Is wind so unrelialbe as to not be an option?

One side of the global warming argument argues that renewables are too unreliable, particularly wind to be counted on in an energy mix and that wind is a waste of money.  Is that true?

First, the anti-AGW folks argue over at WattsUpWithThat:

"Wind power at most has a 30% utilization factor (and I’m being generous). MidAmerican Energy’s stated 20% wind capacity (actually, its 20% “renewables”, which includes hydro and biofuels, but you probably knew that) works out to well below the the magic grid stability number of 10%, above which wind power would destabilize the grid."

One energy company in Iowa, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, seems to be showing that is untrue.  MidAmerican states:

“At the end of 2009, MidAmerican had available nearly 7,200 megawatts of generating capability: approximately 52 percent fueled by coal; 21 percent natural gas and oil; 20 percent wind, hydroelectric and biomass; and 7 percent by nuclear. Production costs at our coal-fueled generation stations are lower than regional and national averages. The company has majority ownership in five of the six jointly owned coal-fueled generating stations in Iowa.”

How much of that is wind? 900 MegaWatts of 7,200 or 12.5%.

MidAmerica just announced an additional 593 MW of wind, for a total of approximate 1600 MW:

http://midamericanenergy.com/wind/news.aspx

This takes their wind amount to about 20%.

The point is, doing renewables can be done economically, or I highly doubt Berkshire Hathaway would be doing it. Again, look to real data and not to internet chat or biased sources, go look for yourself and do the math.

Global Warming, or what both sides don't want you to know

This will be one of many posts on the global warming debate, and you will see that I believe both sides have valid and important points to make, but as with most arguments that have become politicized the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.  Why do I believe this?

It is certainly not true that Greenland is going to melt this decade, or this century, but that doesn't stop people from saying it will:

Gore stated “a 75 per cent chance the entire polar ice cap will melt in summer within the next five to seven years”

This is nearly impossible to even contemplate, and the science, even the science from researchers strongly convinced of global warming does not support this view.  Here is a link to Cryosphere Today, a website that American tax dollars pay for and shows a drop in ice in the Arctic (but a gain in the Antarctic) in recent years.  I will post on sea ice in another post, but for now lets focus on how much ice their really is at the poles:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

On the other side we have people stating the carbon dioxide level is irrelevant to global warming, or that it may promote cooling:

http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php

This is also untrue as we know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and will help trap heat in the atmosphere.

Thus, both sides take extreme positions that are not supported in science.  Where is the data we need to answer the question on global warming and it effect on the planet?  Unfortunately we do not have all the data, and the models are attempting to model a complexity and feedback mechanisms that we do not fully understand. 

So what is the point?  What can we do in this noise machine of both sides screaming they are correct, when the facts say they are either wrong, or taking grossly simplistic positions?

We need to look at the facts and attempt to figure out who is what side and whether their particular interpretation of the data can be trusted, based on their statements and positions.  This is my major problem with global warming science today, scientists are no longer simply analyzing the data and changing position as the data changes but in fact are advocating for policy positions.  This should not be acceptable, and thus we need to more fully question een our national labs as it realtes to this topic.  Why do I think this?

It is much more than Climategate that makes me question.  It is James Hansen, who runs the lab that determines the global average temperature for the U.S. government being ARRESTED outside the White House in an anti-global warming protest.  Does this man seem the dispassionate scientist who can remove his own personal biases and do the very hard work required to get to a correct number?  It is also not the Climategate emails that bother me, it is the fact that University of East Anglia DESTROYED the original data used to create their model, which means it can never be double checked by other scientists usinjg the same data set.  This should infuriate you as American taxpayers funded this English university to determine the correct numbers.

On the other side, clean energy is something we should advocate for many reasons beyond global warming and carbon dioxide.  Dependance on foreign il is causing movement of money to the Middle East in historic proportions.  The movement of oil comes at great cost, and even a few oil spills at the wellhead or from ships or piplines cause great environmental harm.  It should also infuriate you that oil companies actively advocate on the policy level AGAINST green energy.

So what is the point?  The point do not trust your news source and know the bias of the news source as well as the scientist/reseacher/talking head being interviewed or quoted.  Truth is hard to find, and we need to work to find it while always questioning and looking for as much primary data as we can find ourselves.  Luckily, we have the internet and it is a great resource if you use it for more than simply confirming your own biases.

The goal of this blog

This blog is meant to be taken in a bit whimsical way, but whimsy based on scientific and data based approaches to thinking.  Our discourse has become more about the number of times an argument is repeated and not about the factual basis for the argument.  This has not been uncommon in human history though, and it should not panic us as we are all simply herd based mammals and we continue to act as if we are.  We depend too much on what we think, and we often do too much searching for data to validate an already formed belief instead of looking to data to inform our belief BEFORE we take a position. I hope to take a whimsical look at the plusses and minuses of different positions, or at least provide data you might not have seen.

Looking forward to working together.