LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  November 2012

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE November 2012

Subject:

Re: Why wind and solar power are essential parts of the solution

From:

Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:49:00 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (833 lines)

(I'm not satisfied with the following articulation of  the 'problem' I have
in mind, but perhaps it points the way to what is at issue.)

Suppose that the transition referred to does not even begin before (say)
2050? 

This question incorporates several other questions:

1) Can the needed (probably global) changes in production and use of energy
take place in a capitalist world? If so, what is the scenario for such a
possibility?

2) If capitalist societies cannot make the necessary changes, on what
grounds can we suppose that "eco-friendly" non-capitalist societies will
come into existence soon enough to make a difference?

Another crude statement of the difficulty:

Attempts to focus _simultaneously_ on both the technological _and_ the
political issues seems to threaten mere despair of human survival.

Carrol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Science for the People Discussion List [mailto:SCIENCE-FOR-THE-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Schwartzman
> Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 11:05 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Why wind and solar power are essential parts of the solution
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> Our study certainly does take into account the total energy consumption to
> maintain an industrial society in transition to a 100% wind and
solar-powered
> industrial society: see our peer-reviewed study posted at
www.solarUtopia.org, "A
> Solar Transition is Possible". The rough minimum of 3.5 kw/person for
state of the
> science life expectancy is the total energy consumption in a country or
globe
> divided by the population, so it includes energy beyond the household or
individual
> consumption.
> 
>  We also discuss the issue of baseload and energy storage needed during
this
> transition. Here is a summary from a new paper in press on this issue (The
latest
> issue of Green Horizon magazine (Fall/Winter 2012) has my article "A Rapid
Solar
> Transition Not only Possible, it is Imperative!", a more popular version):
> 
> " Is the baseload supply of energy an obstacle for wind/solar?
> 
> Baseload is the backup supply of energy when a particular energy
technology is
> not operating at full capacity. Commonly, supporters of continued reliance
on
> fossil fuels and/or nuclear power raise the objection that wind/solar
cannot meet
> the challenge of baseload.  But this claim is misleading.  Already
available reliable
> and cheap storage technologies, along with tapping into geothermal energy,
will
> facilitate the expansion of these renewables.  However, a big enough array
of
> turbines, especially offshore can likely can generate a baseload without
the need
> to supplement it with separate storage systems [8].  Further, the
progressive
> expansion of a combined system of wind, photovoltaics, and concentrated
solar
> power in deserts will generate a baseload simply because the wind is
blowing and
> the sun is shining somewhere in the system linked to one grid. Meanwhile
> baseload would be backed up by petroleum, with coal phasing out first, on
the
> way to a completely wind/solar global energy infrastructure.
> 
> 
> 
> We have focused on the creation of wind and high efficiency solar
technologies in
> our modeling since these have the greatest potential for not only rapidly
replacing
> the present unsustainable energy supplies  but also meeting the energy
> requirements of all of humanity. Nevertheless, other renewable sources
will
> contribute to the new global infrastructure, notably geothermal (if its
hot
> reservoirs are not depleted), tidal, wind and hydropower (especially small
scale).
> Geothermal power can even become the dominant energy source in some
locales
> (e.g., Iceland and potentially in East Africa).  In contrast, most
biofuels, such as
> ethanol derived from corn, are highly problematic, with low EROEI values
and
> undesirable environmental and nutritional impacts."
> 
> References cited:
> 
> [8] Archer CL & Jacobson MZ (2007) Supplying baseload power and reducing
> transmission requirements by interconnecting wind farms, J. Applied
Meteorol.
> and Climatology 46, 1701-1717, www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/
> <http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/> .  Kempton W, Pimenta FM,
> Veron DE &  Colle BA (2010) Electric power from offshore wind via
synoptic-scale
