Green Party of Sask AGM ; Hot Wind

I helped out at the Green Party of Saskatchewan’s AGM this year. It’s the first Green anything AGM I’ve been to. I’ve previously been to a Sask Liberal leadership convention as a member a decade ago, and the NDP convention last year as (a blogger) media. The results of the executive elections are available, and there’s a TV clip from local CTV News.

==

The anti-wind power crowd will be all over this story, purposefully (or accidentally) misrepresenting it as saying that wind turbines “cause” global warming. In fact, if you read it to the end, you’ll see the warming on the ground is localized. Needs more study, but it’s pretty unlikely that it contributes in the same significant way as coal fired electricity that wind is replacing.

About these ads

19 responses to “Green Party of Sask AGM ; Hot Wind

  1. Essentially all that this wind power study finds is that giant wind turbines at night mix the cold air near the ground with the warmer air farther up. So not creating any warming, just moving heat around.

    or if you prefer an analogy: if I take money from my chequing account and move it to my savings account I am not any richer.

  2. Vineyards and fruit growers have been using wind turbines for decades to modify local temperatures and keep their crops from developing frost on cold nights. Clearly this night warming would be a benefit for the plant growth and survivability. Perhaps this is something they don’t teach you as a liberal arts scientist!! ;) It is common knowledge in the agricultural community tho!!!

    Only an alarmist would link windmills as a cause for global warming, if only to creat a strawman debate.

    On the other hand, it does make you wonder about the ecomob’s ‘commitment’ to the environment when they promote this bird shredding, bat killing energy source. Not to mention the mountaintop decimation in the name of wind notrickszone.com/2012/04/28/how-vermont-protects-the-environment-warning-graphic-photos/

    But what do you expect from the eco1%’ers hell bent on enriching corporations while taking payoffs from them. WWF Scotland received more than $35,000 in the past year from one of the UK’s biggest energy firms, Scottish and Southern Energy. Friends of the Earth Scotland – supported by Scottish Power Renewables. Aedan Smith, of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland, say’s: ‘We are quite happy to be critical of individual wind farm developers, even if they happen to be in partnership with us’. (citations provided if requested). What payoffs do the bribers get? Well the RSPB sez “wind farms are not bird blenders”.

    • “Clearly this night warming would be a benefit for the plant growth and survivability”

      On some crops yes. On other no. Any crop that’s already up against its heat limits could be pushed past them with the slight amount of extra surface warmth.

      “On the other hand, it does make you wonder about the ecomob’s ‘commitment’ to the environment when they promote this bird shredding, bat killing energy source. Not to mention the mountaintop decimation in the name of wind”

      There is no free lunch. Every source of energy has it’s drawbacks, including wind. The Bird/bat problem can be mostly avoided with proper siting. But lets not trash the entire industry/technology because some sites were improperly selected.

      • There is no free lunch. Every source of energy has it’s drawbacks, including wind. The Bird/bat problem can be mostly avoided with proper siting. But lets not trash the entire industry/technology because some sites were improperly selected.

        Wind power is almost the *worst* possible choice: just about the most expensive to build, most expensive to maintain, least efficient, least reliable (the list goes on and on). Even the European nations are finally admitting this; the industry is so heavily subsidized that they simply can’t afford the poor KWH returns anymore (keeping in mind that coal-fired generating plants make up the difference…how “green” is that?).

      • Hi Dan! Clearly it’s warmer during the day than at night… as such “Any crop that’s already up against its heat limits” will have experienced this threshhold during daylight hours, not night when it’s cooler. It only takes a single killing frost to decimate a crop… not particularly a daytime affliction.

        As for your dismissal of environmental damage caused by wind turbines by saying “There is no free lunch.” I find quite irresponsible. Imagine if an oil executive had been equally dismissive of their actions. Here in Ontario the wind industry is exempt from environmental regulations, laws and studies that ALL other industries are held accountable to. Protected species are routinely shredded with impunity.

        Lastly you say “The Bird/bat problem can be mostly avoided with proper siting.”, I challenge you to list me a single geographical area where birds and bats don’t exist!!!!!! Wind turbine siting is dictated by wind speed and flow rates… the same criteria that dictate migratory routes. Because of ‘line loss’ inefficiencies they must be near population centers and take up vast areas for dispersant and non-interfering coverage… in short, in southern Ontario, FARM country. Birds are critical in reducing harmfull insect populations thus helping minimize pesticide use on crops. Dead birds can’t do this.

        I totally agree, there is no free lunch, this doesn’t seem to be the case for the wind industry however.

      • Fred you are 100% correct in your analysis, even if Sask is clueless to these realities.

