The Climate is Changing – So Should We poster (photo from Pexels by Markus Spiske)
The human race seems to be marching – or possibly racing – towards an apocalyptic climate disaster, right? You’d certainly think so from the mainstream media, not to mention Greta Thunberg and protest groups like XR – their website says “Our world is in crisis. Life itself is under threat.” According to the media, everyone on the planet agrees, bar a few nasty (and nutty) climate change sceptics.
As with most things, it’s a bad idea to simply believe everything you hear about climate change in the mainstream media – especially when it’s painted as black-or-white or overly simplistic. But where to find some information that isn’t just following the main narrative?
We were recently recommended the Watts Up With That? (WUWT) website, which Wikipedia calls “a blog promoting climate change denial”.
The site responds to mainstream media articles about climate issues. For example, an article in the Guardian last week (5th May 2023) asserted that extreme temperatures are rising faster than climate models, particularly citing a heatwave across Spain and Portugal. In response, a post on wattsupwiththat.com reviews the Guardian article and points out some contradictory facts, including a recent study in the Lancet that showed more people die from cold than heat in Spain.
As well as daily articles, the site has a bunch of reference pages with charts, for example giving global temperature. They also review climate science books. One of the most useful features is a list of bookmarks linking to other useful sites and articles.
WUWT seems very well written, and interestingly, its author Anthony Watts (who has a science and blogging background) was not a climate sceptic until the mid-1990s. We think it’s definitely worth a look.
WUWT links to Everything Climate for a variety of information on “the data and the theories” regarding climate change and “claimed dangers”, although most of the pieces here seem to be undated, which is a bit unhelpful.
Jennifer Marohasy’s blog is also worth reading – I found her via a link from WUWT – and her information about coral reefs is extremely interesting.
If you’re interested in climate-sceptic writing, you could consider reading Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom by Patrick Moore (co-founder of Greenpeace) which is available on Kindle Unlimited. (Disclaimer: we haven’t read it yet.)
And for balance, here are some sites with a more mainstream point of view:
The IPCC – the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – is the United Nations (UN) body responsible for assessing the science related to climate change. You can find all its reports on the website.
The climate area of NASA’s site has a piece on global warming versus climate change, and a section on scientific consensus which says that “evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and it’s ocean basins”. They do note later on the page that “… climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities”. (Those are my italics for emphasis.)
Yale Climate Connections has a list of resources to “help you understand the key facts about human-caused climate change”.
Skeptical Science says it’s “getting skeptical about global warming skepticism” and the site includes a handy guide to skepticism.
Happy researching, and as always – make up your own mind.
It is generally acknowledged that we cannot keep using fossil fuels for ever – we need alternative energy sources, especially as we approach (or perhaps have already reached) peak oil. And governments worldwide are determined to march us towards Net Zero. However, while there seems to be plenty of encouragement to invest in wind power, there are those who think that wind is definitely not the answer.
A recent Zero Hedge article discussed Professor Wade Allison’s paper that says wind power is failing on every count, so we thought we’d look into wind power in some more detail.
How do wind turbines work?
As well as the blades, a turbine includes a generator, gearbox and speed brakes. It’s a complex system. Wind turns the propeller-like blades of a turbine around a rotor, which spins a generator, which creates electricity. The US Department of Energy has information on this: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/how-do-wind-turbines-work
The most visible parts are the blades, which are manufactured using a composite mix of glass, carbon fibre, and plastic. This unique material gives the blades the strength and durability to do their job.
Generating rubbish?
A big issue is that at the moment, the blades can’t be recycled, although some people are reusing them. The World Economic Forum concedes that it’s a problem: “… disposing of retired turbine blades has become a headache for the renewable energy industry. They’re made of materials that can’t easily be recycled.”
However, the world’s first recyclable wind turbine blade has now been produced, so perhaps future builds might be more environmentally friendly.
What else do you need to install a wind turbine?
As well as manufacturing and transporting the turbine, you can’t just plonk it down anywhere. The location needs to be suitably windy (but preferably not too windy) and you have to prepare the site. Utility Smarts says that the typical base of a 1 MW turbine is around 15 metres in diameter, and 1.5 to 3.5 metres deep, so using around 130-240 cubic metres of concrete and potentially 150 metric tons of steel. Then of course you need to have roads in place to physically move the huge turbines to the site – so those might need to be built too.
So how much do turbines cost?
Semprius, a company specialising in renewable energy, estimates the total cost (in US dollars) of an average turbine as $2.5 to $4 million; the most powerful 12 MW turbines can cost up to $400 million to manufacture and install. That’s a lot of money for something that will only last 20 to 30 years. They say that:
“Turbines that are properly maintained and occasionally have their parts replaced will last a full 25 to 30 years. But if the operators fall behind on maintenance, the turbines may face an early death. This is especially true for wind farms in harsh environments, such as those out at sea (whose replacement is much costlier, due to their geography).”
Are turbines bad for wildlife?
There has been a lot of concern regarding birds being killed by wind turbines, particularly apex predators like eagles and hawks. A 2022 article on Daily Sceptic was extremely concerned about bats being killed by onshore turbines, and James Delingpole has long been an opponent – in this article from ten years ago he describes them as “bat chomping and bird slicing”.
As well as flying creatures being killed directly by colliding with turbine blades, they can be affected by direct habitat loss, disturbance and displacement. However, according to its website the RSPB seems fairly unperturbed by this and their website says they work with developers to install wind farms responsibly. In the US, American Bird Conservancy takes a dimmer view and says turbines are a threat to birds; they too work with developers to try to minimise impact on wildlife.
… and bad for humans?
There’s an argument that quality of life is reduced by being in proximity to turbines – perhaps they seem okay off in the distance, but nobody really wants to live right next door to massive steel objects, no matter how much energy is produced.
There have been lots of reports of people struggling with health issues caused by the sound of the blades, usually described as a low-frequency hum. These reports are usually dismissed, although it’s worth pointing out that as everybody is unique, some people could be badly affected even if most have no problems. The turbines not only produce sound but also affect air pressure, so some people may be more sensitive to air pressure changes, resulting in discomfort or illness.
Show me the money?
Somebody must be making lots of money from wind turbines, right? Earlier this month the UK government recently announced £205 million for British renewables. In September 2021 the UK government announced a “milestone subsidy scheme” of £265 million for renewables, including £200 million for offshore wind farms. Despite some comments in the press about the cost of offshore wind power falling in recent years, it seems that wind farms continue to be heavily subsidised.
A May 2018 article from the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) noted that the International Energy Agency (IEA) had calculated that in 2016 subsidies for renewable energy technologies amounted to US$140 billion. They also said that fossil fuels received about US$260 billion in the same period, although fossil fuel subsidies had fallen about 15% from the previous year.
The ONS says that wind power is one of the largest sources of renewable electricity in the UK and is expected to continue to grow as we head towards the target of “Net Zero”. It says that the UK generated 75,610 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity from both offshore and onshore wind in 2020 – and that “the offshore and onshore wind sectors generated almost £6 billion in turnover in 2019.” Yet in November 2022 the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) was asking why “unsubsidised” wind farms are getting constraint payments – payments to reduce their output. The REF says that the cost to consumers totals well over £1 billion since the payments began in 2010.
So – positive or negative?
Are turbines a good source of renewable energy, and worth investing in to improve them? Or should they be binned as a waste of time? What do you think? Professor Allison’s paper is worth reading (link below).
