BajaNomad

Baja to Export Wind Powered Electricity

 Pages:  1  

CaboRon - 11-21-2009 at 05:59 AM

THE CLIMATE RACE
Mexico eyes next export: Wind energy

In the Mexican state of Baja California, the government and
international corporations want to build wind farms that could generate
enough electricity to power homes in the United States while boosting
the state's economy. Sam Eaton reports.

Baja California's Energy Commission Director David Munoz Andrade says
the Mexican state has enough wind to supply millions of homes in
California with clean electricity. (Sam Eaton / Marketplace)
More on SUSTAINABILITY, INTERNATIONAL, INNOVATION, MEXICO

Links
• SLIDESHOW: Winds of change in La Rumorosa
<http://marketplace.publicradio.org/i/flash/pop_up_windows/window.html>

TEXT OF STORY

KAI RYSSDAL: Negotiators are trying to figure out what is exactly going
to get done at next month's climate-change meeting in Copenhagen. The
global economy, though, waits for no one. And a lot of countries have
already started trying to capitalize on their green industries. That has
been the subject of our series "The Climate Race" this week. Today, how
Mexico is trying to build its low-carbon economy. Sam Eaton reports now
from Baja.
________________________________________
SAM EATON: The tiny Mexican border town, La Rumorosa, got its name from
the sound the wind makes as it whips across the area's rock-strewn
ridges. But today La Rumorosa's centuries-old name is taking on new
meaning.

That's the sound of 300-foot tall wind turbines the Baja government just
installed here. Their giant, spinning blades are the first to tap into
what's considered the most consistent winds in all of North America.
And if David Munoz with Baja California's Energy Commission has his way,
these five turbines are only the beginning.

DAVID MUNOZ: What this project means is that the state government is
putting an example to take a look at Baja California and see that the
wind does really blow and there's a huge potential to grasp that
resource and turn it into something productive.

And something profitable. The electricity from these turbines will be
used in Baja's capital city, Mexicali. But Munoz says that's only a
fraction of what's possible. Experts say there's enough wind here to
power millions of homes.

MUNOZ: Here in Baja California we have a surplus of renewable energy
potential, and we can't consume all that power.

Just to the north, however, California, can't get enough. It's
experiencing a shortage as it tries to get 20 percent of its electricity
from sources other than natural gas and coal. Munoz says Mexico would be
happy to fill that gap and earn a profit doing it. It just needs the
capital to make it happen.

MUNOZ: If we really want to make these big projects and displace a huge
amounts of greenhouse gases and produce a lot of energy and so on and so
forth, what we need is private players who come in and share the risk
and share the investment.

And help Mexico get a foothold in a new global economy that's less
dependent on fossil fuels. Today oil accounts for nearly half of the
Mexican government's annual revenues. And an increasing number of
politicians here see that as a vulnerability.

One of them is Baja's Governor Jose Guadalupe Osuna Millan.
JOSE GUADALUPE OSUNA MILLAN: The key is diversification. We see
less-developed countries can not only gain extraordinary benefits
economically, but also with regard to sustainability.
Multinational energy companies also see a chance to profit in Mexico.
Several, including U.S.-based Sempra Energy and Spain's Union Fenosa,
have already gotten permits to develop huge wind farms near La Rumorosa.
Tom Houston is a lawyer who puts these kinds of deals together. And he
says they offer a sort of test case for how rich and poor nations can
collaborate.

TOM HOUSTON: In working out the issues on how you get wind power from
Mexico into California, you're working out on a micro scale what has to
be worked out world wide on a macro scale.
One of the major sticking points holding up a new international climate
treaty is whether rich countries should pay poor ones to fight the
global warming they essentially caused by burning oil and coal. And if
so how would it be done? One option is to create a new global climate
fund. But Houston says in countries like Mexico, where corruption is
rampant, that could be a disaster.

HOUSTON: Government funding does not work. Period. There's a
disappearance of money. For whatever reason it never ends up getting
spent on the project it's supposed to be spent on.
Houston says direct foreign investment, on the other hand, yields far
greater results, much faster. And there's a good reason for that.

Al Sweedler directs the Center for Energy Studies at San Diego State
University.
AL SWEEDLER: The bottom line is it has to be driven by self interests.
Unless people think there's something in it for them, they can say all
the nice words but nothing's going to happen. And what we've learned
here is that it's a benefit for us to have this energy relationship with
Mexico. And it's a benefit for them.
Especially for Baja, which is struggling with drought and high
unemployment.

Last week in Tecate, Mexico, Sempra Energy held a public hearing on a
proposed wind farm north of La Rumorosa. Once completed it could supply
enough energy to power more than 300,000 homes in the U.S. And create
hundreds of Mexican jobs. According to a group of local ranchers
gathered outside, that foreign investment is critical.

Fifty-six-year-old Tezoc Dukes has raised cattle in the nearby Sierra de
Juarez Mountains his entire life. But he says in the last few years the
annual rains they've depended on for generations have stopped coming.
TEZOC DUKES: It's very serious. Before in the Sierra de Juarez we used
to have maybe 10,000 cows, and now there aren't even 500. Our way of
life is ending. A lot of people have had to go into town to work. The
ranches are being abandoned.

Sempra is offering to pay local ranchers $500 a month to put dozens of
turbines on their land. Dukes' neighbor Orsilio Gandolfi Altamirano says
it's no fortune, but it's enough to keep them in business.

ORSILIO GANDOLFI ALTAMIRANO: The Americans are the rich business
partners. We're the poor ones. But we need them. It's about time the two
regions were united. We have the things they don't have. But they have
the money, they've always had the money. The bastards.

Altamirano says a border fence may divide Baja from the United States,
but when it comes to climate change, political boundaries no longer
matter.

In Baja, Mexico, I'm Sam Eaton for Marketplace.

noproblemo2 - 11-21-2009 at 06:34 AM

Great story, Thanks.......

Smoke and Mirrors Blowing in the Wind

MrBillM - 11-21-2009 at 10:10 AM

In the Land of Oz.

Baja has the Potential, but all it lacks is the FUNDING. I've got a lot of potential that could be realized with enough funding.

IF the Business had such great Profit POTENTIAL, funding could be found.

The FACT is that NO significant Solar or WIND projects have been built ANYWHERE without Government subsidies because they DON'T pay for themselves. Much is made that they can show "Operational" profits AFTER installation, BUT those figures require discounting the Installation costs.

But, Baja is a Magical place so maybe it will Magically occur.

David K - 11-21-2009 at 10:13 AM

Ask the enviromentalists:

How many birds have been murdered by those giant meat grinders?

:rolleyes:

Paulclark - 11-21-2009 at 10:18 AM

And how many have choked to death from coal fumes?

mtgoat666 - 11-21-2009 at 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
In the Land of Oz.

Baja has the Potential, but all it lacks is the FUNDING. I've got a lot of potential that could be realized with enough funding.

IF the Business had such great Profit POTENTIAL, funding could be found.

The FACT is that NO significant Solar or WIND projects have been built ANYWHERE without Government subsidies because they DON'T pay for themselves. Much is made that they can show "Operational" profits AFTER installation, BUT those figures require discounting the Installation costs.

But, Baja is a Magical place so maybe it will Magically occur.


mr bile: the sempra baja rumorosa wind project is being built to primarily export power to US, and as such is being built to take advantage of sale of power to US utilities and will take advanatge of US production tax credit. the tax credits serve a useful purpose in facilitating alternative power technology and development, and as fossil fuel prices increase the wind and solar projects will at some point be feasible without tax credits (also, fossil fuel prices are artificially low due to costs that producers do not pay -- fossil fuel producers rely on US military to keep oil and gas fields and shipping routes open and safe, but producers do not pay for military). i wonder sometimes at critics that take target at tax credits, as the US govt has historically provided tax breaks to many people and industries as a means to promote goals. if you criticize the alt power PTCs, you should criticize the mortgage tax deductions, the dependant tax deductions, and most any tax advantage enjoyed by any individual or industry.
in mexico, electric power is heavily susidized by govt, so alternative power has not been feasible yet, but perhaps will someday when subsidies are extended to alt power projects.

re DK's Q about bird and bat strikes, such has been a significant problem at Altamont pass and a few other places, but has not been a problem at many other sites.

woody with a view - 11-21-2009 at 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Ask the enviromentalists:

How many birds have been murdered by those giant meat grinders?

:rolleyes:


that's like saying that paving dirt into streets causes kids to be run over by vehicles......

it's darwin's theory at work! it keeps the shallow end of the gene pool free from clutter....

David K - 11-21-2009 at 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Paulclark
And how many have choked to death from coal fumes?


If there REALLY was 'Global Warming' then everyone who uses coal to heat their homes in winter, could stop! You would have people freeze or lose their jobs than burn coal?

Reality is winters are getting colder, coal is plentiful and cheap and in the USA, and we have been developing clean coal technology the birds can live with!

I live on the Pacific, and we use natural gas to heat our homes... because it isn't getting any warmer here either!

Global Warming? Climate Change?

Bajahowodd - 11-21-2009 at 11:47 AM

Below is a quote from an LA Times article published today about the starving children of Madagascar.



"Madagascar's rainfall has decreased 10% in the last 50 years, and its temperature has risen 10%."

[Edited on 11-21-2009 by Bajahowodd]

mtgoat666 - 11-21-2009 at 12:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
If there REALLY was 'Global Warming'


dk:
In the past few years even the worlds biggest energy producers have changed their tune and recognized that man's emisions are causing climate change. even exxonmobil now publicly admits so, in their way...

From XOM:
"With increased global energy demand, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise by an average of 1 percent per year through the year 2030. As was recently summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the risks to society and ecosystems from increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant. Meeting the enormous energy demand growth and managing the risk of GHG emissions are the twin challenges of our time.

We all must engage in the search for solutions if we are to succeed at mitigating these risks."

