copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2018-12-01): Wind power can impact the climate by altering the atmospheric boundary layer, with at least 40 papers and 10 observational studies now linking wind power to climatic impacts. We make the first comparison between the climatic impacts of large-scale wind power and site-scale observations, finding agreement that warming from wind turbines is largest at night. Wind power's climatic impacts will continue to expand as more are installed.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2018-10-30): "Wind beats coal by any environmental measure, but that doesn't mean that its impacts are negligible," said David Keith, the Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics at the Harvard John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and senior author of the papers. "We must quickly transition away from fossil fuels to stop carbon emissions. In doing so, we must make choices between various low-carbon technologies, all of which have some social and environmental impacts." [...] The Harvard researchers found that the warming effect in the continental U.S. caused by wind turbines is actually larger than the effect of reduced emissions for the first century of its operation. This is because the warming effect is predominantly local to the wind farm, while greenhouse gas concentrations must be reduced globally before the benefits are realized. [...] "The direct climate impacts of wind power are instant, while the benefits of reduced emissions accumulate slowly," says Keith. "If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has--in some respects--more climate impact than coal or gas. If your perspective is the next thousand years, then wind power has enormously less climatic impact than coal or gas."
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2021-05-25): We find that generating today’s US electricity demand (0.5 TWe) with wind power would warm Continental US surface temperatures by 0.24C. Warming arises, in part, from turbines redistributing heat by mixing the boundary layer. Modeled diurnal and seasonal temperature differences are roughly consistent with recent observations of warming at wind farms, reflecting a coherent mechanistic understanding for how wind turbines alter climate. The warming effect is: small compared with projections of 21st century warming, approximately equivalent to the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing global electricity generation, and large compared with the reduced warming achieved by decarbonizing US electricity with wind. For the same generation rate, the climatic impacts from solar photovoltaic systems are about ten times smaller than wind systems. Wind’s overall environmental impacts are surely less than fossil energy. Yet, as the energy system is decarbonized, decisions between wind and solar should be informed by estimates of their climate impacts.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2023-06-12): Enough turbines to generate all of America’s power would warm the U.S. by 0.24 degrees Celsius Giant wind turbines that generate fossil fuel–free power add a little heat of their own to the planet. If the United States sprouted enough wind turbines to meet its entire demand for electricity, the turbines would immediately raise the region’s surface air temperatures by 0.24 degrees Celsius, on average, scientists report online October 4 in Joule. In the short term, that’s not a negligible amount: Current global greenhouse gas emissions are projected to warm the contiguous United States by 0.24 degrees Celsius by 2030.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2020-12-01): Wind energy is a virtually carbon-free and pollution-free electricity source, with global wind resources greatly exceeding electricity demand. Accordingly, the installed capacity of wind turbines grew at an annualized rate of >20% from 2000 to 2019 and is projected to increase by a further 50% by the end of 2023. In this Review, we describe the factors that dictate the wind resource magnitude and variability and illustrate the tools and techniques that are being used to make projections of wind resources and wind turbine operating conditions. Natural variability due to the action of internal climate modes appears to dominate over global-warming-induced non-stationarity over most areas with large wind energy installations or potential. However, there is evidence for increased wind energy resources by the end of the current century in northern Europe and the US Southern Great Plains. New technology trends are changing the sensitivity of wind energy to global climate non-stationarity and, thus, present new challenges and opportunities for innovative research. The evolution of climate modelling to increasingly address mesoscale processes is providing improved projections of both wind resources and wind turbine operating conditions, and will contribute to continued reductions in the levelized cost of energy from wind power generation.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2024-05-20): New research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London, found that more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested—meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. [...] "Often, when we discuss the dangers of fossil fuel combustion, it’s in the context of CO2 and climate change and overlook the potential health impact of the pollutants co-emitted with greenhouse gases," said Dr. Joel Schwartz, Professor at Harvard Chan School and co-author of the study. "We hope that by quantifying the health consequences of fossil fuel combustion, we can send a clear message to policymakers and stakeholders of the benefits of a transition to alternative energy sources." [...] "The health gains we can achieve from getting off fossil fuels is twice what we thought it was yesterday," said Dr. Aaron Bernstein, Director of the Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment at Harvard Chan School. "The Global Burden of Disease study estimated deaths from fossil fuels numbered 4.2 million in 2015, but thanks to more rigorous science, we can now see that fossil fuels cause far more harm than previously understood. Now more than ever we can see the healthier, more just and sustainable world that climate actions can deliver."