> interconnection. PNAS 107: 7240-7245.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, on the issue of nuclear power being the only reliable source of
baseload,
> aside from the well-known problems with this energy source, even Lovelock
now
> concedes that Concentrated Solar Power in deserts is very feasible as a RE
> source, again feeding into a grid with other energy sources. And whether
nuclear
> power is really carbon-free (EROEI value lower than the industry claims
for the
> lifecycle) is still under debate, particularly on the issue of including
the mining,
> processing, decommissioning, storage and cleanup energy costs
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Steve Nadel <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	In talking to many renewable energy advocates, one issue seems to be
> ignored.  Almost all, as below, talk about energy consumption on an
individual
> basis, while ignoring the energy consumption required to maintain an
industrial
> society, other than individual usage (buildings, transportation, etc.)
> 	To put it in basics - a modest sized solar cell factory needs some
tens of
> megawatts or more on a 24/7 basis to achieve the kind of mass production
cost
> savings that are making PV viable as an energy source.  How do we answer
those
> who say that all proposed renewables cannot provide this kind of reliable
steady
> state power source?  WHile we transition to a sustainable industrial
society, call it
> green, ecosocialist  or whatever, where is that kind of base energy supply
going to
> come from? As of yet, I'm not aware of any effective energy storage
technologies
> to provide this balancing of wind or solar production.(Obviously that
doesn't mean
> none is possible, but it does mean it needs to be highlighted as a top
development
> agenda).
> 	As I've spent my career on the industrial side of energy efficient
> technologies, part of my job has been calculating (on a pure capitalist
basis) cost
> of production for PV and other thin film technologies used for energy
> conservation/production.  Once you abandon 24 hour production, the cost in
> materials, energy & other real resource investment radically rises for
producing
> the industrial goods we will need for this transition, whether they are
turbine
> blades, PV cells or whatever needs to be manufactured.  That means we need
still
> need highly reliable, large volume baseline production of some energy.
HOw do
> we argue against  the Lovelock solution, that nuclear becomes the only
carbon
> free alternative?
> 
> 
> 	Steve Badek
> 
> 	On Nov 16, 2012, at 8:25 AM, David Schwartzman
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 		For those who have the interest and motivation, please see
my
> responses below in the text..
> 
> 
> 		On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Phil Gasper
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 			I don't think you'll get any arguments in favor of
green
> capitalism on this list. But articles from the Daily Mail, one of the most
right-wing
> newspapers in Britain, set my teeth on edge. That one was a slick piece of
> propaganda on behalf of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. As they
lose the
> argument on climate change, they are increasingly shifting to the argument
that
> all energy sources are environmentally harmful, so don't single us out,
and to the
> argument that renewable energy sources can't meet demand. The Energy
> Intensive Users Group, which the article cites, is a trade association of
British
> industrial corporations that are the country's biggest energy users, and
that want
> the cheapest possible energy sources, no matter what the environmental
cost.
> 
> 			I think it's obvious that climate change can only be
addressed by
> a combination of reduced use
> 
> 
> 		I take that as meaning aggressive energy conservation and
rapid
> reduction and termination of fossil fuel use, starting with coal and non-
> conventional petroleum (tar sands, fracked gas), the fuels with the
biggest carbon
> footprint.
> 
> 
> 			and a switch to renewables (which reliable sources
say could
> happen by 2030:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-
> sustainable-energy-by-2030). I also think it's obvious that this won't
happen
> unless there is also a massive social, economic and political
transformation,
> particularly in the most developed countries. That's a tall order, but
arguing that
> renewable energy sources are really part of the problem, not part of the
solution,
> only makes the needed changes even more difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 		Yes, very well put
> 
> 
> 
> 			--PG
> 
> 
> 			On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Maggie Zhou
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 				Hi,
