Bishop Hill Greens to gross-out over Gaia gains
May 19, 2015 Greens I commend to readers this brilliant article by Jesse Ausubel at the Breakthrough Institute blog.
Despite predictions of runaway ecological destruction, beginning in the 1970s, Americans began to consume less and tread more lightly on the planet. Over the past several decades, through technological innovation, Americans now grow more food on less acres, eat more sources of meat that are less land-intrusive, and used water more efficiently so that water use is lower than in 1970. The result: lands that were once used for farms and logging operations are now returning as forests and grasslands, along with wildlife, such as the return of humpback whales off the shores of New York City (pictured above). As Jesse Ausubel elucidates in a new essay for Breakthrough Journal, as humans depend less on nature for the well-being, the more nature they have returned.
Wow. Things are getting better for Gaia. Environmentalists are going to hate this.
Reader Comments (49)
Add on the greening of the planet due to increased CO2 and things are looking good for the environment. That is, until global cooling sets in with a vengeance.
I have to say that around where I live, the only significant damage to the environment has been the addition of numerous wind turbines, solar farms and anaerobic digesters together with all the infrastructure required to support them.
Heh, we're still figuring out that man's allocated small aliquot of CO2 is and will continue to be net beneficial from the mild warming alone, not yet to mention the great greening. Give it time, and Paris morning coming down.
====================
There is quite a big solar panel array near Hitchen that I pass by on the train to work. The thing that gets me is that with this land completely covered in panels it dies make it completely unusable for anything else, other than subsidy generation.
I mean it's not even useful as a habitat for wild life as the grass is ALWAYS cut short to keep the area tidy!!!!
Mailman
There are a few sensible comments; the exception is an alarmist one from someone who is a 'Creator' at a practice that offers "A body-based, self-loving rejuvenation practice to dissolve stress, feel fulfilled, and promote clarity & intuition."
Oh and all it's capitalism's fault; of course. Although, funnily enough, as far as I can see he is in the business of selling stuff at a profit.
Mailman: Applications for solar farms always state that the land will be grazed by sheep - it's complete nonsense of course as grass does not grow well in sunless, cold and dry conditions. The only things that do grow are weeds and they have to be either strimmed or treated with weedkiller. Solar farms are complete environmental disasters, yet a massive one near me (140 acres of prime farmland) was called an 'Ecopark' - you couldn't make it up.
I spend a great deal of time walking and cycling through rural areas (Japan) and have long noticed this trend regarding the freeing of land. The good to the environment outweighs the discomfort of the dramavironmentalists.
PhilB,
That is interesting! I've never seen sheep in this area during my regular London commute!?!?
Doesn't mean of course it never happens of course but stilling wresting to know.
Mailman
Phillip, this link is to a typical solar 'farm' in Germany http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/climategate-anzeige/bild-des-tages-sonnen-energie-feld-in-der-naehe-von-markranstaedt/ (click on the pic for a larger view). The amazing thing is that they expect that to work especially when they have the incorrect angles to the panels as well as the garbage blocking the surfaces - obviously no on cleans the panels which also cuts output, true subsidy farming.
The elephant in the room is the Greens' failure to condemn the local & world population growth.
Regarding PhillipB's & Mailman's comments, perhaps so far, they've been the 'wrong kind' of sheep?
http://www.fwi.co.uk/business/small-sheep-breeds-solution-to-solar-land-use.htm
Does anyone have current published figures for the total acreage of UK land covered by these inefficient arrays, please?
ivan: Thanks, I've seen that picture before and use in presentations of what actually grows under and between solar panels.
Joe Public: Sheep only like to nibble at short grass. Notice how they avoid the tall weeds. Of course if they do find some grass it will have low nutrient content, hence the grazing density will be very low.
But all Green articles have a standard "it's worse than we thought" auto text correct function.
Will the cost of modifying Green word processing software, actually be cheap and simple?
May 19, 2015 at 11:43 AM Peter Stroud
See this for NFU's take on land occupation and potential income:
http://www.nfuonline.com/solarpv_nfubriefing4/
Quote ...... "Typically, developers and installers require about 2 hectares of land (5 acres) per megawatt ....."
Quote ....... "If 10 GW of solar power were ground-mounted (half the national ambition for 2020 set by DECC), this would occupy at most 25,000 hectares - just 0.14% of total UK agricultural area (18 million ha) with a negligible impact on national food security ..... "
Quote ....... "Payments and rents are usually negotiated with reference to precedents and prevailing market rates. Ground rents for large solar farms appeared to have settled somewhere between £1500/hectare (£600/acre) and £2500/hectare (£1000/acre) or more, depending upon ease of access and proximity of a grid connection."
Trebles all round.
Peter Stroud and Brownedoff: The latest DECC figures give a total installed capacity of 5.7GW, but do no break it down into ground-mounted as distinct from building-mounted. 36% are large facilities (over 5MW), which at typically 5acres/MW implies they will mostly be ground-mounted (solar farms) This gives over 2GW of solar farms, ie at least 10,000 acres or at least 20sq miles. This will be a significant underestimate as there are lots of smaller solar farms of under 5MW (25 acres).
The thing that gets me is that the 'meeja' STILL always quote the 'nameplate' capacity of wind and solar farms - not the ACTUAL output...
(e.g.: solar farms at night: nil - therefore maximum achieveable output is 50% of nameplate capacity. In reality far less than that.)
Alarmism is much easier than getting a real job, expect this news to go completely unnoticed...
Joe Public
It doesn't matter how small the sheep are unless they change to eating moss. which is about all that grows in heavily shaded areas of my garden, then they will eventually starve. Sheep are pretty good and changing diet as shown by the North Ronaldsay which is notable for living almost entirely on seaweed for several months of the year.
more CO2 = more plantfood = more LIFE
but corrupt lefties dont do logic when it is against their narratives.
Narratives which across the board ALWAYS , EVERY TIME -FAIL-.
I wonder where they think their credibility comes from?? oh yes: continuous agitation from entitled positions in
BBC, university campus, cultural charities, international institutes.
It is time to notch up the mobility and HR churn in these places a bit. EVERYBODY has the right to spread a bit of froth
at high tax pay, leading comfortable life being the goebbels propagandist.
For every 10 hectares of land for solar panels, how many hectares are needed for power generation when the sun is not shining, at night for example, which is then standing idle when the sun is shining.
If the Greens could work out how to make the sun shine, 24/7, they might be on to something credible.
"Things are getting better for Gaia. Environmentalists are going to hate this."
Exactly! That was the message that they where shocked by and the reason why they hate (hate!) Lomborg. Their whole existance will lose its meaning...
SandyS
You're right which means, as Mrs J has just reminded me, the solution would be reindeer!
The elephant in the room is the Greens' failure to condemn the local & world population growth.
May 19, 2015 at 11:22 AM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public
They have no need to bring this up, going back to the middle ages technology wise will have the desired result eg a big drop in Populations by starvation. Why frighten the faithful.
But cheap affordable and universally available energy also stops population growth. If we all end up following Japan's projections the population will reverse with no one starving to death. The big problem then will be ageing populations with not enough productive people left to cope with the old gits. No doubt a few robots and self driving cars will come to the rescue as long as the luddites stay in their box.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan
Has anyone been able to get the ACTUAL measured annual output from one of these solar farms? If you have can you tell how to get that information?
Here in Maryland we have the Mount Saint Mary's Solar Farm. It is a huge 17.4 MW complex but nobody will tell you how much electricity the thing ACTUALLY produces. I've made several inquiries and am met with complete indifference. So this array cost 50 million tax payer dollars and is supposed to generate 22 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year. But no one will publish what the actual annual output is.
kim May 19, 2015 at 10:29 AM
Heh, we're still figuring out that man's allocated small aliquot of CO2 is and will continue to be net beneficial from the mild warming alone, not yet to mention the great greening. Give it time, and Paris morning coming down.
As to 'greening', if one takes the GeoCarb model(s) seriously then it is easy (no statistics required) to see that life on Earth (as we know it) will finish fairly soon (in geological terms). CO2 falls below 100ppm and there is not much of a food chain left.
A quick calculation, based upon GeoCarb, suggests that we (humans) have already added 30 million years to that 100ppm 'end of days' point. Go team!
Remember that... Water, CO2 and sunlight = LIFE on our world.
Sheep led down low energy paths, quid est turpius quam ab aliqu ilude?
3x2 unfortunately, Green Luvvies only know that water + carbon dioxide = acid rain + ocean acidification. This is a fact, 'cos it says so, every day, in the Grauniad.
The sun and the biome conspire to almost irreversibly sequester carbon. If man did not exist, it would be useful to invent him.
===================
We are deities from the DNA machine, and Gaia adores us.
==========
She dresses in best baubles, and freshens up her face,
Hysterical with gaiety all about the place;
Shivering anticipation. What is up the fuss?
