tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post8475010668059665434..comments2023-10-22T18:25:39.688+08:00Comments on The View from Taiwan: EPA against renewable energyMichael Turtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-23255720092321366282012-09-04T16:41:56.547+08:002012-09-04T16:41:56.547+08:00Has anyone else noticed EPA volunteers throwing th...Has anyone else noticed EPA volunteers throwing their weight around on beaches etc.? Interested to know if they actually have police powers to move people along and so forth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-26857690760941990712010-10-21T02:42:08.559+08:002010-10-21T02:42:08.559+08:0032 national academies of science have released a s...32 national academies of science have released a statement that they support AGW, there is not a single reputable organization of scientists anywhere in the world, which has released an opposing statement.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Academies_of_Science<br /><br />Lucky we have met the one person who can see through all the bullshit: Mike, a guy who "knows about science and mathematics". Good he came along, otherwise we'd have blindly put our faith in the hands of qualified scientists who have the respect of their peers.StefanMuchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13041616398172997165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-49047228239933906662010-10-19T23:04:34.118+08:002010-10-19T23:04:34.118+08:00"Mike, all of this is bullshit. Moreover, you...<i>"Mike, all of this is bullshit. Moreover, you know perfectly well it is bullshit. I have zero respect for people who argue in bad faith for wholly anti-science positions."</i><br /><br />No it isn't - and no I am not arguing in bad faith. You're the one dismissing my (verifiable) assertions without any reference to falsifying evidence. <br /><br /><i>"Stay off my blog. I don't have time to waste on flat-earthers, creationists, and agw denialists."</i><br /><br />Fine, I'll make my comments elsewhere - but you're the religious party in this, not me; I have never denied that some form of global warming could be possible, but I don't think the evidence is at all convincing.mikehttp://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-59140484830348223582010-10-19T20:41:04.266+08:002010-10-19T20:41:04.266+08:00To say nothing of last year’s Climategate scandal,...<b>To say nothing of last year’s Climategate scandal, in which the coding of surface temperature records was shown to have been done in such a way that the original data is practically irretrievable – hence CRU's denial of FOI requests.</b><br /><br />Mike, all of this is bullshit. Moreover, you know perfectly well it is bullshit. I have zero respect for people who argue in bad faith for wholly anti-science positions. <br /><br />Stay off my blog. I don't have time to waste on flat-earthers, creationists, and agw denialists.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-9251694801936307892010-10-19T19:56:01.473+08:002010-10-19T19:56:01.473+08:00"So basically, although you know little or no...<i>"So basically, although you know little or nothing about the science, you're convinced it must be wrong."</i><br /><br />I knew you'd fall into that hole. Actually I know enough science and mathematics to have had my doubts about AGW even if I had been a social democrat like you. To say nothing of last year’s Climategate scandal, in which the coding of surface temperature records was shown to have been done in such a way that the original data is practically irretrievable – hence CRU's denial of FOI requests.<br /><br />The AGW theory essentially depends upon accurately detecting changes in several extremely complex feedback effects; foremost among which is the carbon cycle itself. The two most difficult challenges for the (sensible proponents of the) theory are mathematical (i.e. accurately seperating single from noise in multiple sets of very complex non-linear data) and engineering (i.e. the practical difficulties in measuring and suitably coding critical data over a long period of time, e.g. calculating amounts of carbon dissolved in seawater around the poles). One of the emails in the Climategate leak (1054756929.txt) contained this revealing remark: “It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically”. That mathematical “stuff” is of critical importance to seperating signal from noise; that it could be referred to in such disparaging tones by a “scientist” is stunning. <br /><br />Of course there are other reasons to be skeptical, chief among which is the fact that the AGW hypothesis has been hijacked by socialists to call for more internationalized legislation, regulatory powers and taxation of market activity.mikehttp://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-48613247943150428182010-10-19T14:50:46.510+08:002010-10-19T14:50:46.510+08:00Mike, you mention hydrogen fuel cells, but these a...Mike, you mention hydrogen fuel cells, but these are not a power source, but rather better considered as power storage.<br /><br />Hydrogen, unlike our favorite carbon products, is not readily available and must be produced. The 2 primary ways are stripping Hydrogen from our favorite petroleum product, or by electrolysis (which requires electricity to be produced (probably from our favorite carbon product)).<br /><br />Fuel cells (in relation to cars) are only "green" in that efficiencies in production & emissions control can be centralized at 1 facility. There is no concern of unburned hydrocarbons that have to be addressed at each an every car. It also makes carbon sequestration possible, although I just consider that to be the atmospheric equivalent of a land-fill.Robert R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/12956389352825464115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-87316427873123894562010-10-19T13:39:46.860+08:002010-10-19T13:39:46.860+08:00Thanks Mike. So basically, although you know littl...Thanks Mike. So basically, although you know little or nothing about the science, you're convinced it must be wrong. <br /><br />I understand.