> 
> 				I'd like to respond to comments by both Gar
Lipow and
> David Schwartzman (pasted below), some of which is echoed by others on
various
> lists.  Sorry this is long!
> 
> 
> 				Gar says most of neodymium is not used in
wind turbines
> today, which may well be true, for the US anyway.  But according to the
article:
> "... only with the rise of alternative energy solutions has neodymium
really come
> to prominence, for use in hybrid cars and wind turbines. A direct-drive
permanent-
> magnet generator for a top capacity wind turbine would use 4,400lb of
> neodymium-based permanent magnet material".  Wikipedia
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium_magnet> says the electric
generators
> for wind turbines uses up to 600 kg of permanent magnet material per
megawatt,
> while neodymium content is estimated to be 31% of magnet weight.  So, the
> kinds of large increase in wind power called for by many ambitious plans
of
> "100% renewables" certainly would mean huge increase (still) in neodymium
(and
> other rare earth minerals - REMs) demand.
> 
> 
> 		There are real prospects for the elimination of REE (Nd and
others)  in
> these technologies (http://www.terramagnetica.com/2009/08/07/10-mw-and-
> beyond-are-superconductors-the-future-of-wind-energy/),  a reference
previously
> provided to Maggie. It is frustrating that Maggie continues to ignore
previous
> exchanges (e.g., at solarUtopia.org).
> 
> 		Further, until REE use is eliminated, mining can be sharply
reduced by
> aggressive recycling: End of life recycling rates of the REE is <1%
(Barbara K.
> Reck and T. E. Graedel, 2012, Challenges in Metal Recycling. Science 337:
690-
> 695.);
http://www.the9billion.com/2012/06/28/honda-plans-to-recycle-rare-earths-
> from-old-hybrid-batteries/ Honda Plans To Recycle Rare Earths From Old
Hybrid
> Batteries;
> 		Essential 'green' metals are being thrown away , May 31,
2011 by
> Michael Marshall
> <http://www.newscientist.com/search?rbauthors=Michael+Marshall> , New
> Scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 				Yes mining in China is generally much worse
in health and
> environmental damage than here in the west, so for heaven's sake they need
to
> do much better, but -
> 				-- first of all, what do you expect from a
country eagerly
> playing catch up on capitalist "growth and development", as is supposed to
be the
> world economic model they're told to look up to?  Mining in the U.S.
during early
> "development" was probably also not so pretty, as in many other currently
> developing countries (which you probably don't hear about as much in the
news
> because it's China bashing that serves special imperial interests;
> 				-- second of all, since the vast majority of
REMs are
> currently being mined and processed in China, i.e., several steps removed
from
> the influence of environmentalists' "push" for any policy "improvements"
here in
> "developed" countries, isn't it illogical to argue that as long as we
advocate
> "environmentally responsible" mining, then it's fine to push for a target
of
> replacing all our current energy needs here with "renewables", as many in
the
> environmental movement do, as opposed to advocating vastly reducing
demands
> here (and not 3.5 KW/person, see below), and then meeting the minimal
essential
> needs with equitably shared renewable resources? [bold added]
> 
> 
> 		 See my response to this important issue below
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 				(I know Gar advocates environmental justice,
but there are
> environmentalists who feel that as long as carbon emission is reduced,
> environmental problems from mining etc. is China's responsibility, and the
> destructive impact is local.  Besides the obvious environmental justice
issue, it's
> also of course not true that it's only their environmental problem - from
air,
> precipitation, biodiversity impact, to food (including seafood), and
products we
> buy, we share the environmental burden of other regions around the world
more
> than we ever realize.)
> 
> 				And how environmentally responsible can
mining for REMs
> be?  To get rid of the toxic/radioactive acid soup used in mining and
processing,
> the most you could do is probably to bury it deep underground.  But as
we've
> seen it play out here with fracking, even when they inject the waste water
> underground instead of leaving it in surface tailing ponds, it still
threatens ground
> water contamination, which is permanent (so is soil contamination).  There
is no
> such thing as "truly clean" energy, David.  Let's drop that term.
> 
> 
> 		Yes, there are no perfect solutions. But with a rigorous
environmental
> regime, wind and solar can be vastly cleaner than the unsustainable
alternatives
