, given the will, the current rate of warming can be curtailed.

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"The last ice age ended about 12,000 years ago. Current warming goes back less than a couple of centuries, in which time the global population has increased enormously, and human culture become far more globally interlinked and interdependent (e.g., in terms of agriculture and food supply)"

Almost like ice ages are bad for life and yet we know warmer climate is better for life. We know this as we know the climate has been warmer, with more Co2 etc. The interlinked and interdependent is one of the reasons we cope so well, because if one place suffers a problem the rest of the world still has supply.

"A "little warming" (and what does "a little" even mean to you?) in the current scenario, with the consequential effects of changing climate patterns, increased frequency of extreme weather events, rising sea levels, etc., seems highly unlikely to "improve life" on earth. Quite the opposite."

Again you claim it wont improve life without a clue/reason. You claim increased frequency of extreme weather events, which is disputable. You complain of rising sea levels when this is nothing historically. As for a little warming, they are talking about maybe the temperature rising 1-3C maybe assuming the models are right. Which goes back to the important question- if this is such a certain belief then why are we doing so much to do so much more harm in the name of green?

Burning wood chips from virgin wood transported around the world is apparently 'green'. Pushing unreliable energy sources that dont work as the solution causes countries to fall back on coal (brown coal even) and making people poorer for no measurable gain. Growing crops to turn into fuel during a food crisis. The green madness is putting Europe in for a cold winter. We have a measurable harm to life on earth as a direct consequence of green madness.

"and also gives us a good idea of the consequences of warming for the climate and geophysical phenomena such as polar ice shrinkage, permafrost thaw and sea level rise"

And yet is still in question, still very questionable predictions, and based on the idea of commanding the tide to go out. Unfortunately the major problem is MMCC is in the world of politics and religion instead of where it needed to remain in science.

"Yet I do not, and have not, spoken of "doom" - because, given the will, the current rate of warming can be curtailed."

Let me guess- more monuments to a sky god and maybe the sacrifice of the worlds poor?

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

"... and yet we know warmer climate is better for life."

An utterly meaningless statement, particularly in the context of current warming and its impact on climate, etc., etc.

"The interlinked and interdependent is one of the reasons we cope so well, because if one place suffers a problem the rest of the world still has supply."

Disputable (cf. the mayhem unleashed by one country cutting its gas supply to half a continent).

"Burning wood chips from virgin wood transported around the world is apparently 'green'."

Not in my book.

"Pushing unreliable energy sources that dont work ..."

Sure; much better to push renewable solutions which do work, such as wind, solar, tidal, etc.

"Growing crops to turn into fuel during a food crisis."

Really bad idea. Wouldn't recommend that.

"The green madness is putting Europe in for a cold winter."

I think you'll find that's because of a despotic lunatic and poor energy planning by many European countries.

"We have a measurable harm to life on earth as a direct consequence of green madness."

Do we have that? Who says (apart from some alt-right culture-war warriors)?

"And yet is still in question, still very questionable predictions ..."

According to some alt-right culture-war warriors, (as opposed to actual climate scientists).

"... and based on the idea of commanding the tide to go out."

Huh?

"Unfortunately the major problem is MMCC is in the world of politics and religion instead of where it needed to remain in science."

I'm all for remaining with the science.

"Let me guess- more monuments to a sky god and maybe the sacrifice of the worlds poor?"

Nope. Renewable solutions and massive research into same, especially energy storage.

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"An utterly meaningless statement, particularly in the context of current warming and its impact on climate, etc., etc."

Reiterated bull yet to be seen.

"Disputable (cf. the mayhem unleashed by one country cutting its gas supply to half a continent)."

Actually wrong. Since there is gas in Europe not limited to Russia and supplies have been redirected at a premium from China and India. Also it is important to point out the cutting of the gas supply was achieved by sanctions above all which were self imposed.

"Not in my book."

Which is worth piffle and squat because it is deemed green enough for most of the EU's green energy to come from it. UK using it too. This is what going green looks like, this is how serious we are about the science. Believe believe believe, but do what goes against the science.

"Sure; much better to push renewable solutions which do work, such as wind, solar, tidal, etc."

And yet you already know wind doesnt work. We established that ages ago. Solar only works in parts of the world where it works, not even in Spain.

"Really bad idea. Wouldn't recommend that."

Yet its all going green. This is the green world, and I agree its a bad idea.

"I think you'll find that's because of a despotic lunatic and poor energy planning by many European countries."

Poor energy planning is an understatement. The greenest of the green (Germany) having to go to brown coal due to the technology not working. Not your fantasy that it does but the reality that is biting cold.

"Do we have that? Who says (apart from some alt-right culture-war warriors)?"

Really? Please tell me you are either joking or one of those English prisoners just released from a hole in Russia and so havnt been here to notice.

