Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon Dating | NCSE
Wind is the flow of gases on a large scale. On the surface of the Earth, wind consists of the bulk . as the value of a one-minute sustained wind is typically 14 % greater than a ten-minute .. Nowadays, a yardstick used to determine the best locations for wind energy development is referred to as Robert C. Eaton (). Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies . There is a good correlation between the strength of the earth's magnetic field (as . Carbon dating is something that you hear about in the news all the time. Find out how carbon dating works and why carbon dating is so accurate!.
The Telegraph today is quoting the reaction of Gordon Edge, director of policy at RenewableUKthe "voice of wind and marine energy". He said Lea's report relied on the findings of "anti-wind farm cranks": He explained that modern gas plants are not required to provide back-up for wind. Instead, wind is "integrated" into the existing system to act as a fuel saver, enabling the UK to harness a free electricity source from the weather when it's available.
Some additional investment is required, but Dr Edge said "credible analysis" makes clear it will cost less for consumers than relying on fossil fuels, that are rising in price all the time. But what are your own thoughts and conclusions?
If quoting figures to support your points, please provide a link to the source. And I will also be inviting various interested parties to join the debate, too. Nick Molho, WWF's head of energy policy, has sent me this reaction: The Civitas report overestimates the cost of dealing with intermittency of wind energy: Latest report from Bloomberg shows that "the best windfarms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators; the average wind farm will be fully competitive by ".
In fact, when one takes the price of carbon into account, the average wind farm is already as economic as gas power.
As made clear in the CCC's Renewable Energy Review, the cost of intermittency can be managed cost-effectively as there are a range of options to deal with this issue including greater interconnection to Europe, demand side response, short term storage and efficient gas back-up. Report seems to massively underestimate benefits of additional interconnection.
And here's an addendum from RenewableUK: This is based on National Grid's work on operating the grid in Le Pair requires OCGT in his model because he's balancing a single windfarm, rather than a fleet across an entire nation.
Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia
A single windfarm has 'spikier' output than an entire fleet, and so requires faster-reacting plant. In any case, the figure he uses for efficiency loss when plant is in balancing mode is somewhat suspect, as he admits to guessing it. I have a long standing interest in the costs of energy technologies and in the issue of 'intermittency'. The technical implications of integrating wind into modern electricity systems are well understood and have been reviewed across many countries, mixes of power plant, climatic conditions and levels of wind penetration.
In this subject, as in most others, there is a large body of broadly consistent analyses, undertaken by technically competent bodies such as university research groups, specialist consultancies and network operators. There is also a smattering of 'outliers', often produced by individuals or groups with particular agendas, such as anti-wind lobby groups. Extreme estimates usually result from flawed or overly simplistic methodologies, unrealistic assumptions, or misallocation of costs.How Does Radiocarbon Dating Work? - Instant Egghead #28
UKERC undertook a thoroughgoing review of the evidence base available in on the costs and impacts of intermittency, and is in the process of compiling a new review of the relative costs of different generation options, for publication later this year.
Electrical engineering based modelling and simulation, and increasingly empirical data from countries where the penetration of wind farms has reached a significant level such as Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Germany and some US statesdemonstrates conclusively that wind does reduce emissions.
Economic studies also indicate that the costs of intermittency, though potentially significant particularly when wind reaches very large penetrationsare currently very small in the UK context. The potential efficiency losses that result from increased 'cycling' of fossil fuel stations responding to wind intermittency are real, but represent a very small fraction of the savings in emissions and fuel that results from the electrical output of wind. The options for dealing with intermittency are also diverse; including increasing interconnection, demand side response, and storage, as well as fossil fuel back up.
There is also a substantial consensus that the lifecycle carbon emissions associated with the construction and maintaining of wind power are very small compared to those of fossil fuel sources. I find it disappointing that Civitas has chosen to disregard the large body of analysis that indicates that the costs and impacts of intermittency are modest and that wind is an effective fuel saver.
There is of course a legitimate debate about the cost and feasibility of the target for renewables, about which renewables deserve how much support, how best to deliver such support and the role of nuclear, carbon capture and other supply options.
Some interesting observations below the line by Portopollohighlighting some of Le Pair's assumptions: As an electricity system modeller someone's got to do itI just took a quick look at the le Pair report. His central concern - the costs that wind imposes on the system, and particularly the marginal plant is important and does deserve more analysis, but his modelling is simplistic in ways that make it fatally flawed.
To pick some major elements: First, because he assumes that the marginal CCGT is a very big plant as he admits, bigger than any existingany efficiency reductions from cycling are applied across the full capacity of a large plant.
This equilibrium persists in living organisms as long as they continue living, but when they die, they no longer 'breathe' or eat new 14 carbon isotopes Now it's fairly simple to determine how many total carbon atoms should be in a sample given its weight and chemical makeup.
And given the fact that the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 in living organisms is approximately 1: In actually measuring these quantities, we take advantage of the fact that the rate of decay how many radioactive emissions occur per unit time is dependent on how many atoms there are in a sample this criteria leads to an exponential decay rate.
We have devices to measure the radioactivity of a sample, and the ratio described above translates into a rate of Voila, now you can tell how old a sample of organic matter is. Carbon 14 dating is not great for dating things like a year old because if much less than 1 half-life has passed, barely any of the carbon 14 has decayed, and it is difficult to measure the difference in rates and know with certainty the time involved.
On the other hand, if tons of half-lives have passed, there is almost none of the sample carbon 14 left, and it is really hard to measure accurately how much is left. This article will answer several of the most common creationist attacks on carbon dating, using the question-answer format that has proved so useful to lecturers and debaters. How does carbon dating work?
Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen N into carbon C or radiocarbon. Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C, and the old C starts to decay back into N by emitting beta particles.
The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate.
How Carbon-14 Dating Works
So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. C decays with a half-life of 5, years. Kieth and Anderson radiocarbon-dated the shell of a living freshwater mussel and obtained an age of over two thousand years.
ICR creationists claim that this discredits C dating. How do you reply? It does discredit the C dating of freshwater mussels, but that's about all. Kieth and Anderson show considerable evidence that the mussels acquired much of their carbon from the limestone of the waters they lived in and from some very old humus as well.
Carbon from these sources is very low in C because these sources are so old and have not been mixed with fresh carbon from - page 24 - the air.
- Radiocarbon dating
- Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
- Atmosphere of Venus
Thus, a freshly killed mussel has far less C than a freshly killed something else, which is why the C dating method makes freshwater mussels seem older than they really are. When dating wood there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C The creationists who quote Kieth and Anderson never tell you this, however.
Are wind turbines increasing carbon emissions?
A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C, enough to give them C ages in the tens of thousands of years.
How do you explain this? Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium K decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation.
As Hurley points out: Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. K decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ".
This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.
Creationists such as Cook claim that cosmic radiation is now forming C in the atmosphere about one and one-third times faster than it is decaying. If we extrapolate backwards in time with the proper equations, we find that the earlier the historical period, the less C the atmosphere had.
If we extrapolate - page 25 - as far back as ten thousand years ago, we find the atmosphere would not have had any C in it at all. If they are right, this means all C ages greater than two or three thousand years need to be lowered drastically and that the earth can be no older than ten thousand years. Yes, Cook is right that C is forming today faster than it's decaying. However, the amount of C has not been rising steadily as Cook maintains; instead, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years.
How do we know this? From radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. There are two ways of dating wood from bristlecone pines: Since the tree ring counts have reliably dated some specimens of wood all the way back to BC, one can check out the C dates against the tree-ring-count dates. Admittedly, this old wood comes from trees that have been dead for hundreds of years, but you don't have to have an 8,year-old bristlecone pine tree alive today to validly determine that sort of date.