3 ms·

Since I'm getting downvoted, here's a study on it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511830446X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art

Since I'm getting downvoted, here's a study on it: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511830446X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S254243511... Your misunderstanding seems possibly intentional. I'm very much in favour of renewable energy as an alternative to nonrenewable energy. I'm just not in favour of wasting energy for very little purpose. Build solar/wind energy to replace fossil fuels? Great! Obviously I'm in favour of that. Built an insane amount of infrastructure for producing renewable energy so that we can piss it away? That seems incredibly wasteful! Even if renewable energy is much better, there are still externalities to producing energy.

caf 6y ago
Regardless of whether it increases the local temperature, it's clearly not increasing the overall temperature because that energy in the wind would have ended up as heat, somewhere, eventually anyway.
lamontcg 6y ago
That study says that if you replaced 100% of the power generation of the United States with wind farms concentrated in the middle 1/3rd of the country that it would create localized 0.50C rise in SURFACE temperatures at the wind farms and 0.24C rise in SURFACE temperatures across the whole USA. The authors note very clearly that isn't a global rise in temperature and would be offset by the effects of GHG reduction. Furthermore the wind farm cost is "one time". The effects of GHGs are cumulative. See: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-turbines-generate-more-global-warming-than-fossil-fuels-misrepresents-study-ethan-huff/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-tur...
- pcthrowaway 6y ago
  But you're comparing this with nonrenewable energy! I'll state for the third time that I'm in favour of replacing non-renewable energy with renewable energy. What I'm saying is that it's still wasteful, and not cost-free if we're producing insane amounts of energy that don't need to be produced in the first place.
  - lamontcg 6y ago
    Your argument is a bit of a mess though. It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off. That would lower energy demand and prices and we're now in a regime where that makes running carbon-burning plants less attractive and they'd get turned off while any renewables that bitcoin is using would become available. And if I could snap my fingers and replace all the GHGs with wind I would and I wouldn't care about your concerns. And you're trying to argue that I can't make that comparison but I absolutely am. The issues you're bringing up aren't 1% of the problem that we have with GHGs so worrying about perfect renewable energy or overall dropping demand is so much less right now than worrying about getting off GHGs. The localized 0.5C surface warming of wind in that paper just isn't worth talking about at this point. But it isn't totally perfect! Surely you must agree? No. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Perfection.
    - pcthrowaway 6y ago
      > It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off This is what I've been arguing the whole time. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to replace more impactful energy production with sustainable energy production. I'm saying we shouldn't be using energy on something as wasteful as proof-of-work, when we can have blockchain technology without it, because that energy production doesn't come without impact no matter how much the proof-of-work supporters and beneficiaries try to greenwash it.
imtringued 6y ago
The earth is a closed system, in the sense that if you do not radiate energy out to space, or radiate energy from space to earth, the total energy on earth doesn't change, it just moves around. The question is, how do wind turbines ensure that more energy radiates from space onto the earth? I consider this scenario highly unlikely.

caf 6y ago

Regardless of whether it increases the local temperature, it's clearly not increasing the overall temperature because that energy in the wind would have ended up as heat, somewhere, eventually anyway.

lamontcg 6y ago

That study says that if you replaced 100% of the power generation of the United States with wind farms concentrated in the middle 1/3rd of the country that it would create localized 0.50C rise in SURFACE temperatures at the wind farms and 0.24C rise in SURFACE temperatures across the whole USA. The authors note very clearly that isn't a global rise in temperature and would be offset by the effects of GHG reduction. Furthermore the wind farm cost is "one time". The effects of GHGs are cumulative. See: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-turbines-generate-more-global-warming-than-fossil-fuels-misrepresents-study-ethan-huff/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/false-claim-wind-tur...

pcthrowaway 6y ago
But you're comparing this with nonrenewable energy! I'll state for the third time that I'm in favour of replacing non-renewable energy with renewable energy. What I'm saying is that it's still wasteful, and not cost-free if we're producing insane amounts of energy that don't need to be produced in the first place.
- lamontcg 6y ago
  Your argument is a bit of a mess though. It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off. That would lower energy demand and prices and we're now in a regime where that makes running carbon-burning plants less attractive and they'd get turned off while any renewables that bitcoin is using would become available. And if I could snap my fingers and replace all the GHGs with wind I would and I wouldn't care about your concerns. And you're trying to argue that I can't make that comparison but I absolutely am. The issues you're bringing up aren't 1% of the problem that we have with GHGs so worrying about perfect renewable energy or overall dropping demand is so much less right now than worrying about getting off GHGs. The localized 0.5C surface warming of wind in that paper just isn't worth talking about at this point. But it isn't totally perfect! Surely you must agree? No. I. Do. Not. Care. About. Perfection.
  - pcthrowaway 6y ago
    > It is easier to argue that the bitcoin energy expenditure should be turned off This is what I've been arguing the whole time. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to replace more impactful energy production with sustainable energy production. I'm saying we shouldn't be using energy on something as wasteful as proof-of-work, when we can have blockchain technology without it, because that energy production doesn't come without impact no matter how much the proof-of-work supporters and beneficiaries try to greenwash it.

imtringued 6y ago

The earth is a closed system, in the sense that if you do not radiate energy out to space, or radiate energy from space to earth, the total energy on earth doesn't change, it just moves around. The question is, how do wind turbines ensure that more energy radiates from space onto the earth? I consider this scenario highly unlikely.