Monterrey Wind Farm Delay a Big Win for Dirty Condor Bird Dropping Interests.

[NNadir]

A secret cabal of 150 unelected http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x224874">dirty birds, hiding behind "endangered species laws," funded by big wing interests is delaying the expansion into every valley, crook, mountain top, desert and dessicated dry lake bed in California marvelous "green" windmills filled with ton quantities of dangerous fossil fuel based lubricants that occasionally burst into flames.

This dastardly scheme against electric cars and the endless stream of asphalt and concrete connecting on which they upon which they depend as vital habitats, and the endangered desert tract housing cul-de-sac species that flower and depend on chaparral fires to reproduce, is funded by an elitist organization known as "Ventana Wild Life Society."

Wild life my ass. They wouldn't know a good kegger party in the pack of my F150 pick up truck that could be fueled by electricity or wind powered hydrogen (except for the fact that I'm waiting for the super delicious model to http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/10/1016_TVhypercar_2.html">hit showrooms in 2005) if I invited them to one, which I wouldn't, since they're obviously bird brains.

http://www.ventanaws.org/pdf/press_releases/Condor%20and%20Wind%20Power%20Report.pdf">California Condors and the Potential for Wind Power in Monterey County.

Let's stop the bird shit now. It's damn hard to remove from my windshield, meaning I'm often delayed several minutes in my quest to get stuck in traffic in my swell F150 that could be electric some day.

[wtmusic]

1. The turbines are much less efficient when slicing through flocks of

those huge ugly birds.

At least I think so. Chicken gun testing would help shed some light on this controversial hypothesis.

[NNadir]

2. I say we just set up a drive up chain of Col Sander's Condor Puree stands on nearby roadways.

[Ready4Change]

19. Depends.

If the birds hit the blades while flying in the right direction they could add energy?

How many gigajoules are in a condor, anyway? Can we genetically engineer them to be larger/contain more energy?

[Wilms]

3. Where can I learn more about uranium mill tailings?

[wtmusic]

5. LIfe on earth will be toast in under 1,000 years

if CO2 production continues unchecked.

Who's going to be drinking the water for the remaining 9,999,000 years?

[Wilms]

15. However alarming and true, it doesn't prove nuclear power as a good remedy.

I'm scared enough without frightened logic.

[wtmusic]

20. Frightened logic is evaluating dangers 10 million years in the future.

There is no other remedy than nuclear power, right now. Although it's probably already too late.

[kristopher]

26. Why do you make false statements? Nuclear is a bad choice.

Resource availability and ready to deploy technology are basic to this analysis. Nuclear is a poor choice.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[NNadir]

8. You can learn what a picocurie is, and then check the openly published

data for the concentration of radioelements in Lake Mead.

If you're sophisticated, and are really interested in learning something, you can compare these numbers with risk, comparing the risk of say drinking a gallon a day of Lake Mead water, with driving to the supermarket to get bottled water.

A similar situation was written about where the citizens of Sparta New Jersey, unpon learning that their water was naturally contaminated with natural uranium began to drive their stupid SUVS to the firestation to get drinking water because they faced a terrible risk of 1 in 100,000 of getting cancer if they drank two liters of well water every day for 70 years.

[Wilms]

14. No worries. Sure.

Let alone the expense paying out lawsuits.

What's the "carbon footprint" of all the activities including mining, disposal, construction, decommissioning? The whole enchilada.

Have we considered how it merely makes it easier to continue habits destructive in the long run?

[NNadir]

24. There are entire journals and vast numbers of publications on the externalities of energy.

I personally have thousands of papers on this subject in my files. They do not, by the way, all say the same thing, so in order to say that one understands energy, one must read broadly, understand consensus and above all, engage in some mysterious process called critical thinking.

Anyone with access to a good scientific library can read these papers

Nuclear energy need not be perfect to be vastly superior to all the stuff that obssessive anti-nukes don't care about, their wind, solar, oil, and their paymasters in the gas companies.

To be superior to everything else, nuclear energy merely needs to be superior to everything else, which, in fact, it is.

I'll take your "concern" about water seriously when you ask the same question about the impact of coal ash and aerosols on water, or the impact of semiconductor chemistry - including solar cells - on water, or rock fracturing for gas wells on ground water.

Until then, may I assume that you are simply just another one in the pile of people who likes to pay selective attention?