BajaGringo - 11-21-2009 at 12:14 PM

More and more of the planets energy needs will be met by wind and solar over time as it becomes more economically "doable". The net costs for wind/solar power production are dropping and fossil fuels are increasing.

Union Fenosa has pledged over 6 billion euros to developing alternative energy projects through 2011 and I applaud their efforts. They are a very forward thinking company that in these hard economic times reported net profits up over 55% last year. I had the opportunity to meet a couple of their engineers on a recent visit to Baja and they are betting on the long term energy forecast; not just short term profits.

They currently have several wind monitoring stations setup along the northern Baja Pacific coastline searching for ideal locations to build future wind farms. I told them I hope they consider some solar cell farms as well.

They just recently concluded a study set at the base of one of the volcanoes behind our new place...




[Edited on 11-21-2009 by BajaGringo]

But Not On The Coast

Bajahowodd - 11-21-2009 at 12:19 PM

"I told them I hope they consider some solar cell farms as well... "


That said, it would seem to me that Mexico would be more amenable to building large solar projects in its desert regions than is the US. Just look at all the crap going on regarding proposed projects in the Mojave.

DENNIS - 11-21-2009 at 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
If there REALLY was 'Global Warming' then everyone who uses coal to heat their homes in winter, could stop!


If the world is getting warmer at times throughout the year, does that mean it's getting less cold at other times?
You experts probably know the answer but, I don't so, be gentle and forgiving with your answers.
Thank you very much. :yes:

monoloco - 11-21-2009 at 12:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
In the Land of Oz.

Baja has the Potential, but all it lacks is the FUNDING. I've got a lot of potential that could be realized with enough funding.

IF the Business had such great Profit POTENTIAL, funding could be found.

The FACT is that NO significant Solar or WIND projects have been built ANYWHERE without Government subsidies because they DON'T pay for themselves. Much is made that they can show "Operational" profits AFTER installation, BUT those figures require discounting the Installation costs.

But, Baja is a Magical place so maybe it will Magically occur.
I would like to point out that the govt. has also subsidized hydro and nuclear power. The government subsidized all the dams on the Columbia river which provide seemingly cheap power if you don't factor in the cost of ruining the richest salmon fishery on earth. Nuke plants seem competitive only because the future costs of dealing with the byproducts and the decommissioning of them is unknown, and will most likely fall on the taxpayer. There are trade offs no matter how you generate power.

bajafam - 11-21-2009 at 12:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K


If there REALLY was 'Global Warming' then everyone who uses coal to heat their homes in winter, could stop! You would have people freeze or lose their jobs than burn coal?

Reality is winters are getting colder, coal is plentiful and cheap and in the USA, and we have been developing clean coal technology the birds can live with!

I live on the Pacific, and we use natural gas to heat our homes... because it isn't getting any warmer here either!


plentiful

clean:no::no::no:

This is why there is so much resistance to truly clean energy projects. Coal is NOT plentiful! It is a fossil fuel and when it's gone, it's gone!!! There is no such thing as clean coal technology. "Clean coal" is about as big an oxymarooon as you can get. I'm glad that you think that this so-called clean technology is something that the birds can live with. I'm sure that if they could speak your language that they would disagree. Any refinement of coal = huge environmental impact. On the other side of the coin, wind turbines have a relatively small footprint, especially when compared to the energy that they produce. Do you have any facts pertaining to massive bird injury from flying into turbines? How does that compare with, say, aircraft, or any other human obstacle? I personally would rather look at this:



than a nasty coal refinement plant any day!!! But, that's just my crunchy two cents. I guess that's what happens when you get all your power from the wind and sun.

New, Quieter, Bird-Friendly Design

Bajahowodd - 11-21-2009 at 01:03 PM

http://sciencehack.com/videos/view/fNudnI5tzf8

Barry A. - 11-21-2009 at 01:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS

If the world is getting warmer at times throughout the year, does that mean it's getting less cold at other times?
You experts probably know the answer but, I don't so, be gentle and forgiving with your answers.
Thank you very much. :yes:


Nobody really has an answer to your question, Dennis, but we all try.

Climatology as an exact science has a long way to go---------in the mean time we (scientists) are just mostly speculating, but the consequences of "climate change" could obviously be disastrous, that's true, but I don't really think we (man) can do much about it, one way or the other----------?!?!?!?!

---------but many think we should at least "try". If we can do that without destroying the economies of the world, than I am supportive.

In the mean time I am dubious---------.

Barry

monoloco - 11-21-2009 at 01:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd
http://sciencehack.com/videos/view/fNudnI5tzf8


I have always liked the vertical axis design. Also check out the ones made by Helix for residential use.

Barry A. - 11-21-2009 at 01:44 PM

----now THAT is a great design-------I could go for one like that. and, I think it looks cool.

Thanks for posting it.

Barry

k-rico - 11-21-2009 at 01:56 PM

Generating significant amounts of electricity using wind turbines is going to be very challenging for many reasons. One reason shown below.

Things that spin:



[Edited on 11-21-2009 by k-rico]

BajaGringo - 11-21-2009 at 02:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bajahowodd

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaGringo

"I told them I hope they consider some solar cell farms as well... "



That said, it would seem to me that Mexico would be more amenable to building large solar projects in its desert regions than is the US. Just look at all the crap going on regarding proposed projects in the Mojave.


Agreed. The marine air along the Pacific coast inhibits reaching maximum solar potential. (it is good for wind however!)

Baja does have a few square miles of desert enjoying lots of sunshine so something tells me that they might find someplace acceptable for solar on the peninsula...

:tumble:

DENNIS - 11-21-2009 at 02:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.

Nobody really has an answer to your question, Dennis, but we all try.



Thanks, Barry. I haven't tried to follow the scientific or emotional arguements surrounding this issue over the years and that makes it almost impossible to catch up. For every new fact, there's a fact to counter it. In this case, ignorance is not bliss; it's frustrating.

DENNIS - 11-21-2009 at 02:22 PM

Had the water from the Colorado River not been diverted for various reasons, the mouth which feeds into the Gulf would have been a good location for Tidal generation. The changeing tides at that point would roar through so loudly that the phenomona was called,"The Bull." [I think that's what it was called anyway]

http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/Tidal-Energy/Tid...

David K - 11-21-2009 at 03:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by DENNIS
Had the water from the Colorado River not been diverted for various reasons, the mouth which feeds into the Gulf would have been a good location for Tidal generation. The changeing tides at that point would roar through so loudly that the phenomona was called,"The Bull." [I think that's what it was called anyway]

http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/index.php/Tidal-Energy/Tid...


The words you are thinking of Dennis are 'Tidal Bore'.. It doesn't have anything to do with the Colorado River... It is the fast movement of incoming high tide... almost races across the flat sand bottom of the upper gulf... where it can move miles as it climbs nearly 30 feet in height pulled by the moon during new and full phases.

When the Colorado was flowing more and boats could sail up it from the sea, the tidal bore could really cause a problem with navigation. This strong tidal movement is also noticed between the islands in the center of the gulf.

Edit: I refered to Gene Kelly's "The Baja Catch" which says the tidal bore is the surge of sea water that 'rolls in quickly' (pg. 57) without mention of the river.

I have read early explorers accounts of the incoming tide against the outflowing Colorado, and the wave that is created... calling that a 'bore' as well... In that case, Dennis is correct about that effect of the incoming tide... I will continue seeking data on the condition 'tidal bore'.

[Edited on 11-21-2009 by David K]

From Wikipedia...

David K - 11-21-2009 at 03:27 PM

Okay... let's correct/ add to what I read in Gene's book...

The phenomenon

Bores occur in relatively few locations worldwide, usually in areas with a large tidal range (typically more than 6 metres (20 ft) between high and low water), and where incoming tides are funneled into a shallow, narrowing river via a broad bay. The funnel-like shape not only increases the tidal range, but it can also decrease the duration of the flood tide, down to a point where the flood appears as a sudden increase in the water level. Note the tidal bore takes place during the flood tide and never during the ebb tide.

A tidal bore may take on various forms, ranging from a single breaking wavefront with a roller — somewhat like a hydraulic jump[1] — to ‘undular bores’, comprising a smooth wavefront followed by a train of secondary waves (whelps)[2]. Large bores can be particularly dangerous for shipping, but also present opportunities for river surfing[2].

Two key features of a tidal bore are the intense turbulence and turbulent mixing generated during the bore propagation, as well as its rumble noise. The visual observations of tidal bores highlight the turbulent nature of the surging waters. The tidal bore induces a strong turbulent mixing in the estuarine zone, and the effects may be felt along considerable distances. The velocity observations indicate a rapid deceleration of the flow associated with the passage of the bore as well as large velocity fluctuations [3] [4]. A tidal bore creates a powerful roar that combines the sounds caused by the turbulence in the bore front and whelps, entrained air bubbles in the bore roller, sediment erosion beneath the bore front and of the banks, scouring of shoals and bars, and impacts on obstacles. The bore rumble is heard far away because its low frequencies can travel over long distances. During his expedition in the Qiantang River mouth, Captain Moore heard the first murmur of the tidal bore one hour before it reached his Pandora ship. The low-frequency sound is a characteristic feature of the advancing roller in which the air bubbles entrapped in the large-scale eddies are acoustically active and play the dominant role in the rumble sound generation [5].

The word bore derives through Old English from the Old Norse word bára, meaning a wave or swell.

[Edited on 11-21-2009 by David K]

David K - 11-21-2009 at 03:31 PM

There's even a Tidal Bore Society!!! http://www.tidalbore.info/

DENNIS - 11-21-2009 at 03:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I will continue seeking data on the condition 'tidal bore'.




While you're at it, keep your eye out for "The Bull."
Years back, while reading history of that gulf region, I'm sure I came across a reference to The Bull as related to the roar that the rushing water would make during a tide change. The reference wasn't made by scientists..it was made by the locals.