      • Sigh… warmer nights have an effect on daytime temperatures. Point being that making generalizations such as “Clearly this night warming would be a benefit for the plant growth and survivability” are not particularly helpful.

        “Imagine if an oil executive had been equally dismissive of their actions.”

        Yes imagine that… oh wait we don’t have to imagine.

        Every power generation technology has its pros and cons which need to be weighed against other technologies. Wind power has its cons, so does solar, nuclear geothermal, coal… you get the picture.

        If killing birds automatically disqualified something we would quickly outlaw sky scrapers, power lines, and domesticated cats.

        “I challenge you to list me a single geographical area where birds and bats don’t exist!!”

        sigh again. Who said anything about finding an area where birds and bats don’t exist? Properly siting wind farms is done with a little more care than finding places with no birds and bats

      • Dan, Redjeff is going to argue with you, using his warped perception, until he’s blue in the face. He’ll throw up red herrings, but if you toss back a point he always has time to dance around it. His mock concern for birds would go out the window as soon as you point out something like this:
        http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CTVNewsAt11/20080430/ducks_oilsands_080430/

        As you know, the point of climate change denialists isn’t to win using logic, it’s to delay progress using unrelated facts in order to appear like a concerned and well read objector. All the unrelated facts in the world won’t change the singular fact that we’d all benefit if air pollution were reduced immediately.

      • Sasky, your description of CO2 as “air pollution”… something you inhale at 390ppm and EXHALE at 40,000ppm… clearly shows your limited understanding of chemistry and for that matter pollution in general.

        To give you an understanding, if we reduced the CO2 “air pollution” to below 150ppm all animal and plant life would cease to exist.

        Obviously liberal arts chemistry doesn’t allow for the necessity of such life giving pollution!!! ;)

      • “All the unrelated facts in the world won’t change the singular fact that we’d all benefit if air pollution were reduced immediately.”

        Redjeff, thanks for proving my prediction right again.

        You’re just perpetually oppositional to good sense like reducing air pollution, going as far as disputing facts and providing irrelevant facts that you claim back up your point when they are actually unrelated.

        You see, the facts I present are to support my argument that air pollution is needlessly killing people because change is possible now. Your facts attempt to prove that there is no risk from pollution, even though a child could see the opposite is true. Your motivation is very questionable.

        You know some other facts? Oxygen is essential for human life. Yet, if we were put into a room with 100% oxygen, that would be dangerous. Therefore, oxygen must be dangerous, using your faulty logic.

  3. (S)Hi Dan! Perhaps as you say “making generalizations such as “Clearly this night warming would be a benefit for the plant growth and survivability” are not particularly helpful.” but that doesn’t make them wrong. Talking about heat stress limits as THE governing factor tho’ clearly is.

    Can you cite an oil exec saying “There is no free lunch.”or anything remotely as such? As you have claimed “oh wait we don’t have to imagine.” and I would like to see your evidence rather than your opinion.

    Finally “If killing birds automatically disqualified something…” it doesn’t. Plain and simple, it doesn’t. What does is the points listed by Fred from BC above. Points that you’ve conveniently ignored while focused intently on my bird comments. My comment questions the eco-integrity of the eco-warriors eco-silence on the eco-decimation of birds.

    As Sasky has clearly noted himself, Syncrude was rightfully held accountable and forced to pay for the clear and unequivicol damage they did in 2008. When is the wind industry going to be held equally accountable and man up for the damage they are doing?

    Or, as it seems, are there special rules for special people?

      • Sadly Sask, you personify your own criticism of “(using) warped perception, until he’s(you’re) blue in the face… throw(ing) up red herrings, but if you toss back a point always ha(ving) time to dance around it. (and) His mock concern…” AND “delay progress using unrelated facts in order to appear like a concerned and well read objector.”

        Sad but true.

  4. Pingback: Good Thing It’s ^Not Pollution, Eh? | Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff

  5. Never give an inch!

    That seems to be the motto of some commenters here. Which of course makes this a boring thread to comment on (sorry Saskboy).

    • (S)Hi Dan! Perhaps there would be more give and take if it weren’t for the demonization of us deniers. Linked condescendingly to the Holocaust, an’ all. Perhaps if the likes of Fruitfly Davie S didn’t call for our incarceration for our scientific beliefs. Perhaps if we weren’t refered to as religious fanatics, flat earthers and anti-evolutionists. Perhaps if not everyone with alternate views of the scientific interpretation weren’t oil and coal shills, acting like tobacco companies, perhaps there would be more give and take.

      Perhaps if ‘the debate’ wasn’t over 5 years ago, or most importantly, universally, the predictions haven’t panned out… from polar bears to temperature to “green” jobs to economic failure… there would be more give and take.

      Alarmism chose the path, now it must follow.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s