[Wilms]

30. Chill on the insults.

Lay-off the coal. I don't advocate it. I doubt my lifestyle requires it.

Are you arguing that there is more pollution generated by using solar vs. nuclear?

[kristopher]

4. Note the bold...

Highest ranked - WIND

Not recommended - Nuclear, Coal with CCS, and ethanol.

http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[NNadir]

6. I love it when you past the only paper you've ever read again and again and again.

Do you just cut and paste it? Whattaya think? Is the voice of Mark Z. Jacobson, the same as the voice of Jesus? It must be so, given that it's recited like a religious chant nearly every day here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=223467&mesg_id=223645

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=223668&mesg_id=223788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=223668&mesg_id=223788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=224301&mesg_id=224346

....http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=223976&mesg_id=224095...

We could go on with this stupid hour after stupid hour...

Apparently no one has ever told you that the scientific literature is rich and contains many hundreds of thousands of papers, some of which disagree.

[kristopher]

9. I strongly recommend everyone read your writings

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=224893&mesg_id=224960

And then consider the source they respect.

[NNadir]

11. That is, of course, if one knows how to read.

I see a lot of people here who don't read and when they try, clearly don't have a clue how to do it.

Here's a hint: It involves more than moving one's lips.

[kristopher]

13. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=224893&mesg_id=224960

Please read 'nnad's diary.

[diane in sf]

32. Maybe if you read it he wouldn't have to keep posting it for you...

[NNadir]

34. Um, actually I did access and read it for fun. It's an LCA paper with a bunch

of moonbeam bull shit fantasy talk about wind powered "BEV" - battery electric vehicles - which um, don't exist on any significant scale

In all the tripe about batteries and solar electronic junk there is just one reference to the world "toxicology" and that in the referenes.

A paper on life cycle analysis that blathers on page after page about batteries without once using the word "toxicology" in the text, except in the references where the word comes up like this (as a reference):

D. B. Menzel, Ozone: an overview of its toxicity in man and animals,
J. Toxicol. Environ. Health, 1984, 13, 183–204

It's pure car CULT stuff. The author clearly knows nothing at all about nuclear energy which is why the little jerk off likes to cite him so much.

His discussion of water use is primitive, at best, oblivious at worse.

I'd rate the paper in the bottom ten percent of LCA papers I've read.

[XemaSab]

7. There are two condor species on earth

What is the point of being an environmentalist if not to save the condors?

[NNadir]

10. I wouldn't characterize this person as an environmentalist.

I would characterize him as a consumer lifestyle greenwasher.

[kristopher]

12. Maybe you are having trouble

...distinguishing between an environmentalist with intelligence (Jacobson) and people that are nothing more than posers.

Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c
Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition. ...

[NNadir]

16. And maybe you are having trouble with what and what is not intelligence.

[Sal Minella]

17. At least kristopher writes intelligible English. n/t

[wtmusic]

22. Fer sure! All those big words are just like, a smokescreen.

:scared:
Someone around here is in Big Nuclear's pocket!1!!
:scared:

[joshcryer]

33. And the biggest danger to the California Condor is lead poisoning and trash.

Now, while it may be considered a noble goal to stop an entire wind farm project so that these condors have less things to worry about, it seems like overkill.

I personally believe the California Condor is not capable of being brought back due to how low its genetic diversity is. It is sad, unfortunate, I know.

[madokie]

18. Are you really sarah palins speech writer?

you write like sarah palin talks, gibberish gobblelygook.

Oh, that stuff that you're getting intoxicated on is going to kill you yet big guy.

[Javaman]

21. He's become the sideshow of the E/E forum. nt

[NNadir]

23. How come you have nothing to say at all on the subject of condor's and birds?

You always have something to say about me.

It's very clear that you and I do not have a shred of modicum of a smidgeon of a mote of a particle of a respect for one another.

It's like clockwork. We have that guy who feels the need to cut and paste and excerpt from the same paper - the only one apparently he has ever accessed - no matter what is said. And we have those guys who need to point out in every thread that they don't like me.

Tough shit. I don't like them either.

I feel no compunction whatsoever to explain myself to any members of the anti-nuke set. I have made my moral disgust with their position (and their ignorance of energy externalities) clear many times. We're not pals. The number of them whose opinions I values is, um, zero.

I note, with my well known contempt for bourgeois consumer types, the quacks, mystics and others, that the number of them who have anything to say whatsoever about the concern registered by the Ventana Wildlife Society in this thread is - and how predictable is this? - also zero.