"I'm all for remaining with the science."

Excellent. Go get to it, there is a lot you missed.

"Nope. Renewable solutions and massive research into same, especially energy storage."

That I would agree with. Lots of research to do so dont deploy half baked ideas to the grid but make some working solutions. Even better we could use some cheap energy to make such R&D and manufacture cheaper!!! But you wont want that, you want your 'mostly' working monuments to a fart god

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

"Reiterated bull yet to be seen."

The only one reiterating bull here appears to be yourself.

"Actually wrong."

Nope. Perfectly illustrates my point of the fragility of global inter-dependencies, especially in a context of dysfunctional geopolitics, unstable despots, short-termism and piss-poor planning.

"Also it is important to point out the cutting of the gas supply was achieved by sanctions above all which were self imposed."

Ah... so the the despotic madman responds with malice because some nasty, nasty people disapprove of his heroic nationalistic putsch, and consider it repugnant (and, in the longer term, dangerous and self-defeating) to continue business-as-usual with him. Also, it is important to point out that sanctions were not "self-imposed", unless you think Russia imposed them on themselves.

"Which is worth piffle and squat because it is deemed green enough for most of the EU's green energy to come from it."

Lies. Scroll down to the heading "Wind and water provide most renewable electricity; solar is the fastest-growing energy source". (Besides which, I've already stated that I'm not a fan of biofuels; I am not beholden to your, or anyone else's conception of what "green" should mean.)

IOW, the only "piffle" here appears to be yours.

"And yet you already know wind doesnt work."

We've been round that one and I've no intention of indulging your dishonest and tendentious "doesn't workism" any further.

"Poor energy planning is an understatement."

Yup, Germany made a terrible hash of it, putting all their fossil-fuel eggs in one basket. Then again, if they'd been more serious about actually committing to renewables at scale, that would have mitigated the impact somewhat. In the longer term, it may well be that Putin has done a favour to the drive towards renewables.

"Really?"

Yes, really. It's in the science journals and reports.

"Even better we could use some cheap energy to make such R&D and manufacture cheaper!!! "

More important to actually put some funding behind it, rather than effectively subsidising the fossil-fuel industry, who, as we know, will fight tooth-and-claw against what they (probably correctly, in the long run) see as an existential threat to their business model. Ironically, if it weren't that they are so idiotically wedded to short-termism, they are arguably the best-placed industry to actually be developing renewable solutions themselves.

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

Most of your comment being worthless bull but figured I would respond to this bit-

"Lies. Scroll down to the heading "Wind and water provide most renewable electricity; solar is the fastest-growing energy source". "

Growing means growing. Different measurement. See- https://www.politico.eu/article/the-eu-climate-energy-crisis-renewable-energy-must-stop-burning-trees/

"(Besides which, I've already stated that I'm not a fan of biofuels; I am not beholden to your, or anyone else's conception of what "green" should mean.)"

Good for you. So the green madness is a bad idea. Amazing we find some common ground.

"Then again, if they'd been more serious about actually committing to renewables at scale, that would have mitigated the impact somewhat"

Germany. The absolute poster child for green goodness. The epitome of green utopia. If only they had gone more green??? Your nuts.

"In the longer term, it may well be that Putin has done a favour to the drive towards renewables."

So far a drive for fracking in the UK and Germany building LNG terminals and exposure that unreliables aint the solution.

"More important to actually put some funding behind it, rather than effectively subsidising the fossil-fuel industry"

The subsidy is given to green tech. Unless you mean Germany where they subsidised green tech but it doesnt work, so they subsidised fossil fuel to keep the lights on. But in your topsy turvy world you wont understand that. Probably not in your comic pages science journals.

[LionelB]

Re: @John Sager

Most of your comment being worthless bull, I cannot be bothered to respond at all.

With the exception of this.

"The subsidy is given to green tech."

And not to the fossil fuel industry...? Seems the IMF disagrees.

[codejunky]

Re: @John Sager

@LionelB

"And not to the fossil fuel industry...? Seems the IMF disagrees."

The UK does not subsidise fossil fuel. Germany does to keep the lights on as I mentioned prior. Tax relief (not stealing) is not the same as subsidy (giving money). So yes the IMF disagrees by defining a subsidy as something thats not a subsidy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Brakes?

A lot of comments assuming the turbine will use brakes to slow the blades. Surely it would just slip into a cog with a lower ratio. When I'm driving and want my camshaft to rotate slower, I put my foot on the clutch and change into a higher gear. Doesn't take any significant energy and takes a very short amount of time.

[Dimmer]

Re: Brakes?

As one of my buds learned in college power distribution lab,

2 generators

180deg out of phase,

flip switch.

They do stop instantly.

(They rapidly disassemble as well)

[cantankerous swineherd]

the fittest are surviving...