David K - 11-21-2009 at 04:02 PM

Okay Dennis... will do! (insert bull joke here) :light::lol:;D

Goat Droppings

MrBillM - 11-22-2009 at 02:21 PM

From the Goat Pen:
"mr bile: the sempra baja rumorosa wind project IS being built to primarily export power to US, and as such is being built to take advantage of sale of power to US utilities and WILL take advanatge of US production tax credit".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HM !

I guess this is another case of the Liberal "What the Meaning of IS is".

From the Article:

In the Mexican state of Baja California, the government and international corporations WANT to build wind farms that COULD generate enough electricity to power homes in the United States while boosting the state's economy.............The electricity from these turbines will be used in Baja's capital city, Mexicali. But Munoz says that's only a fraction of what's possible. Experts say there's enough WIND here to power millions of homes".

"MUNOZ: Here in Baja California we have a surplus of renewable energy POTENTIAL, and we can't consume all that power. Munoz says Mexico would be happy to fill that gap and earn a profit doing it. It just needs the CAPITAL to make it happen".

A LOT more IF in there than IS.

mtgoat666 - 11-22-2009 at 02:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
From the Goat Pen:
"mr bile: the sempra baja rumorosa wind project IS being built to primarily export power to US, and as such is being built to take advantage of sale of power to US utilities and WILL take advanatge of US production tax credit".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HM !

I guess this is another case of the Liberal "What the Meaning of IS is".

From the Article:

In the Mexican state of Baja California, the government and international corporations WANT to build wind farms that COULD generate enough electricity to power homes in the United States while boosting the state's economy.............The electricity from these turbines will be used in Baja's capital city, Mexicali. But Munoz says that's only a fraction of what's possible. Experts say there's enough WIND here to power millions of homes".

"MUNOZ: Here in Baja California we have a surplus of renewable energy POTENTIAL, and we can't consume all that power. Munoz says Mexico would be happy to fill that gap and earn a profit doing it. It just needs the CAPITAL to make it happen".

A LOT more IF in there than IS.


these goat droppings don't smell as bad as mrbill's bile :lol:

"SAN DIEGO, July 2, 2007 – Sempra Generation, a subsidiary of Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE), today announced it has signed a 20-year agreement to provide Southern California Edison with up to 250 megawatts (MW) of wind power generated at the La Rumorosa Wind Power facility under development in Baja California, Mexico."

mrbile: go do some research on wind power, no one builds wind power for US consumption without taking advantage of US tax credits. if SRE were doing differently, i would sell my sre stock

[Edited on 11-22-2009 by mtgoat666]

Here Ya Go, DK

Bajahowodd - 11-22-2009 at 03:27 PM

Rising sea levels threaten Caribbean region
The Colombian city of Cartagena is trying to plan ahead as scientists say cities nearer the equator, where temperatures are already higher, are at greater risk if global warming isn't checked.

High tides recently cut off the Boca Grande section of Cartagena, in Colombia. Scientists say Latin American cities are at higher risk because sea levels will rise most near the equator. (Capt. Julian Reyna / Colombian Navy / November 21, 2009)


Reporting from Cartagena, Colombia - The effect of climate change is anything but hypothetical to retired Colombian naval officer German Alfonso. Just ask him about the time his neighborhood in this historic coastal city became an island.

For five years, Alfonso, 74, has watched tides rise higher and higher in the Boca Grande section of Cartagena. This month, tides briefly inundated the only mainland connection to his neighborhood, a converted sandbar where about 60 high-rise condo and hotel towers have been built in the last decade or so.

"Before, people thought it a normal phenomenon. But we're becoming more conscious that something is going on," Alfonso said. "If the sea keeps rising, traffic could just collapse."

According to a recently updated World Bank study on climate change in Latin America, Alfonso and his neighbors have reason to be concerned. Not only are the effects of global warming more evident in Latin American coastal cities, the report says, but the phenomenon could worsen in coming decades because sea levels will rise highest near the equator.

Colombian naval Capt. Julian Reyna, a member of a government task force monitoring climate change, said the sea level around Cartagena, renowned for its Spanish colonial fortifications and beaches, has risen as much as one-eighth of an inch each year over the last decade, an increase that scientists expect to accelerate in coming years.

According to some scenarios that the authors of the World Bank study say are not that far-fetched, Cartagena and the rest of the Caribbean coastal zone could see sea levels rising as much as 2 feet, possible more, by the end of the century. Even at the lower end of projections, parts of this city would be knee-deep in sea water.

One of the authors, climatologist Walter Vergara, cautions that the projections are based on trends and factors that could change, buthe is worried that Colombia's entire Caribbean coastal zone could see relocations of urban centers. Other Latin and Caribbean cities especially at risk include Veracruz, Mexico; Georgetown, Guyana; and Guayaquil, Ecuador, he said.

"The projections are based on assumptions generally accepted by the scientific community and do not include the cataclysmic effects of possible advanced ice melting in the Antarctic or Greenland," said co-author economist John Nash.

Even under the most benign of scenarios, Vergara and other scientists are concerned for Colombia's Cienaga Grande, a mangrove marsh covering hundreds of square miles whose ecosystem could die because of increased salinity from higher tides. The forests could disappear and thousands of fishermen may be displaced.

Agriculture in Colombia and other tropical countries is at greater risk than in the United States, Canada and Europe because temperatures are already relatively high in countries near the equator, and increases will be more damaging to growing conditions, Nash said.

Cartagena's chief city planner, Javier Mouthon, said the local government is aware of what could be in store and is making plans beyond immediate effects that include a long-term "adaptation process." That includes new roads and relocating city facilities to avoid permanently flooded zones.

Cartagena is already studying the feasibility of building dikes or collection pools and possibly requiring all construction to have foundations 20 inches higher than currently specified.

"We are quite concerned," Mouthon said. "It's a problem that grows year by year."

Colombian Vice President Francisco Santos has begun convening workshops of coastal governors and mayors to hammer home the possible repercussions of climate change and the need to adjust urban and regional planning accordingly.

Many residents here seem to be only vaguely aware of global warming and its effects. At a new condo tower development called Bahia Grande being built near Alfonso's house, saleswoman Rocio Buelvas said few prospective buyers raise the issue.

"They see it as a problem only for a couple of months of the year," Buelvas said. "I think it will get better once they fix the drainage."

Kraul is a special correspondent.
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Barry A. - 11-22-2009 at 03:43 PM

-------the climate warms, the climate cools---------been doing it for millions of years. Man and beast will just have to deal with it, as he always has.

If man can only possibly change things by 1 or 2%, even with maximim effort, is it really worth it???

Not to me, but then I don't live on the coast-------that environment is way too fragile and potentially dangerous for me. :light:

Barry

HM !

MrBillM - 11-22-2009 at 04:06 PM

"For its wind and solar projects, Sempra Generation will SEEK renewable-energy-supply contracts with major utilities throughout the southwestern United States and Mexico. The successful acquisition of long-term power contracts is necessary to ensure the development, construction and operation of such large-scale projects".

"SHOULD Sempra Generation proceed with the development of La Rumorosa, the capital investment for the project is estimated at $400 million".

"This press release contains statements that are not historical fact and constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When the company uses words like believes, expects, anticipates, intends, plans, estimates or similar expressions, or when the company discusses its strategy or plans, the company is making forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are NOT guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Future results may differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon various assumptions involving judgments with respect to the future and other risks, including, among others: local, regional, national and international economic, competitive, political, legislative and regulatory conditions and developments; actions by the California Public Utilities Commission, the California State Legislature, the California Department of Water Resources, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other regulatory bodies in the United States and other countries; capital markets conditions, inflation rates, interest rates and exchange rates; energy and trading markets, including the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices; the availability of natural gas; weather conditions and conservation efforts; war and terrorist attacks; business, regulatory, environmental, and legal decisions and requirements; the status of deregulation of retail natural gas and electricity delivery; the timing and success of business development efforts; the resolution of litigation; and other uncertainties, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of the company. These risks and uncertainties are further discussed in the company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that are available through the EDGAR system without charge at its Web site, www.sec.gov and on the company's Web site, www.sempra.com".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure sounds like a lot of IF there.

Sort of like that Beef(?) Guy who was "Forward-looking" to build Wind-Generation all across the USA. What was that name ? T-Bone Something or other ?

Skeeter said you couldn't bet against that guy.

Oh yeah, T. BOONE P. That turned out to be just so much TP. Blowing in the Wind.

[Edited on 11-22-2009 by MrBillM]

Skeet/Loreto - 11-22-2009 at 04:47 PM

Now Now Gentlemen and Scared Youngsters/
For your information Facts, not a lot of Bull Puckey!

The problem with the Bats being killed has been solved with the companies making the base of the blades larger __Proven Fact by a bunch of Texas Boys who beleive in Facts!!

Sweetwater Texas-Largest Wind Power Facility in the World and soon to be larger. {This ole Texas boy was born there}

There are very in serious plans to build wind farms from Sweetwater North to neqar the Candaian Border. This has been spear headed by my old classmate T. Boone Pickens. With the big drop in Natural Gas prices it has been slowed but don"t worry ole T. Bone is still going strong at 8o years.

I would strongly suggest to the Scientist of so-called Global warming to work on another problem.

Why does a Dog or Cat left by its owners somehow 3 years later find them more that a 1,000 miles away???
Evolution or Supreme Being????

Your Grandchildren are going to make the decesions about so-called Global Warming ==Not You!! You cannot control the future by trying to Scare Peop[le into beleiving what you may think is true>> Wake Up!!!

Skeet/Loreto - 11-22-2009 at 06:39 PM

Noee Soul Patch:
Look at what happened to my Generation: We let that Nut Dr. Spock talk us into not spanking our children- Just look at the Little Buggers now- No respect!