[madokie]

25. For starters

Why would I want to discuss bullshit with you to begin with, what's to be gained by me or anyone else that you post some outright bullshit and then you want to discuss it like there's something there to discuss. How fucking stupid is that?

At this point all I want to see is some links from you of evidence of some of that outstanding research you've been telling us about for such a long long time now. I really would like to read something other than that shit you have over at dko, I read all I could stand of that tripe back when you and I first locked horns here. I had to go see what kind of a person would use as argument putting everyone down in an attempt to make you look good and what I found was a little little man with a big big problem. I just hope you haven't tramatized your loved ones with this bullshit you call discourse. Hopefully you're a totally different person in real life. (I wouldn't bet on it though)

I'd really like to read a little more about the molten salt reactor you've invented also. In this invention do you have a model or maybe some drawings or is it just written words and a vivid imagination.

Don't worry that I probably won't understand the papers you're going to link too, If you'll remember I never claimed to be an expert on this but there are some here who are and they'll smell the bullshit right off too. I never did have to run my fingers through bullshit and taste it to know what it is. I can recognize it as soon as I see it, long before I even smell it.
:loveya:

[NNadir]

27. Really, you'd like to know something about the MSR?

First show me some evidence between your little muttering curses that you have some inkling of what a ternary phase diagram is, and some inkling about complex ions and their structure, some evidence that, for all your whining and bitching here about nuclear energy, that you understand neutron diffusion and criticality calculations, then I might respond. Tell us, and use as many spaces as you'd like, about your understanding of the effect of oxidation states and, um, say, oxygen potentials, on the solubility of plutonium fluorides in FLINAK?

That won't happen.

I already know that you have no clue about the meaning of the http://www.neutron.kth.se/courses/transmutation/Bateman/Bateman.html">Bateman Equations, cannot even grasp the concept of equilibrium, wouldn't know an http://mathworld.wolfram.com/HelmholtzDifferentialEquation.html">elliptic function from a hula hoop, and think that a criticality calculation involves counting how many times whiny consumerist bloggers get their wedgies in their fat asses because other people address them as they deserve to be addressed, since ignorance kills.

But since you don't know shit from shinola - which is, um, my point, that you are carrying on a subject about which neither you nor the rest of the fossil fuel burning consumer anti-nukes know, um, nothing - I feel no desire to educate you, since I'm not into waste, a point I've made repeatedly.

After all, you've been on this planet for many decades and still don't know any science, so why is my job to teach you anything? Basically, this late in the game, anyone who is still an anti-nuke is clearly un-educable.

You know, my son just joined the robotics team at his high school. The kids in that school are learning mechanics, circuitry, pneumatics, control systems, and well, even another topic about which you apparently know nothing, chemistry.

If I spend six minutes speaking with them I will do far more than I could in a life time of trying to educate an anti-nuke. The reason is that anti-nukes despise education, despise knowledge and in fact come here to rail against the science of men like Seaborg, Fermi, Bethe, and Weinberg.

If you're this old and this wasted, why is it my responsibility to explain anything to you? You obviously are incapable of a modicum of a shred of a fleck of a speck of comprehension of anything real.

Now why don't you go spread your fat gut on the pool chair, smear yourself with more brain numbing Coppertone, and muse about how the solar pool light will save the world. Be sure, too, not to waste anytime wondering where in the hell that battery waste and other toxicological nightmare shit is going to end up. I already know that you couldn't care less about those kids in the robotics class and what they're going to face because of dumb ass blind consumerism of waste cases who have not bothered to learn anything about science in long and useless lives.

[jpak]

28. So, the vaunted New Jersey Molten Salt Breeder Reactor IS a FRAUD?

It is made-up make-believe *delusion*?

Yup!

:rofl:

[madokie]

29. So all the bluster is really only hot air

and your whole claim to fame is the ditties over at dko's, what a loser that. :rofl:
You had me there for a while I thought you were really somebody. No wonder Lovins wouldn't give you a job at the RMI back then. If I was you under these circumstances I'd be pissed off all the time too.

No peer reviewed papers to link too, no evidence of a molten salt reactor invention. What exactly do you do to earn a living anyway?

[joshcryer]

31. Neo-luddism at its finest.

Civilization completely obliterates birds. Sorry for them.