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-41620147004463447832010-10-19T08:52:38.057+08:002010-10-19T08:52:38.057+08:00"...have you ever read an actual peer-reviewe...<i>"...have you ever read an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper on climate change?"</i><br /><br />It's funny you should ask, because although the answer is of course a no (at least nothing more than abstracts, though I do ocassionally read the likes of Climate Progress) I often find that when I ask AGW proponents (like, very recently, David Reid for instance) to cite me the scientific evidence for AGW related claims (such as that sea levels around Taiwan are rising) I come away empty handed...<br /><br /><i>"To all the renewable energy haters here, do you have some better ideas?"</i> I don't in fact <i>hate</i> renewable energies - I just think that the question of who pays for them, along with fossils and nukes, should be answered by the $ of people who really want to pay for them (i.e. the rest of us should not be forced into paying). I actually think solar and wave may be perfectly viable in certain defined circumstances. As to alternatives, I mentioned hydrogen fuel cells in my first post, although I admit I don't know how likely it is the safe storage problem will be solved in the short to medium term.<br /><br />I can say something else. The one thing I do really like about solar is the potential it would bring its users, given suitable battery development, for network independence and secondary markets - which I think in the short to medium term ought to be a much more salient goal than developing renewable sources of energy per se.mikehttp://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-63008013076283545552010-10-19T03:10:34.903+08:002010-10-19T03:10:34.903+08:00To all the renewable energy haters here, do you ha...To all the renewable energy haters here, do you have some better ideas?<br /><br />We WILL run out of fossil fuels, its NOT VIABLE (and in the long run possible) to run on nuclear power only, especially not on a global scale. So whats left? Wait and pray that nuclear fusion will arrive just in time to save us before our grandchildren can go back to life in the caves?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-46166589475093867922010-10-18T19:12:51.283+08:002010-10-18T19:12:51.283+08:00mike, I already know the answer to this question, ...mike, I already know the answer to this question, but have you ever read an actual peer-reviewed scientific paper on climate change?Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-73153913394303373512010-10-18T19:04:52.426+08:002010-10-18T19:04:52.426+08:00"Fossil fuels are killing the poor, of course...<i>"Fossil fuels are killing the poor, of course....not to mention destroying the earth."</i><br /><br />Of course there are externalities, but the fact is fossil fuels have powered a global economy and kept untold numbers of people all around the world alive and warm for nigh on a century. <br /><br />As for destroying the earth... not even the errors-R-us IPCC is as outrageously incredible as that.mikehttp://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-77661377425176154912010-10-18T17:59:19.187+08:002010-10-18T17:59:19.187+08:00to pretentiously call on the government to steal f...<b>to pretentiously call on the government to steal from other poor people because the Church of Green knows best.</b><br /><br />Don't be an idiot. Who do you think the costs of coal and natural gas extraction fall on? Do you think the cancer plume in western pa and along the ohio river basin involves mostly the rich? Wake the hell up! Fossil fuels are killing the poor, of course....not to mention destroying the earth.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-29617679071357678032010-10-18T17:51:52.013+08:002010-10-18T17:51:52.013+08:00"Coal and oil and nukes are far more subsidiz...<i>"Coal and oil and nukes are far more subsidized than any renewables, and far more destructive."</i><br /><br />The subsidies for nuclear are not necessitated by energy efficiency problems - unlike solar and wind. <br /><br />As to whether they are more destructive, not only is the problem of disposing of spent fissile material not nearly as hazardous as you imply, but the distortion of capital allocation by subsidies for solar and wind has its own significant costs - the brunt of which, as Okami has correctly pointed out - will be borne by the poor. <br /><br /><i>"No, if I were poor I'd still be smart enough..."</i>... to pretentiously call on the government to steal from other poor people because the Church of Green knows best.mikehttp://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-48869538503410438872010-10-18T16:11:12.690+08:002010-10-18T16:11:12.690+08:00Then there is just the "stick the poor" ...<b>Then there is just the "stick the poor" message in artificially raising energy rates. I somehow imagine that if you were poor your attitude would be quite different.</b><br /><br />No, if I were poor I'd still be smart enough not to believe all the nonsense propaganda in that mess you just posted. Coal and oil and nukes are far more subsidized than any renewables, and far more destructive.