We let those DOPE smokers and "If it feels good, just do it" take over and Just Look

The new generation has no Morals are mostly Whimps who can't fight and some p[eople want to save the Planet for their Kids.??

Sure sounds a little off for this ole Boy!

DENNIS - 11-22-2009 at 06:52 PM

I've always suspected that Dr. Spock was the Anti-Christ. Now, I'm sure of it. :biggrin::biggrin:

Barry A. - 11-22-2009 at 08:09 PM

Personally I blame Dr Spock for everything bad--------it is all his fault!!!! EVERYTHING!!!!! He was a terrorist!!!

What WERE we thinking way back then-------personally we never paid any attention to him, Thank God. Therefore my 4 kids turned out great-----everybody else's are a mess-------it's all Spock's fault.

Barry

Barry A. - 11-22-2009 at 09:29 PM

Well, I agree with all of that, Patch.

Well said. We home schooled too, at least for some of the 'grades'.

Barry

monoloco - 11-23-2009 at 07:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
"For its wind and solar projects, Sempra Generation will SEEK renewable-energy-supply contracts with major utilities throughout the southwestern United States and Mexico. The successful acquisition of long-term power contracts is necessary to ensure the development, construction and operation of such large-scale projects".

"SHOULD Sempra Generation proceed with the development of La Rumorosa, the capital investment for the project is estimated at $400 million".

"This press release contains statements that are not historical fact and constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. When the company uses words like believes, expects, anticipates, intends, plans, estimates or similar expressions, or when the company discusses its strategy or plans, the company is making forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are NOT guarantees of performance. They involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions. Future results may differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon various assumptions involving judgments with respect to the future and other risks, including, among others: local, regional, national and international economic, competitive, political, legislative and regulatory conditions and developments; actions by the California Public Utilities Commission, the California State Legislature, the California Department of Water Resources, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and other regulatory bodies in the United States and other countries; capital markets conditions, inflation rates, interest rates and exchange rates; energy and trading markets, including the timing and extent of changes in commodity prices; the availability of natural gas; weather conditions and conservation efforts; war and terrorist attacks; business, regulatory, environmental, and legal decisions and requirements; the status of deregulation of retail natural gas and electricity delivery; the timing and success of business development efforts; the resolution of litigation; and other uncertainties, all of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of the company. These risks and uncertainties are further discussed in the company's reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that are available through the EDGAR system without charge at its Web site, www.sec.gov and on the company's Web site, www.sempra.com".

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure sounds like a lot of IF there.

Sort of like that Beef(?) Guy who was "Forward-looking" to build Wind-Generation all across the USA. What was that name ? T-Bone Something or other ?

Skeeter said you couldn't bet against that guy.

Oh yeah, T. BOONE P. That turned out to be just so much TP. Blowing in the Wind.

[Edited on 11-22-2009 by MrBillM]
I don't know if you have ever read a financial statement or press release from a company before but they all contain a disclaimer with similar language to this. I am surprised they haven't placed windmills next to your house, all the hot air coming from you would surely be good for a few gigawatts.

Skeet/Loreto - 11-23-2009 at 07:33 AM

We are having Wind Machines put next to our Houses.1

As Alderman for Timbercreek Village, a Class B Muni, we are in discussions for enacting an Ordiance to allow Wind machines on individual properties.

Guess What: The biggest objections are Sight and Sound!!

The young members in the Village says "Let the Govt. take care of It.

The older members say "Let us try it for Energys Sake.


Sure glad to hear that some of our Youngsters were able to become good Citizens..Hope those few will be able to put thos Crazies back into their Holes!!

Skeet

monoloco - 11-23-2009 at 07:38 AM

Skeet, there is a new generation of low profile quiet wind generators for residential use. Check out the ones made by Helix.

David K - 11-23-2009 at 09:19 AM

When every high tide flows into Pompano's home, then I will agree sea levels have risen.

Also, when sea levels have risen:

When Shell Island is an island all the time, when the sand no longer touches Requeson or San Luis Gonzaga islands at low tide, when the salt flats at Guerrero Negro, Scammon's and San Ignacio lagoons are covered with water...

Islands and some other land masses are sinking and the sea levels are the same... but, would 'seem to be' rising.

Now it is true Baja California and Alta California (west of the San Andreas fault) is sliding north at an inch or so a year... I have not seen anything that says Baja is also RISING... which it would have to be, if sea levels were rising and not see water in Pompano's house every day.;D

wilderone - 11-23-2009 at 09:23 AM

If Californians would learn to cut down on their electrical consumption, there wouldn't be such a need to develop alternative energy plants such as wind turbine in Baja CA, to sell electricty to southern Californians. I'm all for cleaner, efficient energy sources, but we can't expect to continue to be the consumers that put us in this bind in the first place.
I drive by huge car lots along Int. 5 at midnight and it's lit up like daylight. Wouldn't a couple dobermans and a Pinkerton guy keep those cars safe overnight? There oughta be a law. What percentage of flourescent bulbs are used in your household? I'll answer: 24 incandescent, 26 flourescent. 10 of the incandescent are dimmable (2 chandeliers) and they're dimmed way down or off most of the time. I'm in favor of "better", but not to service "more". Users have to contribute to the solution on a personal basis.

Percentages

MrBillM - 11-23-2009 at 09:45 AM

MY Percentage of Incandescents is NINEY+ and GUARANTEED to remain so throughout my lifetime thanks to my overflowing stockpile of same. Just last month, I had to box some up and put them in the garage to clear closet space.

Color me OTHER than Green.

bajafam - 11-23-2009 at 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by wilderone
If Californians would learn to cut down on their electrical consumption, there wouldn't be such a need to develop alternative energy plants such as wind turbine in Baja CA, to sell electricty to southern Californians. I'm all for cleaner, efficient energy sources, but we can't expect to continue to be the consumers that put us in this bind in the first place.
I drive by huge car lots along Int. 5 at midnight and it's lit up like daylight. Wouldn't a couple dobermans and a Pinkerton guy keep those cars safe overnight? There oughta be a law. What percentage of flourescent bulbs are used in your household? I'll answer: 24 incandescent, 26 flourescent. 10 of the incandescent are dimmable (2 chandeliers) and they're dimmed way down or off most of the time. I'm in favor of "better", but not to service "more". Users have to contribute to the solution on a personal basis.


Our household is 100% CFL. Every appliance (except the refrigerator) is on a surge protected outlet strip that is turned off or unplugged when not in use, if it's not on the strip it is unplugged. We have no phantom loads sucking up energy. We can't, because we are completely off grid and wasteful use of energy is not an option. Newer CFL technology allows for dimmable usage. If everyone started on a personal level it would help, but the fact remains that there is a greater demand to service a greater amount of people so we need to implement a solution that is both accessible, sustainable, and renewable - wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.

Giant sucking sound

Dave - 11-23-2009 at 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CaboRon

the Mexican state has enough wind to supply millions of homes in
California with clean electricity.


And what of Mexico's homes?

CFE is inefficient and corrupt. For years, Mexico has specialized in exporting its talent and natural resources. As a result the country is now a natural vacuum.

Guess that's what attracts the wind. :rolleyes:

Color Me ?

MrBillM - 11-23-2009 at 10:08 AM

Actually, I AM Green.

BUT, the GREEN I'm interested in is MY Money. I'm not out to save the world for anybody else. It'll last longer than I will. After that, it's up to someone else.

BTW, hating to sound like a Broken Record, BUT Loco's disclaimer aside, the GayGoat pointed to Sempra's DEED as PROOF of something about to HAPPEN. I simply pointed out that, SO FAR, it's just PR BS and a look back at the HUGE PR surrounding Boone's Bogus Bonanza (including TV commercials) would tend to support cynicism.

Time will Tell.

mtgoat666 - 11-23-2009 at 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
When every high tide flows into Pompano's home, then I will agree sea levels have risen.

Also, when sea levels have risen:

When Shell Island is an island all the time, when the sand no longer touches Requeson or San Luis Gonzaga islands at low tide, when the salt flats at Guerrero Negro, Scammon's and San Ignacio lagoons are covered with water...

Islands and some other land masses are sinking and the sea levels are the same... but, would 'seem to be' rising.

Now it is true Baja California and Alta California (west of the San Andreas fault) is sliding north at an inch or so a year... I have not seen anything that says Baja is also RISING... which it would have to be, if sea levels were rising and not see water in Pompano's house every day.;D


DK: your fight against the inconvenient truth of science reminds me of catholic church persecution of Galileo, albeit a bit more mild. In the long run, the catholic church finally came around to see the light so to speak.

[Edited on 11-23-2009 by mtgoat666]

chernefitter - 11-23-2009 at 11:51 AM

This may not be my place but I take exception to the comments made by the "newbie" slanting David K. I am also new to this forom, hence I believe in listening more and keeping my personal comments to myself.

Skeptics take note!

Dave - 11-23-2009 at 11:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K

Islands and some other land masses are sinking and the sea levels are the same... but, would 'seem to be' rising.



How can you argue with logic like that? :rolleyes:

Barry A. - 11-23-2009 at 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dave
Quote:
Originally posted by David K

Islands and some other land masses are sinking and the sea levels are the same... but, would 'seem to be' rising.



How can you argue with logic like that? :rolleyes:


Well, actually you can't (or shouldn't) because it is TRUE.

Barry

That SINKING Feeling

MrBillM - 11-23-2009 at 12:23 PM

I always try to look on the BRIGHT Side.

Whether a result of Global warming or not, Land masses so near sea-level that near-term sinking would devour them, are mostly those of very low economic resource and viability. Bangladesh comes to mind, but others are also over-stressed and under-productive. Their LOSS would actually be a net gain to World Resource usage. Darwinian Green.

How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm?

Dave - 11-23-2009 at 01:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
I always try to look on the BRIGHT Side.

Whether a result of Global warming or not, Land masses so near sea-level that near-term sinking would devour them, are mostly those of very low economic resource and viability. Bangladesh comes to mind, but others are also over-stressed and under-productive. Their LOSS would actually be a net gain to World Resource usage. Darwinian Green.


You don't think they're all gonna stay and drown, do ya?

Someone should call India and tell them to set another place for supper.

dtutko1 - 11-23-2009 at 03:34 PM

I wish they wouldn't even use the term global warming. We have a couple hundred or so years of data of a million or so years of earth. This gives the doubters alot to argue about. I'd rather they focus on polution control, clean air and water, and energy conservation/efficiency creating products and jobs that cannot be outsourced. Think more about the return on investment available for clean energy and energy use reductions. A CFL replacing an incandescent bulb used 8 hours/day presents one of the best return on investments a person can make.
Don

India and a Rising TIDE of Pakis ?

MrBillM - 11-23-2009 at 03:37 PM

Or, I guess Bangi's now.

It's a Win-Win either way.

If they FLOOD into India, they'll be given a place.

Not likely at the Dinner table, though.

Bajahowodd - 11-23-2009 at 04:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dtutko1
I wish they wouldn't even use the term global warming. We have a couple hundred or so years of data of a million or so years of earth. This gives the doubters alot to argue about. I'd rather they focus on polution control, clean air and water, and energy conservation/efficiency creating products and jobs that cannot be outsourced. Think more about the return on investment available for clean energy and energy use reductions. A CFL replacing an incandescent bulb used 8 hours/day presents one of the best return on investments a person can make.
Don



Agree. Seems like pollution control would be a common ground for agreement between those who are ardent climate change folks and those who are not. By focusing on pollution control, there would be the side benefit of helping the environment, whether one believes it is stressed or not.

As for Mr. Bill, kudos for having the world's first coal-fired heating device for a mobile home.

fender - 11-23-2009 at 06:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dtutko1
I wish they wouldn't even use the term global warming. We have a couple hundred or so years of data of a million or so years of earth.


:lol::lol::lol::lol: huh????
oh lawdy!

Taco de Baja - 11-23-2009 at 06:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dtutko1
A CFL replacing an incandescent bulb used 8 hours/day presents one of the best return on investments a person can make.
Don

You ever bought or used one? In my experience CFLs are crap. They last nowhere near as long as advertised (LASTS TEN TIMES LONGER!!!) especially the “3-way” or “dimmable” ones. Some die faster than the incandescents they are replacing. (Don't believe just my experience? Read some of the reviews on Amazon). I even had a few shoot sparks out of them when they went bad, luckily I was in the room and could shut off the switch before a fire started....And they contain hazardous mercury. Most are probably made in India or China and who the heck knows what environmental damage is being done during the manufacturing process, let alone the disposal nightmare right here at home.

I am all for doing good thing for the environment, but CFLs are not the answer, and will probably turn out to be a bigger scam than anthropogenic global warming. LED lights look to be a viable option; if they can tone down the harshness, and lower the price.

[Edited on 11-24-2009 by Taco de Baja]

CaboRon - 11-23-2009 at 06:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
When every high tide flows into Pompano's home, then I will agree sea levels have risen.

Also, when sea levels have risen:

When Shell Island is an island all the time, when the sand no longer touches Requeson or San Luis Gonzaga islands at low tide, when the salt flats at Guerrero Negro, Scammon's and San Ignacio lagoons are covered with water...

Islands and some other land masses are sinking and the sea levels are the same... but, would 'seem to be' rising.

Now it is true Baja California and Alta California (west of the San Andreas fault) is sliding north at an inch or so a year... I have not seen anything that says Baja is also RISING... which it would have to be, if sea levels were rising and not see water in Pompano's house every day.;D


DK: your fight against the inconvenient truth of science reminds me of catholic church persecution of Galileo, albeit a bit more mild. In the long run, the catholic church finally came around to see the light so to speak.

[Edited on 11-23-2009 by mtgoat666]


:lol::lol:

No Coal and No Tire Fires

MrBillM - 11-23-2009 at 07:19 PM

Coal's too messy, but I'd buy some IF it peeed off any Liberal Neighbors. Seeing a Liberal peeed is always worthwhile.

I thought about trading UP to a Mobile Home, but changed my mind when I found out how much it would cost to reinforce the flooring to hold the Gun Safes.

And, having burned more than a couple of tires in other's yards and once in the middle of a street during my (sometimes) vengeful youth, I wouldn't want to burn any at a campfire. Dense, Black Smoke.

Probably ruin the Marshmallows, too.

Taco de Baja - 11-24-2009 at 08:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666

DK: your fight against the inconvenient truth of science reminds me of catholic church persecution of Galileo, albeit a bit more mild. In the long run, the catholic church finally came around to see the light so to speak.

[Edited on 11-23-2009 by mtgoat666]


Like those "truth seeking scientists" at East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, who discuss in emails how to make the data come out just the way they want it to?... Yep, that's really scientific goat...:rolleyes: They're as good as the catholic scientists who came up with the geocentric models to "prove" the earth was the center of everything.

monoloco - 11-24-2009 at 08:59 AM

Just curious Taco. Do you think we can keep spewing co2 and other gases into the atmosphere at the current rate indefinitely without affecting the climate?

David K - 11-24-2009 at 09:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Just curious Taco. Do you think we can keep spewing co2 and other gases into the atmosphere at the current rate indefinitely without affecting the climate?


Like the way VOLCANOS have for millions/ billions of years???

Funny how okay that is... :rolleyes:

You need to trust in Nature, which is FAR greater than man... Since Nature has kept things working here, handling the CO2 without man's help for billions of years.

Don't get me wrong... I am all for a clean planet, less pollution, and preserving/ conserving natural resources. I just don't trust people who use fear and have political motives behind this sudden dash to hysteria about the false science of man-made climate change. Showing that movie of inconvenient lies to little kids was just about as low as they could get.

It's all about money and power... a big shake down of the United States and an attempt to lower our lifstyle to that of Uganda to appease the guilt liberals feel about America's greatness and prosperity. Right now, the libs in power are doing all they can to destroy the American economy (increase spending and raise taxes).

Ronald Reagan inherited a far worse economy from Jimmy Carter in 1981... and through decreased spended and lowering taxes, America rebounded and had the greatest period of economic prosperityand job creation in history!

People, giving more power to government (surrendering your freedom) is the problem... People who are free to prosper naturally want to grow and improve themselves and in doing so help others to achieve the things they want.

Man-made climate change is a hoax and just one of the methods the libs use to take away from you, what you have worked so hard for... freedom and prosperity. The health care bill is another way for the left to gain more power over you.

Have a nice day...

Barry A. - 11-24-2009 at 09:44 AM

My wife and I attended last night a 1 hour showing of a TV Special made jointly in Britian and the USA which debunked amost all the claims that the movie "An inconvient truth" made-----------it has not been released to the Media Market yet, but soon will, I understand.

What Al Gore has done, and continues to do, is blatantly disgraceful. He may mean well, but that is hard for me to believe that a presumably sophisticated man could actually believe what he is saying-------but I will give him the benefit of the doubt---------.

Most of what he says is "spin", and the "science" he quotes is obviously prejudiced and totally inconclusive or just plain wrong.

Again I say, even if Al is right (which he isn't) if we do all he wants us to do (destroying economies and millions of people in the process) we can only alter what is happening by maybe 1%, or 2% at the most. I say it's not worth it and will fight it with my votes, and dialogue, given every chance I have.

By the way, the Movie Special last night also debunked the banning of DDT, saying we have killed vastly more millions of people in developing nations by banning DDT than if we had left them to use it------the culprit is Malaria. Most African Nations have thrown out the DDT prohibitions and are now actively spraying again. But do we hear THAT in the Media????? Noooooooo!!!!!

Barry

Taco de Baja - 11-24-2009 at 09:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Just curious Taco. Do you think we can keep spewing co2 and other gases into the atmosphere at the current rate indefinitely without affecting the climate?


Maybe, and maybe not. CO2 has continued to increase for the last 10 years, yet global temps have decreased over that period...There really may be NO link between the two. If the GIGO models were correct the temps should be higher as the GIGO models predicted, they are not. There are too many other factors at play here. Actually, the whole idea of an easy solution like reducing CO2/methane/CFC’s and everything will be “fixed” is simple minded.

In fact, the planet is very resilient; the whole idea of a “tipping point of not return” is ludicrous. I’m all for doing good things for the environment, but scaring people into the environmental movement is plain wrong.

People have also gotten fatter, especially over the last 100 years; is there a link between fat people and CO2? Fat people and temperature changes? I’ll bet the curves (pun intended) could be manipulated to show a correlation, or maybe no manipulation is even needed.....Can we humans continue to bloat up without affecting the climate and environment? "Do your part, loose weight and save the planet." Could be the new slogan for the Biggest Looser.

Skeet/Loreto - 11-24-2009 at 09:48 AM

David:
That is one of the best , if not the best words on the so-called global warming that I have read. Thnak You.

Loco; A List of Good marterial that I use for Campfires:

All the Michael Jackson records and DVDS I can find .

All the Rip Rap Music videos and DVDS.

All Photos of Al Gore/George Clooney.

All DOPE.

Skeet

Feeding the Fire ?

MrBillM - 11-24-2009 at 11:21 AM

One has to wonder WHERE Skeeter gets his Campfire Materials.

Is he BUYING all of those things or Stealing them from someone else ? Hard to imagine anyone Donating to him.

wilderone - 11-24-2009 at 11:24 AM

"the whole idea of a “tipping point of not return” is ludicrous."

What's more ludicrous is that once you ultimately know that you've reached a point of no return, it's too late - The Point Of No Return. So if you think that being forewarned is enough you're deluding yourself.
The point of no return applies to all the species that have gone extinct in the past generation. Grizzly bears in California, pronghorns in Baja, giant woodpeckers in North Carolina (or wherever they used to be), snook in Mulege, abalone in San Diego, pink dolphin in the Yuma wetlands, all the flowers, trees and plants that used to thrive in places where there are now mines and cows grazing; the trash lake in the Pacific Ocean that is so big it cannot be cleaned up -- all of which has occurred in just the past 25 years, and continues with each passing day.
It's all interconnected - and part of the "all" is human beings. We cannot disassociate ourselves from the rest of the living mass on Earth. All elements must be healthy and have an environment within which to thrive.
Why do you all think that destroying anything on our planet won't have some kind of effect? The point of no return has already impacted bodies of water that no longer will sustain life of any kind. So many examples of THE POINT OF NO RETURN. Sad to think how irresponsible we stewards of this planet we've become.

monoloco - 11-24-2009 at 11:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Just curious Taco. Do you think we can keep spewing co2 and other gases into the atmosphere at the current rate indefinitely without affecting the climate?


Like the way VOLCANOS have for millions/ billions of years???

Funny how okay that is... :rolleyes:

You need to trust in Nature, which is FAR greater than man... Since Nature has kept things working here, handling the CO2 without man's help for billions of years.

Don't get me wrong... I am all for a clean planet, less pollution, and preserving/ conserving natural resources. I just don't trust people who use fear and have political motives behind this sudden dash to hysteria about the false science of man-made climate change. Showing that movie of inconvenient lies to little kids was just about as low as they could get.

It's all about money and power... a big shake down of the United States and an attempt to lower our lifstyle to that of Uganda to appease the guilt liberals feel about America's greatness and prosperity. Right now, the libs in power are doing all they can to destroy the American economy (increase spending and raise taxes).

Ronald Reagan inherited a far worse economy from Jimmy Carter in 1981... and through decreased spended and lowering taxes, America rebounded and had the greatest period of economic prosperityand job creation in history!

People, giving more power to government (surrendering your freedom) is the problem... People who are free to prosper naturally want to grow and improve themselves and in doing so help others to achieve the things they want.

Man-made climate change is a hoax and just one of the methods the libs use to take away from you, what you have worked so hard for... freedom and prosperity. The health care bill is another way for the left to gain more power over you.

Have a nice day...
A lot of the economic recovery in the 80's was due to the policies of Paul Volker and an oil glut that reduced the price of petroleum, also the national debt went from 700 billion to almost 3 trillion under Reagan. Oh and by the way, I asked the question of Taco because I don't know the answer and he seems well versed on the subject, not to push some political agenda.

[Edited on 11-24-2009 by monoloco]

Barry A. - 11-24-2009 at 01:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by wilderone
"the whole idea of a “tipping point of not return” is ludicrous."

What's more ludicrous is that once you ultimately know that you've reached a point of no return, it's too late - The Point Of No Return. So if you think that being forewarned is enough you're deluding yourself.
The point of no return applies to all the species that have gone extinct in the past generation. Grizzly bears in California, pronghorns in Baja, giant woodpeckers in North Carolina (or wherever they used to be), snook in Mulege, abalone in San Diego, pink dolphin in the Yuma wetlands, all the flowers, trees and plants that used to thrive in places where there are now mines and cows grazing; the trash lake in the Pacific Ocean that is so big it cannot be cleaned up -- all of which has occurred in just the past 25 years, and continues with each passing day.
It's all interconnected - and part of the "all" is human beings. We cannot disassociate ourselves from the rest of the living mass on Earth. All elements must be healthy and have an environment within which to thrive.
Why do you all think that destroying anything on our planet won't have some kind of effect? The point of no return has already impacted bodies of water that no longer will sustain life of any kind. So many examples of THE POINT OF NO RETURN. Sad to think how irresponsible we stewards of this planet we've become.


Yes, we are the "stewards" of the planet, if there are any actual "stewards", but we are incredibly limited in what "we" can do in that role. Your "25 years" statement is just not true-----we have been careless for 100's of years, but I agree that the problem is excelerating rapidly due to population explosion----especially the human trash problem. The human population explosion is very probably not sustainable-----but none of the manmade answers to this problem are palatable (yet). So, the natural "system" of the earth will probably step in and solve the population problem, as it always seems to do. That will be an eye-opener!!!

Science gives us a learned estimate of 98% of living creatures on earth have gone extinct over the eons, most without "man's" help. It is hard for me to support protective legislation to prevent things from happening that we KNOW would reduce man's so-called progress, and in many cases actually harm mankind by displacing him, when I stronly suspect that it "would have/may have" happened anyway, no matter what "man" does.

I am all for legislation that protects creatures & flora, as long as it does not drastically harm mankind or displace him, or protects creatures that we KNOW are dangerous to mankind (griz in CA comes to mind), or if there is scientific PROOF that the demise of a species would effect the ecology (including man) of the planet negatively. Moral speculation does not "cut it" with me when the consequences of well-meaning legislation are so destructive to mankind progressing, and in some cases even surviving. We (you and me) may be able to weather restrictive legislation, but the so-called 3rd world can't--------and that is just plain elite and selfish of us in the "developed world", it seems to me. The natural world will handle it, as it always does, but the results may not be to our liking.

Bottom line-------I think we are mostly helpless in the context of the "big picture", and the unintended consequences of our mandates and restrictions are often more harmful than helpful, over time.

(and I am an optimist by nature!!!!) :lol:

Barry

monoloco - 11-24-2009 at 02:16 PM

The bottom line is that no one really knows what the effects of burning fossil fuels will ultimately be. If we render the planet uninhabitable for our species then we will cease to exist like the millions of other extinct species and the planet will recover.

Skeet/Loreto - 11-24-2009 at 02:32 PM

Loco: I have done a little background on your posts. It seems to me that you "Have hard On'' for big Business,Oil Companies, Rich Folks, Republicans, Conservatives and just successful folks of all kinds.

Is the above True??

Loco; Please come to the Panhandle of Texas spend one year and tell me "Where is the CO2""?? This is just one of many locations there are Clean and Pure due to Nature.
I do agree with the Idea that the mass of autos in most Cities. lack of Wind{Nature} causes some problems, but to say that it Changes Climates over the World is to me Absurd.

We have mass eruptions in all the Seas that we donot even know off.yet as a whole the Sea takes care of these events.

Skeet

Nobody

MrBillM - 11-24-2009 at 02:37 PM

Alive today or for generations to come will be rendered Extinct by Global Warming. We'll all be rendered extinct by age or disease long before the Earth is in Trouble.

Those who are born hundreds of years from now are on their own.

Besides, the Earth started out as a molten mess before becoming what it is today and it will become whatever it does regardless of our efforts.

Given the way they talk, the Liberal Druids should actually look forward to the day that Mankind is not around to mess things up for the other species.

monoloco - 11-24-2009 at 03:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skeet/Loreto
Loco: I have done a little background on your posts. It seems to me that you "Have hard On'' for big Business,Oil Companies, Rich Folks, Republicans, Conservatives and just successful folks of all kinds.

Is the above True??

Loco; Please come to the Panhandle of Texas spend one year and tell me "Where is the CO2""?? This is just one of many locations there are Clean and Pure due to Nature.
I do agree with the Idea that the mass of autos in most Cities. lack of Wind{Nature} causes some problems, but to say that it Changes Climates over the World is to me Absurd.

We have mass eruptions in all the Seas that we donot even know off.yet as a whole the Sea takes care of these events.

Skeet
Skeet, I think you misinterpret me, while I do have a bit of a problem with certain big business ie. certain large banks and investment companies, I do not have anything against big business and am in fact invested in several of them including oil companies. I certainly don't have anything against successful people as long as they are ethical. As far as politics goes I do have issues with the Republican party as well as the Democratic party. I don't think we have been particularly well served by either one recently, and while there are members of both parties that I admire, I think that a majority of them are either ignorant, self serving, corrupt, inept, greedy, or some combination of these traits. As far as the climate change debate goes, I am for conserving resources when it is reasonable and achievable, I don't subscribe to the sky is falling club, but rather think that given time, technology will make us vastly more efficient.

monoloco - 11-24-2009 at 03:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
Alive today or for generations to come will be rendered Extinct by Global Warming. We'll all be rendered extinct by age or disease long before the Earth is in Trouble.

Those who are born hundreds of years from now are on their own.

Besides, the Earth started out as a molten mess before becoming what it is today and it will become whatever it does regardless of our efforts.

Given the way they talk, the Liberal Druids should actually look forward to the day that Mankind is not around to mess things up for the other species.
I hate to say I agree with you but that is the point I was making about human extinction. If we become extinct it will be a mere blip in the universal timeline and of no importance to any other species left. We are just not as big of deal as we think we are.

monoloco - 11-24-2009 at 05:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Man made global warming is a hoax and has been affirmed... Today's news about the UN scientists that fudged the numbers of lowering temperatures to make them rising temperatures has been exposed.

It was all about a leftist political agenda and to get funding... What a sham!
There has been sham science on both sides of the political spectrum, I suspect, as is usually the case, the truth lies somewhere in the middle but there is nobody who can really know what effect our actions will ultimately have on the environment. There are just too many variables, hopefully our technologies will lead to more efficient generation and use of power and a cleaner and more sustainable civilization.

David K - 11-24-2009 at 05:51 PM

Yup... and a meteor will hit us, and all this fuss will be for not!

Have a nice evening, everyone!

Liars, Liars

MrBillM - 11-24-2009 at 06:02 PM

Speaking of all those Global Warming Scientists:

London (Nov 21): Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

David K - 11-24-2009 at 07:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
Speaking of all those Global Warming Scientists:

London (Nov 21): Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.



Yup turns out that what the scientists said 30+ years ago was right... we are in global cooling! Temps have been dropping steadily... AFTER all that industrial pollution of the first half of the 20th century!

The world will cool and will warm, REGARDLESS of man's actions... We are far too puney on this giant globe! Volcanos, meteor imapcts and solar activity are the regulators of global temperatures... always and forever!

k-rico - 11-25-2009 at 01:49 PM

Just for fun

Complete Report


[Edited on 11-25-2009 by k-rico]

monoloco - 11-25-2009 at 04:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MrBillM
That the AP will assign Eleven "Fact-Checkers" to the E-mails as they have to Palin's book ?

Probably Not.

So far, the TV media has "mentioned" the story in passing, but hasn't gone into what was said by whom. That may change, but it's not a story they want to cover and risk offending the Gorian Cult.
Fox News will probably take care of that.

Bajahowodd - 11-25-2009 at 04:24 PM

You guys can debate all you want on both sides of the issue. What i see is a globe that has not changed in size to any great amount since before recorded history. At the same time, population growth is staggering. Does anyone really believe that good faith stewardship of this earth does not require some mitigation of the stress that this ever-growing population causes? I won't get into receding glaciers and rising seas. But geez. I began flying cross-country for business reasons in the late 60s. Anyone out there who traveled at the same time? Can you disagree with the fact that the view from 40,000 feet had more clarity then than now? Something is there. And don't get me started about why the climate change thing is merely a reason to divert monetary resources. Consider the recent wars of choice that have vastly enriched a privileged few.

Skeet/Loreto - 11-25-2009 at 05:16 PM

Bajahowodd;
Yes : I have been plying the waters of the Mar de Cortez since 1967. Water is the same level, Temps are the same, Fish is changed a little { depending on the Cycle} but I cannot see any Climate Change in Baja.


When the Good Lord made nature , he included "Survival Of the Fitest" It is still that way.

mtgoat666 - 11-25-2009 at 05:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Government makes a far greater profit (like 4 times more) from every gallon of gas than Exxon or any oil company... explain the logic there... All at the same time it prevents us from getting energy from our own land... making us buy from hostile countries, instead!!?? Huh??


the US is ranked number 1 in total energy use per capita (8.3 tons of oil equivalent per person)

gasoline in US is relatively cheap. our average retail price of gasoline (incl taxes) is ranked 102 out of 142 countries, and the price of gasoline in US is 0.77 of the world-wide average price.

petroleum taxes pay for roads, and are appropriate.

dk, if you don't like cost of motor fuel, then quit driving a wasteful gas guzzler, and ride your bike to the supermarket. DK, when was last time you rode a bike to the store? criminy! you live in so cal and can ride a bike almost every day of the year without threat of rain.

dk: quit being a slave to your car, get out there and get some exercise and save money for beer and obama's socialist programs :lol::lol:

ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country!

give a hoot, don't pollute!

yes we can

[Edited on 11-26-2009 by mtgoat666]

woody with a view - 11-25-2009 at 05:49 PM

Quote:

give a hoot, don't pollute!


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: funny chiite!

rts551 - 11-25-2009 at 06:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K

Government produces NOTHING but TAKES and TAKES.



Sure glad extremism doesn't exist isn your vocabulary. Must be that desire to be the mediator on this board

David K - 11-25-2009 at 06:22 PM

I do ride a bike! Baja Angel and I each have one... Fun stuff... But for productivity, I can't get any (water saving) drip irrigation or MP Rotators to my customers (all over the county) on a bike! So, I have the smallest pickup that can do the job... a V-6, at that... and that very same vehicle doubles as our Baja recreation car... Talk about being conservative with our natural resources!

America is the most productive nation because we want to work and produce! We use more energy because we make more things for the REST of the world... and that includes FOOD! As much as you may want us to consume and produce like Botswana or Guyana, it just isn't reality. Too bad you never learned about American greatness and freedom... the envy of the world! We take a lot, but we give MORE!

Happy Thanksgiving goat, I am just so sorry you have no clue of the meaning of the holiday... It's a crime what the public school system has done to the last generation... who think Thanksgiving is about how we stole the land from the Indians!

David K - 11-25-2009 at 06:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
Quote:
Originally posted by David K

Government produces NOTHING but TAKES and TAKES.



Sure glad extremism doesn't exist isn your vocabulary. Must be that desire to be the mediator on this board


Not sure what a mediator is, but I don't want to be one of them, anyway.

Please enlighten me on what government produces that creates wealth and jobs... what industry is it?

Thank you, and Happy Thanksgiving!

Firms turn to Baja for harnessing wind

BajaNews - 1-17-2010 at 02:05 PM

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jan/17/firms-turn-ba...

By Sandra Dibble
January 17, 2010

LA RUMOROSA, Mexico — This small mountain community near the U.S. border got its name from the sound of wind whispering through rock and pine. Now for the first time, the wind is being transformed into energy as it blows through five giant turbines just outside town.

With its formal launching weeks away, the $26.2 million state-owned project marks the modest start of a major push to turn this sparsely populated area of Baja California into an important center for wind-energy production, both for domestic consumption and for export to the United States.

At least two San Diego County-based companies, Sempra Energy and Cannon Power Group, are planning large projects along the north-south wind corridor that runs along the ridgeline of the Sierra Juarez, a mountainous region between Tecate and Mexicali known for its strong and steady winds.

Proponents say a combination of other factors also makes the region attractive for investors in wind energy: proximity to the California market, lower land and construction costs, and a faster permit process.

“Let them bring hundreds, thousands of turbines,” Baja California Gov. José Guadalupe Osuna Millán said in a recent interview.

Osuna and other wind-energy supporters say the projects will mean economic benefits for Baja California, creating jobs for construction workers and technicians, demand for services and revenue for communal landholding groups, or ejidos, which lease their lands to the power companies. The projects also will help the state decrease its dependence on fossil fuels, which produce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming.

“We have a surplus of potential,” said David Muñoz, director general of the Baja California Energy Commission and in charge of directing the state’s renewable energy projects. For Baja California, Muñoz said, “there are net gains from private companies developing their own wind projects and exporting power.”

While several private companies are looking at Baja California with an eye to California’s energy market, the state of Baja California’s small wind project is exclusively for domestic use.

When operating at full capacity, the five turbines will provide 80 percent of the public-lighting needs in Mexicali. Savings generated by the project will be distributed among 35,000 poor families in Mexicali, to help them pay electric bills and purchase energy-efficient air conditioners and other appliances.

The plan is to increase the capacity tenfold, using the electricity for public lighting in Baja California’s five municipalities.

The project “puts Baja California at the vanguard of the green movement,” Osuna said. “The world needs to change its sources of energy. We’re seeing the acceleration of climate change.”

Mexico ventured into wind energy last year with two wind farms in the state of Oaxaca: Las Ventas II, operated by Mexico’s Federal Electric Commission; and Eurus, administered by the Spanish company, Acciona. Across from the Texas border, a $340 million wind farm is under construction in the state of Tamaulipas to provide energy to 43 communities for public lighting, water delivery systems, hospitals and public buildings.

For private companies, La Rumorosa’s proximity to the United States makes it an attractive location because of California’s requirement that utilities derive 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by this year and 33 percent by 2020.

The most advanced private project in Baja California is by San Diego-based Sempra Energy, whose planned Energy Sierra Juarez project outside La Rumorosa would generate up to 1,000 megawatts of energy for export to the United States. Next year, the company hopes to begin construction on the first phase, which would generate from 100 to 125 megawatts.

Art Larson, a company spokesman, said Sempra is awaiting permits from Mexico’s Environmental Protection Secretariat and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Also in the works in the same vicinity is a project by Del Mar-based Cannon Power Group. The company has leased 70 square miles in the Sierra Juarez region, where it is planning a 400- to 500-megawatt project, enough to power about 200,000 households.

Gary Hardke, Cannon Power Group’s president, said the project would be built in phases, and initially focus on the Mexico market, “and have a longer-term alternative of exporting into California.”

La Rumorosa “is a very hot up-and-coming area,” Hardke said. Baja California officials have been very supportive, he said, while “California is a very difficult place to develop a project,” because of community opposition, regulations and problems with assembling enough property to make a project financially feasible.

A study by the consulting group Bates White lists La Rumorosa as the area with the second-highest wind energy potential in Mexico. A big hurdle for reaching the California market is transmission capacity.

For the California market, “the Baja California wind resources is actually if not the most attractive, then one of the most economically attractive wind resources,” said Nicolas Puga, the study’s author.

Despite the assertions of state officials, the economic benefits to Mexico “are marginal,” Puga said. “It will create some small opportunities.”

The advantages are for the companies that develop and sell the energy “and not for the community,” said Margarito Quintero Nuñez, an engineering professor at the Universidad Autonoma de Baja California in Mexicali. Quintero lamented that foreign companies are the ones moving in to develop wind energy, primarily for export.

Alan Sweedler, director of the Center for Energy Studies at San Diego State University, said the potential for benefits to Baja California is there if Mexican companies begin investing in their own projects.

“I think you have to look at it as an economic development issue,” Sweedler said. “It’s naive to think that Mexicans are unsophisticated business people who are going to get exploited. I can’t see them doing something that’s not in their own interest.”

In San Diego County, a plan for wind farms has generated protests from East County residents, who complain that the farms are a blight on the landscape, and worry about their effect on birds in the Pacific Flyway and other animal life.

So far, the strongest protests against the Baja California plants have come from north of the border.

“If the Sierra Juarez mountains were in the United States, it would all be parkland,” said Bill Powers, chairman of the Border Power Working Group.

Powers is fighting the Sempra wind energy project, saying that the company is using it to justify construction of the much-debated Sunrise Powerlink in San Diego County.

Puga, the energy consultant, said Mexican environmental laws “are as demanding as in the United States,” but the permitting process is quicker because “the public involvement process doesn’t open the door for every Tom, Dick and Harry to come in and complain.”

