[ExI] Richard Lindzen on climate hysteria
alfio.puglisi at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 17:09:04 UTC 2009
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM, John K Clark<jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Alfio Puglisi" <alfio.puglisi at gmail.com>
>> Wind energy instead can be a major player.
> Wind energy will never be more than a bit player, you're going to have to
> find something one hell of a lot better than that if you plan to get rid of
> fossil fuels.
You don't need something that will give you a 100% solution. For
"major player" I mean something comparable to hydro, or nuclear, that
is, something capable of supplying a good fraction of the total
electricity generation. Wind energy recent growth has been impressive
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Wind power usage ). It is
now making sizable power generation in small countries, and has now
appearing on big nations' charts.
Currently, the biggest problem with wind farms is overloading: when
there's too much wind, they have to shut down the farm because either
the grid can't take it, or the other plants can't power down fast
enough. But if you have a lot of storage at hand that can adsorb the
power surge, like, say, some tens of millions of parked electric cars,
this can play nicely. Various efforts, collectively called "smart
grids", are going in this direction.
>> I understood that your stance until now was "it's not happening" [global
>> warming] - is that incorrect?
> I think it would be more accurate to say I don't care very much if it's
> happening or not. I say this for 3 reasons:
> 1) Even if it is happening global warming would probably be a good thing on
> the whole.
> 2) Even if I'm wrong about the above with current technology there is
> nothing we can do about it so there is no point obsessing over it.
> 3) If in a century or two we find that it is turning into a serious problem
> we can deal with it then when our box of tools will be far more powerful
> than it is now.
Thanks for the explanation. While I disagree with you on point 1), I'm
reaching similar conclusions on point 2) - for different reasons. I
don't really think it's a problem of technology, just old-fashioned
market economics and psychology.
>> your waving of "millions" and "billions" of deaths and starving people
>> without good evidence
> Exactly what sort of evidence would satisfy you? If you're serious about
> this then the first thing you're going to have to do is get China to stop
> using coal, a substance much vilified but a substance that has lifted 400
> million people out of poverty in the last 20 years.
China is going to face some "interesting" years - their water supply
from the Himalayas is going to decrease a lot, and they know it. They
are currently in tight negotiations with the West over CO2 targets.
BTW, China is among the world leaders in wind energy and its recent
growth is just behind the US, which is up to now the biggest player.
> Then you're going to have to turn off all the other fossil fuels that drive our world.
Except for coal, the rest of the fossil fuels will take care of
themselves. Here is a list of the oil-producing countries already past
peak based on data from British Petroleum:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5576 Notice how even Saudi Arabia is
in uncertain waters.
More information about the extropy-chat