> (fossil fuels, nuclear, most biofuels). The alternative is living in a
world that is
> deprived of energy with low quality of life and life expectancy, a world
where
> climate catastrophe becomes a reality because carbon emissions were not
> brought down fast enough and the low carbon energy supplies (wind/solar)
were
> not created fast enough to meet the imperative need to sequester CO2 from
the
> atmosphere.
> 
> 
> 
> 				What I advocate, if that wasn't clear to you
at first, is not
> that we totally discard wind energy, but that, we have to place extreme
emphasis,
> in the "developed" world (where per capita energy consumption is
magnitudes
> higher than poor countries), on dramatically eliminating most of our
energy needs
> through redesigning our activities/organization, and through conservation
and
> efficiency, and THEN meet the absolutely necessary needs with renewable
energy
> shared equitably with the rest of the world, rich or poor - meaning,
aiming for
> similar per capita allowances in the end.
> 
> 
> 		Agreed, except that we must confront the global North's
historic
> responsibility for the threat of catastrophic climate change. Hence, the
global
> North must have a major role in creating the solar  energy infrastructure
sufficient
> for carbon-sequestration from the atmosphere and a massive cleanup of the
> biosphere.
> 
> 
> 				As Gar pointed out, improving
mining/production
> management, and recycling rare earth minerals, all help reducing the
> environmental cost of renewables, but my point is that these costs are
high and
> mostly borne by others FOR us, so less is more, and what matters goes
beyond
> just carbon footprint.  It's part of the crucial lesson we need to learn
to live
> holistically with nature.
> 
> 				I agree with Gar that "we have to get beyond
markets if
> (we) want to solve our environmental catastrophes."  And I say it's not
just a
> simple matter of using direct rules for regulation (as in efficiency
standards) vs.
> relying on market forces to achieve, say, safer mining, lower SF6
emissions, etc.
> It's also about how to reorganize all our activities, including production
and
> consumption, so that decarbonization and ecological protection reaches far
beyond
> energy production, rapidly.  The latter requires fundamental changes to
our
> society and ownership, without which, among other consequences,
technologies
> that can theoretically be implemented "correctly" will certainly not be.
> 
> 
> 		Indeed, ecosocialist transition out of capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 				David wrote: "Present world energy
consumption
> corresponds to 16 Tera Watts", but that to achieve maximum life
expectancy, we
> need "7 billion x 3.5 kilowatt/person = 25 Tera Watts".  I disagree.  From
the top
> graph on your website, it's clear that the life expectancy in Hong Kong is
about at
> the world maximum, while I know that the energy consumption in Hong Kong
> (clearly below 3.5 KW/person on the graph) is certainly way more than a
> sustainable system should be able to reduce to. [bold added]
> 
> 
> 
> 		How do you know that, besides assertion? And while even more
> energy conservation is possible in Hong Kong and low consumption countries
such
> as Japan, the critical issue is the global level of consumption, including
the need
> to supply energy for carbon sequestration from the atmosphere to bring the
> atmospheric level down below 350 ppm before we reach tipping points for
climate
> catastrophe (and we are close already); see discussion of this point at
> solarUtopia.org.
> 
> 
> 
> 				 Even in China, where per capital
consumption is lower
> still, so much energy is wasted in the production of unnecessary things,
and in
> ecologically damaging ways of production and consumption, by and for a
very
> large portion of the population, as well as for export, not by some 1% as
you
> imagine.  So the bottom line is that the 3.5 KW/person figure is based on
> unsustainable models of existing country-wide economies, a gross over
estimate.
> 
> 
> 		I agree that 3.5 KW/person may be a bit high for the
eventual steady-
> state global economy ("solar communism"), but in ecosocialist transition
there will
> be a need for extra energy to cleanup the vast mess left by capitalism.
And I
> submit once again the fact that Cuba, a country arguably closest to an
ecosocialist
> transition with its remarkable achievements including low income
inequality, under
> historic attack by US imperialism,  now has a life expectancy equal to the
United
> States, and suffers from energy poverty;  most recent data shown on graph
> provided on homepage of solarUtopia.org: Cuba uses 1.4 killowatt/person or
40%
> of the rough minimum to achieve state of the science life expectancy. (And
once