In Baja California, state officials are gearing up to grab opportunities they say wind energy will bring. The state university is forming a program to develop technicians who can work on wind projects in Mexico and abroad.

Muñoz, the energy commission director, also hopes to see the development of energy transmission and collection systems “that would open investment opportunities to smaller projects.”

“Our goal is to make this possible,” Muñoz said. “We don’t want just one big player in Baja.”

Sempra To Build $5.5B Wind Farm in Baja California

BajaNews - 5-16-2010 at 10:23 PM

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display...

05/05/2010

Sempra Energy (NYSE: SRE) announced plans to construct a massive $5.5 billion wind farm in Baja California (Mexico). The wind farm, which could cover a total surface area of 294 hectares on completion, will comprise a thousand wind turbines.

The wind farm will have a total capacity of between 1,000 megawatts (MW) and 1,200 (MW), in four areas in Mexico’s Baja California. Jacume, La Rumorosa, Cordillera Molina and Sierra de Juárez, which are located in the municipalities of Mexicali, Tecate and Ensenada, have been chosen for the first stages of the project.

The first stage, located north of the village of La Rumorosa, will consist of 52 wind turbines and will cost $300 million to build. In total, Sempra Energy will invest up to $5.5 billion on the entire project.

No timeline was given for the project's start or completion.

durrelllrobert - 5-17-2010 at 08:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
Ask the enviromentalists:

How many birds have been murdered by those giant meat grinders?

:rolleyes:

Maybe you (and the "environmentalists don't understand how the modern wind turbines work.
To help your understanding of turbine hazards to birds I'd like to make an analogy, to your bicycle. Turn your bike upside down or put it in a work rack, set it to the highest gear...the one you use to go fast on a level slope.... and now move the wheel slowly with your hand. The chain moves rapidly with only a few degrees of wheel rotation. This symbolizes today's cutting edge 1.5 mW turbines, which have a very large surface area of blade exposed to the wind and a gearbox that turns the dynamo quickly while the blades move slowly. Birds dodge these slow moving blades relatively easily.:bounce::bounce:

David K - 5-17-2010 at 08:43 AM

I was kidding Bob... but covering our mountainsides with all those giant propellers when just one nuclear power plant could make all the power of every wind farm in the country. Seems like we are wasting our resources and destroying the natural landscape. :wow::rolleyes::yes::tumble:

GrOUper-GAr - 5-17-2010 at 05:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I was kidding Bob... but covering our mountainsides with all those giant propellers when just one nuclear power plant could make all the power of every wind farm in the country. Seems like we are wasting our resources and destroying the natural landscape. :wow::rolleyes::yes::tumble:


I dont know David K,
But No matter How safe, 'accidents' from Human errors, ARE GONNA HAPPEN.
---and now we have some serious consequences from these Human errors that we are unprepared to deal with---
-Mercury Pollution and events such as this BP Gulf oil "leak" or a CHerNObYL disaster are easy to FIX as compared to...
...a broken wind mill ?

These are VERY ReaL catastrophes, the makings of which are in our AREA now and aging.
C'mon,
Pollution?
We can agree that Pollution SucKs.
But, not all Pollution is equal.
Some pollution is little more than an eyesore,
While others permeate life's core (food, water, air, body).
Now, I'm not a scientist But, i think one Causes CANCER...

Perhaps Your (who gives a sh!T We're gonna be hit by a 'meteor') attitude would change if one of these hit the southern California coast, or YOUR beloved 'SHell BeaCh' David







-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MERCURY EFFECTS:
Over the years, many companies have used mercury to manufacture a range of products including thermometers, thermostats and automotive light switches. Although the metallic mercury in these products rarely poses a direct health hazard(note: PLATINUM DAVE, you can stop now and believe just that previous line), industrial mercury pollution becomes a serious threat when it is released into the air by power plants, certain chemical manufacturers and other industrial facilities, and then settles into oceans and waterways, where it builds up in fish that we eat. Children and women of childbearing age are most at risk.

Once mercury enters a waterway, naturally occurring bacteria absorb it and convert it to a form called methyl mercury. This transition is particularly significant for humans, who absorb methyl mercury easily and are especially vulnerable to its effects.

Mercury then works its way up the food chain as large fish consume contaminated smaller fish. Instead of dissolving or breaking down, mercury accumulates at ever-increasing levels. Predatory fish such as large tuna, swordfish, shark and mackerel can have mercury concentrations in their bodies that are 10,000 times higher than those of their surrounding habitat.

Humans risk ingesting dangerous levels of mercury when they eat contaminated fish. Since the poison is odorless, invisible and accumulates in the meat of the fish, it is not easy to detect and can't be avoided by trimming off the skin or other parts.

Once in the human body, mercury acts as a neurotoxin, interfering with the brain and nervous system.

Exposure to mercury can be particularly hazardous for pregnant women and small children. During the first several years of life, a child's brain is still developing and rapidly absorbing nutrients. Prenatal and infant mercury exposure can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. Even in low doses, mercury may affect a child's development, delaying walking and talking, shortening attention span and causing learning disabilities.:?:

hmmmm, I WILL TAKE THE WINDMILLS please

dtbushpilot - 5-17-2010 at 06:49 PM

Well that settles it, I'm giving up on my mercury powered power plant design, could have saved myself a lot of work if I had known this earlier.

Now, what to do with all this mercury I've been stockpiling........let's see, there's a large arroyo behind the house.......

David K - 5-18-2010 at 09:07 AM

I have never been on 'Shell Beach', but Russ makes it look beautiful!

I think the idea of solar electric panels on homes (where there is more sunlight than cloud cover) is a great way to reduce demand... but we still need to make more electricty unless you think we should become a 3rd world nation?

monoloco - 5-18-2010 at 09:57 AM

It is much more cost effective to reduce demand than to add capacity.

k-rico - 5-18-2010 at 03:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I was kidding Bob... but covering our mountainsides with all those giant propellers when just one nuclear power plant could make all the power of every wind farm in the country. Seems like we are wasting our resources and destroying the natural landscape. :wow::rolleyes::yes::tumble:


Wrongo!!

In 2008, wind machines in the United States generated a total of 52 billion kilowatthours, about 1.3% of total U.S. electricity generation. Although this is a small fraction of the Nation's total electricity production, it was enough electricity to serve 4.6 million households or to power the entire State of Colorado.

The amount of electricity generated from wind has been growing rapidly in recent years. Generation from wind in the United States nearly doubled between 2006 and 2008.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=wind_home-basics

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear power accounted for about 20% of the total net electricity generated in the United States in 2008, about as much as the electricity used in California, Texas, and New York, the three States with the most people. In 2008, there were 66 nuclear power plants (composed of 104 licensed nuclear reactors) throughout the United States. Most of the reactors are east of the Mississippi. The last new reactor to enter commercial service in the United States was the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee in 1996.

In 2008, TVA resumed construction on Watts Bar 2, which was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988. It is now expected to be completed in 2012.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=nuclear_home-bas...

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Soooooooooooooo

let x = the number of nuclear reactors required to generate the amount of electricity currently generated by wind turbines

x/.013 = 104/.2

x = 6.76 reactors

or in a step wise fashion

if 52 billion kilowatthours = 1.3% of total U.S. electricity generated

total U.S electricity generated in 2008 = 52/0.013 = 4000 billion kilowatthours

Nuclear fired = 20% = 800 billion kilowatthours

Each reactor on average = 800/104 = 7.7 billion kilowatthours, usually 2 reactors per station so 15.4 billion kilowatthours per station

Stated above - 52 billion kilowatthours already being generated by wind

So even in this early stage of development wind is already generating electricity worthy of 52/15.4 = 3+ nuclear stations or 6 to 7 nuclear reactors.

I hope I got the arithmetic right, if not I'm sure I'll hear about it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

DK - Stick to old paper maps and crumbling catholic churches - you do that stuff well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

The only problem I have with wind turbines is that spinning things want to fly apart, and these are BIG spinning things, and there will be a lot of them. A career in the wind turbine maintenance field would be promising.



[Edited on 5-19-2010 by k-rico]

mtgoat666 - 5-18-2010 at 05:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by k-rico
Quote:
Originally posted by David K
I was kidding Bob... but covering our mountainsides with all those giant propellers when just one nuclear power plant could make all the power of every wind farm in the country. Seems like we are wasting our resources and destroying the natural landscape. :wow::rolleyes::yes::tumble:


Wrongo!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

DK - Stick to old paper maps and crumbling catholic churches - you do that stuff well.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


dk is wrongo about so many things.

but i will credit dk for being pro-nuke. i like nuke power, and would really like to see US develop a long-term storage site so we can solve waste disposal issue (why don;t we let the crackers bury it in zonieland?). dk doesn't realize it, but his pro-nuke stance is best stance for cutting green house gas emissions and curbing global warming that WILL destroy his precious dirt island (aka shell island). :lol:
dk also doesn't know that his pro-nuke stance is very "french" :lol:

dk will die to think he is a GHG-cutting francophile :lol:

Bajahowodd - 5-18-2010 at 05:21 PM

Sorry goat. But although I could get aboard the nuke thing eventually, I really have to step back and question how long it will take to achieve truly green nuclear power. The scientists have been touting fusion for decades, but have not come close to realizing their dream. Current nuclear technology still provides us with an abundance of toxic leftovers, much like my mother-in-laws Thanksgiving dinners. While I truly hope that we are able to produce benign nuclear energy in the foreseeable future, and hope that we invest enough capital to support it, currently, I believe that wind and solar deserve much more investment than they are currently receiving.

David K - 5-18-2010 at 05:44 PM

K-pobre y cabra:

Boy, I sure can get a rise out of some of you... If anyone else said the same thing, would you bother taking the time to read and respond?

You guys really need to take a drink and chill out... :lol:
 Pages:  1