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-47280512932836900832010-10-18T13:56:53.511+08:002010-10-18T13:56:53.511+08:00The real key thing you miss Mr. Turton is that win...The real key thing you miss Mr. Turton is that wind and solar are inefficient, dangerous, and require loads of taxpayer support to be even remotely viable. They're normally subsidy cows milked by the politically connected and an inefficient use of capital. <br /><br />Windmills are ancient. Now if they were such a great idea to be used as electricity generation, don't you think it would've already been done? Then you have the problem of scale that is the opposite of what the power lines are normally used for. You have to take all that windmill power and run it through a transformer in order to be able to run it to the end user. Then there are the disgusting corruption and rent seeking of the system in place for them. Like the recent Google windmill farm that is actually a play to run power lines from a cheap generating area to a more expensive one. The fact that they are often window dressing for natural gas plants that actually generate electricity reliably, cleanly and cheaply. Then there's the noise and damage they cause to local avian and bat populations. <br /><br />Then we get to solar electricity, which uses really nasty chemicals to make the panels, then requires large amounts of land and can only generate power during the day when it's sunny. It's been a pipe dream for 3 decades. This one was the mother of all rent seeking scandals as what recently happened in Spain where due to generous subsidies renewable energy took off and solar farms were generating power in the middle of the night using heavy oil generators. Do we really want to implement the policies of a nation that is going to help bankrupt the EU and has 20% unemployment?<br /><br />Then you get on about cheap power and the dirty and power hungry industries that need it. You know like Iceland who thanks to geothermal industry leads the world in clean cheap energy also using that clean energy to run smelters. Then there's Denmark who supposedly has a clean energy due to windmills but actually has one by importing it from Sweden who generates their power mostly from nuclear and hydroelectric. <br /><br />Then there is just the "stick the poor" message in artificially raising energy rates. I somehow imagine that if you were poor your attitude would be quite different.Okaminoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-14869308007730875282010-10-18T11:08:54.119+08:002010-10-18T11:08:54.119+08:00Apologies for the slightly mangled English in my e...Apologies for the slightly mangled English in my earlier comment. I think everyone can still understand.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13061413827755873948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-65173174996726377772010-10-18T10:26:27.019+08:002010-10-18T10:26:27.019+08:00All good points posted above just makes me think a...All good points posted above just makes me think and realize...that countries that once were/on the boarder/are still 3rd world power countries are leaps and bounds ahead of us in the race for renewable energy dominance...as American's this could be a huge cash cow/job provider but we may be letting the opportunity pass us by?Yes2Greenhttp://www.reepedia.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-63431541148121504182010-10-18T09:44:40.390+08:002010-10-18T09:44:40.390+08:00Ithat might forced some changes in energy and indu...<b>Ithat might forced some changes in energy and industry policy. Instead we got more of the status quo (and the fourth nuclear power plant is still not operational!).</b><br /><br />Yes. The defeat on the 4th nuclear plant was a huge setback for Taiwan. I read on several sites that there is still no island-wide wind energy assessment.Michael Turtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17974403961870976346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-27728735489973469262010-10-18T00:25:55.581+08:002010-10-18T00:25:55.581+08:00On top of this, Taiwan is no longer in a recession...On top of this, Taiwan is no longer in a recession and so increasing prices won't be a big shock to industrial users. Double those prices!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-39884677620472615252010-10-17T22:55:43.516+08:002010-10-17T22:55:43.516+08:00This post made me think of how different it might ...This post made me think of how different it might have been if Chen Shui-bian had been able to stop the construction of the fourth nuclear power plant. Ithat might forced some changes in energy and industry policy. Instead we got more of the status quo (and the fourth nuclear power plant is still not operational!).Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13061413827755873948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10698887.post-91490430180035840182010-10-17T22:08:47.645+08:002010-10-17T22:08:47.645+08:00"Low electricity costs have all sorts of nast...<i>"Low electricity costs have all sorts of nasty effects."</i><br /><br />Which is one reason why the monopoly over electricity production and distribution should be broken up appropriately toward the establishment of a free market in electricity production. Of course that won't happen - because of the mad impulse to socialize economic production as much as possible. <br /><br />You complain about low electricity costs and the effect they have on the development of renewables, but you must realize that, under the current monopolistic arrangement, raising the price of electricity will effectively result in the poor having to subsidize the rich, solar-panel owning elites. And for how long? What a disgusting injustice. <br /><br />At any rate, energy investment in a truly free market would surely coalesce around technologies that offer some possibility of network independence with great value for money. Principally these would comprise variations on nuclear power (e.g. radioisotope batteries) and hydrogen fuel cells, with solar, wind and the like attracting only a tiny fraction of that investment. Why? Because solar and wind are so inefficient and therefore expensive as to seldom make any financial sense.mikehttp://www.mirrorsignalmove.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com