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2008-11-18): Such projects do not represent net emission reductions and can compromise the integrity of programsincluding the ETSthat allow the use of CDM credits for compliance. We also found that the cost- effectiveness and overall scale of emission reductions are limited by the current project approval process, although proposed changes may improve its effectiveness. Key lessons from the CDM include: (1) the resources necessary to obtain project approval may reduce the cost- effectiveness and quality of projects; (2) the need to ensure the credibility of emission reductions presents a significant regulatory challenge; and (3) due to the tradeoffs with offsets, the use of such programs may be, at best, a temporary solution.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2024-04-15): The Biden administration has pledged to eliminate fossil fuels as a form of energy generation in the US by 2035, setting the goal of 80 percent carbon-free electricity by 2030. Wind, solar, and hydroelectric power have been the fastest-growing segment of the energy sector, and will be further fueled by some $370 billion in funding under the Inflation Reduction Act. Wind and solar projects, steadily improving in their technology and efficiency, are ready to roll. [...] Without any sense of a grand plan or rationale, and environmentalists divided—one camp saying impacts on the environment must always be considered, the other that there will be no functioning wildlife habitats or thriving species if climate change isn’t curtailed—renewable energy projects are increasingly being viewed as what Harvard professor Alan Altshuler called LULUs: "locally unwanted land uses," like prisons or landfills.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2023-11-09): In our most recent work, we’ve had to rely on statistical techniques from computational linguistics to uncover patterns of speech hiding in plain sight. These include a systematic fixation on consumer energy demand rather than on the fossil fuels that the company supplies and the systematic representation of climate change as a "risk" rather than a reality. These are subtle patterns that, we’ve now realized, have been systematically embedded into climate discourse by ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interests.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2022-06-28): Producing and burning fossil fuels creates air pollution that harms our health and generates toxic emissions that drive climate change. [...] Research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London, found that more than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested—meaning that air pollution from burning fossil fuels like coal and diesel was responsible for about 1 in 5 deaths worldwide. [...] New research finds that deaths from fossil fuel emissions are higher than previously thought—more than 8 million people per year, worldwide.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2019-10-25): "All sorts of scenarios have been developed under the assumption that carbon capture actually reduces substantial amounts of carbon. However, this research finds that it reduces only a small fraction of carbon emissions, and it usually increases air pollution," said Jacobson, who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "Even if you have 100 percent capture from the capture equipment, it is still worse, from a social cost perspective, than replacing a coal or gas plant with a wind farm because carbon capture never reduces air pollution and always has a capture equipment cost. Wind replacing fossil fuels always reduces air pollution and never has a capture equipment cost." [...] This research also looked at the social cost of carbon capture – including air pollution, potential health problems, economic costs and overall contributions to climate change – and concluded that those are always similar to or higher than operating a fossil fuel plant without carbon capture and higher than not capturing carbon from the air at all. Even when the capture equipment is powered by renewable electricity, Jacobson concluded that it is always better to use the renewable electricity instead to replace coal or natural gas electricity or to do nothing, from a social cost perspective. Given this analysis, Jacobson argued that the best solution is to instead focus on renewable options, such as wind or solar, replacing fossil fuels.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2008-07-14): In contrast, most renewable energy sources produce little to no global warming emissions. Even when including "life cycle" emissions of clean energy (ie, the emissions from each stage of a technology’s life—manufacturing, installation, operation, decommissioning), the global warming emissions associated with renewable energy are minimal [3]. [...] Compared with fossil fuel technologies, which are typically mechanized and capital intensive, the renewable energy industry is more labor intensive. Solar panels need humans to install them; wind farms need technicians for maintenance. This means that, on average, more jobs are created for each unit of electricity generated from renewable sources than from fossil fuels.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2023-04-05): To limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C or close to it, all countries must decarbonize—cut fossil fuel use, transition to zero-carbon renewable energy sources, and electrify as many sectors as possible. It will require huge numbers of wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles (EVs), and storage batteries — all of which are made with rare earth elements and critical metals.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2022-03-28): The opposition comes at a time when climate scientists say the world must shift quickly away from fossil fuels to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. But 60% of U.S. electricity still comes from carbon-based fuels.
Claim: Harvard study finds that wind turbines create MORE global warming than the fossil fuels they eliminate (Ethan Huff, 2019-12-23)
Evidence (2024-10-02): The main motivation to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources is to slow and eventually stop climate change, which is widely agreed to be caused mostly by greenhouse gas emissions. In general, renewable energy sources cause much lower emissions than fossil fuels.[12] The International Energy Agency estimates that to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, 90% of global electricity generation will need to be produced from renewable sources.[13] Renewables also cause much less air pollution than fossil fuels, improving public health, and are less noisy.[12] [...] Although almost all forms of renewable energy cause much fewer carbon emissions than fossil fuels, the term is not synonymous with low-carbon energy. Some non-renewable sources of energy, such as nuclear power,[contradictory]generate almost no emissions, while some renewable energy sources can be very carbon-intensive, such as the burning of biomass if it is not offset by planting new plants.[12] Renewable energy is also distinct from sustainable energy, a more abstract concept that seeks to group energy sources based on their overall permanent impact on future generations of humans. For example, biomass is often associated with unsustainable deforestation.[23] [...] A study found that transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy systems reduces risks from mining, trade and political dependence because renewable energy systems don't need fuel – they depend on trade only for the acquisition of materials and components during construction.[230]
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2019-05-13): Factually Inaccurate : Analyzing the energy used in the production of wind turbines does not show that it's greater than the electricity produced over the turbine's working lifetime.
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2022-05-14): The claim made is as follows: "Windmills are not sustainable over the entire life cycle". The claim was made by Wybren van Haga, Member of Parliament, engineer and entrepreneur. Van Haga has been active in the House of Representatives since 2017 and represents his own party: Groep Van Haga. [...] Milieu Centraal says that wind energy is clean and comes from a never ending resource. They do not mention that if there is no wind or too much wind, there is no production of power. The CO2 emissions are 50 times lower than those of ‘grey’ electricity. However, according to Milieu Centraal, ‘some’ CO2 is released during construction, maintenance and demolition. But after 3 to 6 months of operation, a turbine has already saved that amount of CO2 emissions. Over the lifetime of a wind turbine, 20 years, it produces up to 80 times as much energy as it takes to build one. It has not been stated which factors have been included in this calculation. It can be assumed that these are the same factors as mentioned before: construction, maintenance and demolition. The factors transport and recycling are not included. It is impossible for the reader to ascertain what this calculation is based on.
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2011-09-20): The short answer is that if they move slowly, they produce less power. But if the wind speed doubles, then a windmill could produce eight times more power under the appropriate conditions. [...] Of course, too much wind could damage the turbine, so windmills have a cut-out speed, too. After that, a brake stops the windmill’s rotation.
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2022-04-04): Voice of the people: Windmills are not worth the investment Windmills are not worth the investment
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2019-04-11): No, a professor didn't say a windmill will 'never generate' the energy invested in building it [...] Now, we have a meme roaming social media that claims Canadian author and professor Thomas Homer-Dixon said that windmills will "never" generate as much energy as was expended to build the structures. [...] The meme does get a part of the quote right, but it strategically leaves out large swaths of information in order to give people the impression that all windmills never expend the amount of energy that was invested in it, which is not accurate. The meme’s omitted section explains that, while poorly placed windmills may never generate enough energy payback, a good wind site could generate it in three years or less.
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2021-10-13): "A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it," a Sept. 16 version of the post says. This qualifies as a zombie claim. In 2019, we found an earlier version False, but it walks again. [...] The Facebook post skipped over that sentence, and jumped to Hughes’ warning, that in the wrong spot, a windmill "could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it." (There’s a logical breakdown here: If a turbine is spinning, then the wind must be blowing, and the turbine is producing power.) [...] A viral image said that a wind turbine "could never generate as much energy as was invested in building it."
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2021-02-24): The claim: A 'windmill' will never create as much energy as was invested in building it [...] In the wake of the storms, critics of green energy took to social media. One Facebook post recirculates a meme that went viral in March 2019, following comments made by then President Trump. It claims windmills will never create as much energy as was invested in building them. [...] - Snopes, Aug. 17, 2015, "Do Windmills Consume More Energy to Build Than They Ever Produce?"
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2019-11-21): AAP FactCheck examined a Facebook post from November 7, 2019 by public page Stand Up For Australia- Melbourne, which claimed a wind turbine, referred to in the post as a windmill, "could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it". [...] Mr Homer-Dixon wrote that the full excerpt from Dr Hughes’s essay reads: "The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. [...] Based on the evidence, AAP FactCheck found the Facebook post to be false. The post uses a selective quote and omits important information to create a misleading statement. While the original essay stated incorrectly placed windmills could theoretically generate less energy than that used to produce them, multiple studies posited "energy payback" would occur on average from three months to three years depending on where a wind farm is situated.
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2022-08-30): The original passage from the essay (with the selective quote in italics) reads: "The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. So Hughes said a wind turbine placed in poor conditions might not generate enough energy to pay back what it took to make the turbine, but in a good wind site it could pay back the energy in under three years. [...] Of course some energy is consumed in building a wind turbine and the pylon that supports it, Hanley says. But "the typical wind turbine will generate enough electricity to offset the energy consumed to create it in about 7.5 months or less".
Claim: A windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it. (Internet users, 2019-05-13)
Evidence (2023-10-23): Al I I A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tons of steel that required 300 tons or iron ore and 170 tons of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. Carbon Shift #al#two#megawatt#windmill#made#tons#steel#required#iron#ore#coking#coal#mined#transported#produced#hydrocarbons#could#spin#falls#apart 847 comment [...] You took his words out of context, he actually said the opposite. He said you need to put windmills in the right locations, otherwise it would spin until it fell off with no net gain. Therefore, he said, they must go in high wind areas, so they will have a net gain. [...] Windmills do not generate electricity. They grind foods. This guy is an idiot.