> again, Maggie apparently ignores previous discussion of this very point;
see
> homepage of solarUtopia.org for my dialogue with Maggie).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 				A more meaningful figure, as an idealized
reference level
> to set goals upon, would likely need to be gleaned from experiments with
> communities that consciously practice ecological farming and essential
goods
> production, with built-in sufficient system complexity and resilience.
> 
> 				Population size also needs to reduce, not
increase or even
> stable.  That takes some time, but is not automatically a "Malthusian"
concept,
> considered radioactive waste for hordes of otherwise intelligent leftists
(and
> rightists).  Equity is the key.  As long as all countries, and all
peoples, are treated
> with equity, materially and policy-wise, and basic needs are met for all,
then we
> all share the same responsibility for ensuring we don't wreck our planet.
Relying
> only on education, women's rights, healthcare, etc., important as they
are, can
> only go so far (as shown by western countries populations, which are
mostly
> stable, with average families having two children, not decreasing as the
planet
> certainly needs us to).  How do we achieve this equity?  We have to stop
the
> current imperialist world dominance, exploitation, and extreme inequality.
> 
> 
> 		Yes, but we can look forward to a world of ecosocialist
transition to
> solar communism with a stabilized, not reduced population, of some 9
billion
> people on our planet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 				We have to explain all of this to the
American people.
> Green capitalism, and imperialism with a "greening" military, won't work,
and if we
> all unite to tell that hard truth, we can be convincing.  If we continue
to advocate
> mere techno fixes, we perish.
> 
> 		Indeed, and who on these listserves is advocating "mere
techno
> fixes"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 				Maggie
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 				From: Gar Lipow <[log in to unmask]>
> 				Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 6:31 PM
> 				Subject: Re: [no-offsets] Why wind power,
hybrid cars are
> NOT the solution
> 
> 
> 				It is worth remembering that most of this
metal is used not
> in wind
> 				turbines, but in hard disks and auto
batteries. (I agree with
> you that
> 				electric autos are at best a transitional
technology).  In
> terms of
> 				the horrid effects of mining - China's mines
are generally a
> horror.
> 				"For example China's death toll in coal
mines is something
> like 100
> 				times as awful per tonne of coal mines as
the U.S. which is
> bad
> 				enough.  Neodymium does not have to mined in
such an
> awful way. And it
> 				can be recycled. The same applieds of SF6.
SF6 can be
> used in a way
> 				that leakage in minimized and that it is
recaptured and
> reused at end
> 				of equipment life. Of course that won't
happen in a
> market dominated
> 				economy but that is true of any solution. We
have to get
> beyond
> 				markets if want to solve our environmental
catastrophes.
> 
> 				Also, the Mail is a well know right wing
paper with a strong
> bias in
> 				favor of fossil fuels and to a lesser extent
nuclear power
> over
> 				renewables and efficiency and conservation.
Any time you
> hear about
> 				how horrible some aspect of solar or wind
power is, you
> need to ask
> 				the following:
> 
> 				1) Is it inherent in the technology, is it
how it is being
> implemented
> 				in a "profits before people":economic
system?
> 
> 				2) Per unit of power, how do the effects
compared to coal,
> oil, gas
> 				and nuclear power?
> 
> 				3) Is whoever is describing the effect
telling the truth, or
> are they lying?
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 				From: David Schwartzman
<[log in to unmask]>
> 				To: [log in to unmask]
> 				Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2012 12:37 AM
> 				Subject: Re: [EcoRev] Why wind power, hybrid
cars are
> NOT the solution
> 
> 
> 				Maggie makes an argument here against wind
power being
> viewed as clean energy, citing the experience in China, with the
implication that if
> China has such a horrendous record of environmental protection (generally
true of
> nearly all their industrial production), then any wind power development
anywhere
> it must be rejected as an alternative to the unsustainable energy sources
(fossil
> fuel, nuclear, most biofuels). But only determined transnational class
struggle will
> insure much stronger social management of the production and deployment of
> wind power and solar to insure it is truly clean. Should we also revert to
early 20th
> century mechanical adding machines  and not use modern computers and