==================
Re: Joe Public
> solar farms at night: nil - therefore maximum achieveable output is 50% of nameplate capacity. In reality far less than that.
Not having a good day!!
Re: sherlock1
> solar farms at night: nil - therefore maximum achieveable output is 50% of nameplate capacity. In reality far less than that.
The official government figure is around 10% of nameplate (I can't be bothered hunting down the reference).
TerryS: It's about 11% in the sunniest part of the country (the south-west, so they say)..
\Waiting for the Green Stukas to fly in every minute now....
The historical load factors for large solar farms (over 5MW, subsidised via the RO scheme) are given by REF.
TerryS, think of the carbon footprint you have saved, by not trying to find any useful information about Unreliable green energy. It is a great energy saving.
If you want unreliable information about unreliable non renewable energy, put your faith in DECC, BBC, and Grauniad. Millions have, and continue to count the cost.
A wonderfully positive article from Jesse H. Ausubel. It clearly shows the creative power of Man that in the fullness of time works toward the common good.
The other effect this exposition has is to show what empty vessels many of green blob are and how destructive is their message.
To paraphrase FDR, "We have nothing to fear, but green blob fear".
From the data referenced by Phillip Bratby a 19MW array output 13,300,000 kWh and an 18 MW array output around 17,300,000 kWh of electricity per year. Since Maryland is much farther South than England and has more sunny days, I would expect the Mount Saint Mary's 17.4 MW array to be more efficient. A rough guess then would be around 20,000,000 kWh per year which is mighty close to the advertised 22 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year and is nowhere near the 10% that has been thrown around.
I'd still like to know what the actual measured output is.
Mike Jackson
That is an excellent solution, Santa Sleigh rides in winter when there is no sun so additional income when nothing is coming from electrical production.
"It's all in Julian Simon. Bless me, what do they teach them at these schools..."
(with apologies to C S Lewis)
The article is excellent. The section on the problems with over-fishing helps demonstrate that the mind at work is relatively objective and will call them as he sees them. The article deserves widespread exposure and support if attacked by trolls.
@ Phillip Bratby at 4:23 PM
Your link to the REF site yields some interesting information on the monthly performances of large solar farms.
From the Table page, select a farm that has been in operation for a few years (e.g. Migay Farm at the bottom of the list), and click its ID.
On the tabbed page, select Load factor tab, wait for it to load, then scroll right to see the Load factors by month.
The Rolling & Average Load factors might be around 11%, but in the winter months when most power is needed, they drop to a miserable 4/5/6%.
Joe Public, the problem for Greens, is that they think 4/5/6% is quite good. They compare it with interest rates, because they know economics, like the signature on the back of someone else's credit card.
kim non-pareil, @ 3.14pm/ 3.17pm, mind if I quote you at Climate Etc?
Just to add a few comments on the scale of solar PV to replace a large coal fired plant.
Here in Oz (the land of milk and honey & sunshine) the first stage (26MW) of a large PV array has just been completed at Nyngan in Western NSW. It will have a total capacity (i.e peak) 106MW but is projected to produce 26MW, i.e a capacity factor of 25%. Unfortunately even in the sunniest part of NSW the sun still goes to bed at night. This facility takes up an area of 460ha.
By contrast a 2,800MW coal fired facility (which produces power 24/7) and an associated life of power station (40yrs) captive open cut mine would require < 10,000ha.
The solar PV plant projected to this 2,800MW scale would require approx. 50,000ha (an area 22km x 22km) and would still only produce power during non-cloudy daylight hours. The solar plant would require additional infrastructure to either store the output, or generate the equivalent at night placing further demand on real estate.
Amber fudd - is a green lunatic.
She - Fudd is going full steam ahead - did I say steam = I wish.
Ferrybridge to close in 2016
Times [no link] reports 19th May, 'Channel turbines to power 300,000 homes'
Rampion, will get the nod from the DECC numbskulls.
A good day................... to bury Britain - Amber Fudd is the name and the Tories are the green loonies - undisguised.
Here is another wind turbine demonstrating how good they are for the environment. Fire damages wind turbine near Westboro.
And here are some pictures of environmental destruction during construction of a wind farm.
Glad you saw it,
For you I draw it.
============
Since this thread has meandered into solar energy, here is a link to an an interesting short article describing the uselessness of solar energy in the Netherlands. It is in Dutch, but maybe Google Translate can help...
http://www.clepair.net/zonnepanelen.html