laptops
> because their production and disposal needs to be subjected to a much
stricter
> environmental regime than the present (such as recycling using industrial
> ecological methods) ?
> 
> 
> 				Unless carbon emissions are sharply reduced
in the near
> future we will plunge into climate catastrophe, with only wind and solar
> technologies having sufficiently low C emissions in their life cycles to
make this
> reduction possible if accompanied by rapid phaseout of coal and
non-conventional
> petroleum (tar sands, fracked gas) first. Hence Maggie is right to
critique techno
> fixes, including truly clean energy in themselves as the solution,
especially if fossil
> fuel consumption continues to increase globally. And of course the
capitalist mode
> of production and consumption needs a radical overhaul and replacement in
the
> directions you indicate. Yes,  lifestyles in the U.S. must change, and
change to the
> better, with clean air, water and organic food, shorter work week etc.
> 
> 				But truly clean energy supplies must
increase globally to
> eliminate energy poverty that exists for most people in the world, living
in the
> global South. Go to our websitewww.solarUtopia.org
> <http://www.solarutopia.org/>  and find the latest data plotted, life
expectancy
> versus energy consumption per capita, the example of energy poor Cuba,
> demonstrating a likely minimum of roughly 3.5 kilowatt/person to achieve
state of
> the science life expectancy. Present world energy consumption corresponds
to 16
> Tera Watts, 7 billion x 3.5 kilowatt/person = 25 Tera Watts. The 3.5
> kilowatt/person is of course necessary but not sufficient, since high
income
> inequality reduces life expectancy even with higher energy consumption. In
other
> words what is needed is a revolution in both the physical and political
economies.
> 
> 
> 				On our website the reader will also find a
discussion of
> most of what Maggie discusses here as well as the point she makes at the
end of
> her remarks below citing the greenhouse forcing of SF6.
> 
> 
> 				On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Maggie Zhou
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> 				> This article with its hellish photos
really brings home the
> point.  As I've
> 				> been arguing, society (especially the
affluent societies of
> the "developed"
> 				> world) can not simply replace their
current energy needs
> with "renewables",
> 				> or with low/"zero" carbon energy sources,
and think
> that'll avert the
> 				> climate/ecological collapse we're facing.
Our entire
> system of production,
> 				> distribution, consumption and waste
treatment of food
> and other essential
> 				> products must be overhauled and redesigned
with
> paramount emphasis on
> 				> ecological considerations, as well as
equity and justice.
> Most of today's
> 				> production and consumption, which are not
for essential
> needs, must be
> 				> eliminated, and the world needs to come
together (i.e.,
> first stop imperial
> 				> wars and military buildup) to help each
other get by with
> minimum further
> 				> damage to the planet.  That's the only way
our species
> can hope to survive
> 				> the oncoming disaster with as little
carnage as possible.
> Environmentalists
> 				> who try to convince the public the whole
task is as
> simple and painless as
> 				> replacing energy source, or other techno
fixes, while our
> lifestyle can
> 				> remain largely unchanged, is helping to
waste more
> precious time muddling
> 				> the real picture, and shielding the public
in their
> ignorance.
> 				>
> 				> "In China, the true cost of Britain's
clean, green wind
> power experiment:
> 				> Pollution on a disastrous scale"
> 				>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-
> 1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-
> Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
> 				>
> 				> This article did not mention all sources
of concern
> around wind power that's
> 				> worth mentioning, for example it didn't
mention the SF6
> emission, which is
> 				> the most potent greenhouse gas evaluated
by IPCC
> (with a Global Warming
> 				> Potential about 23,000 times that of CO2),
and
> extremely long lived
> 				> (thousands of years).
> 				>
> 				> Maggie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 				--
> 				Facebook: Gar Lipow  Twitter: GarLipow
> 				Solving the Climate Crisis web page:
> SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com <http://solvingtheclimatecrisis.com/>
> 				Grist Blog:
http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/
> 				Online technical reference:
http://www.nohairshirts.com
> <http://www.nohairshirts.com/>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager