Jump to content



Photo

The Wind and the Blowhard


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#11 diogenes227

diogenes227

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 4,861 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 12:14 PM

But how many windows are there now compared to turbines?

I don't know. Look it up.  Report back here.

 

And how many cats are there?.  Look that up too while you're at it and report back here.cat.gif

 

And let's agree all fossil fuel development needs to cease immediately, right?  You might want to search out some numbers to justify that too.

 

Before we tear down wind turbines and buildings everywhere and kill all the cats, do some research, instead of just popping off (shall I say it...?) bird-brained questions? wink.png

 

This thread is about the wind and the blowhard. Right now you are with the blowhard (dunce.gif) but you don't have to stay there. mellow.png


"If you've heard this story before, don't stop me because I'd like to hear it again," Groucho Marx (on market history?).

“I've learned in options trading simple is best and the obvious is often the most elusive to recognize.”

 

"The god of trading rewards persistence, experience and discipline, and absolutely nothing else."


#12 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 260 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 12:22 PM

I disagree that all fossil fuel development needs to cease immediately. That would be the end of civilization as we know it. While we're talking climate change, why is Canada supposedly getting warmer at twice the rate as the rest of the world average with the arctic area being the worst? This is an inverse relationship to population density which proves it's not human caused, and yet in the same news release yesterday, they claimed the majority of it was human caused. Does logic not apply to the anthropogenic climate change?



#13 diogenes227

diogenes227

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 4,861 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 01:17 PM

I disagree that all fossil fuel development needs to cease immediately. That would be the end of civilization as we know it. While we're talking climate change, why is Canada supposedly getting warmer at twice the rate as the rest of the world average with the arctic area being the worst? This is an inverse relationship to population density which proves it's not human caused, and yet in the same news release yesterday, they claimed the majority of it was human caused. Does logic not apply to the anthropogenic climate change?

 

That question belongs elsewhere, over with the deniers on global warming hoax thread where there is much stamping of feet any crying foul (not fowl).

 

Let me ask a question -- this goes for colion and "JB" too -- why is anyone desperate to eliminate wind as one of the sources of electrical power?


"If you've heard this story before, don't stop me because I'd like to hear it again," Groucho Marx (on market history?).

“I've learned in options trading simple is best and the obvious is often the most elusive to recognize.”

 

"The god of trading rewards persistence, experience and discipline, and absolutely nothing else."


#14 hhh

hhh

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 260 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 01:19 PM

First, I'll answer my own question: it's all bollocks to justify more taxation. As to your question: I think tidal energy is a better source than wind.



#15 diogenes227

diogenes227

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 4,861 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 01:30 PM

First, I'll answer my own question: it's all bollocks to justify more taxation. As to your question: I think tidal energy is a better source than wind.

 

That;'s your reason to eliminate wind as a source?! You want to give up achieving one-third of the US electrical need by 2050?

 

From the post with the maps:

 

 

In fact, wind turbines have cropped up like dandelions across large areas of the US, and thousands more are coming. The US Department of Energy projects that we’ll have 404 gigawatts of wind energy capacity across the country by 2050, up from 90 GW today. Since overall electricity demand is expected to hold steady, that would fulfill more than one-third of the country’s needs.


"If you've heard this story before, don't stop me because I'd like to hear it again," Groucho Marx (on market history?).

“I've learned in options trading simple is best and the obvious is often the most elusive to recognize.”

 

"The god of trading rewards persistence, experience and discipline, and absolutely nothing else."


#16 colion

colion

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,069 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 04:23 PM

 

First, I'll answer my own question: it's all bollocks to justify more taxation. As to your question: I think tidal energy is a better source than wind.

 

That;'s your reason to eliminate wind as a source?! You want to give up achieving one-third of the US electrical need by 2050?

 

From the post with the maps:

 

 

In fact, wind turbines have cropped up like dandelions across large areas of the US, and thousands more are coming. The US Department of Energy projects that we’ll have 404 gigawatts of wind energy capacity across the country by 2050, up from 90 GW today. Since overall electricity demand is expected to hold steady, that would fulfill more than one-third of the country’s needs.

 

 

 

I disagree that all fossil fuel development needs to cease immediately. That would be the end of civilization as we know it. While we're talking climate change, why is Canada supposedly getting warmer at twice the rate as the rest of the world average with the arctic area being the worst? This is an inverse relationship to population density which proves it's not human caused, and yet in the same news release yesterday, they claimed the majority of it was human caused. Does logic not apply to the anthropogenic climate change?

 

That question belongs elsewhere, over with the deniers on global warming hoax thread where there is much stamping of feet any crying foul (not fowl).

 

Let me ask a question -- this goes for colion and "JB" too -- why is anyone desperate to eliminate wind as one of the sources of electrical power?

 

 

You put words in my mouth.  I did not say eliminate wind as a source.  I said to increase nuclear and increase R&D funding for next generation nuclear and fusion which are our best shot for the intermediate to long term.  However, this might not happen until the first city goes cold and dark.  California is a good example.  It decided quite awhile ago that building new coal-fired power plants was a no-no with polling supporting this by 60-40.  This led to brownouts which people did not like and polling shifted overnight to 40-60.  Man will do whatever is necessary to keep the lights on.

 

As for wind or any other renewable I say go for it as long as they can stand on their own without subsidies.  The earth is not an infinite source of carbonaceous or nuclear fuels.  Political fads push one greenie solution or another for invalid reasons (e.g., AGW, etc.) but at this time they will fail for technological and/or economic reasons.



#17 *JB*

*JB*

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 915 posts

Posted 02 April 2019 - 11:18 PM

'' this goes for colion and "JB" too -- why is anyone desperate to eliminate wind as one of the sources of electrical power?''

I'm not going to waste any more effort on you. Any and all can be ONE of the sources of power....even if known battery technology or storage in general ... will NOT allow renewables to be THE source of power in the foreseeable future.

It's your side that is all about eliminating sources of power to use. PLUS the left wants it now no matter the cost to the society and the lives of people.

Edited by *JB*, 02 April 2019 - 11:21 PM.

"Don't think...LOOK!"
Carl Swenlin, founder of Decision Point and original Fearless Forecasters board.

#18 diogenes227

diogenes227

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 4,861 posts

Posted 03 April 2019 - 08:22 AM

Thanks for the clarification.


"If you've heard this story before, don't stop me because I'd like to hear it again," Groucho Marx (on market history?).

“I've learned in options trading simple is best and the obvious is often the most elusive to recognize.”

 

"The god of trading rewards persistence, experience and discipline, and absolutely nothing else."


#19 diogenes227

diogenes227

    Member

  • TT Patron+
  • 4,861 posts

Posted 03 April 2019 - 02:14 PM

 

 

First, I'll answer my own question: it's all bollocks to justify more taxation. As to your question: I think tidal energy is a better source than wind.

 

That;'s your reason to eliminate wind as a source?! You want to give up achieving one-third of the US electrical need by 2050?

 

From the post with the maps:

 

 

In fact, wind turbines have cropped up like dandelions across large areas of the US, and thousands more are coming. The US Department of Energy projects that we’ll have 404 gigawatts of wind energy capacity across the country by 2050, up from 90 GW today. Since overall electricity demand is expected to hold steady, that would fulfill more than one-third of the country’s needs.

 

 

 

I disagree that all fossil fuel development needs to cease immediately. That would be the end of civilization as we know it. While we're talking climate change, why is Canada supposedly getting warmer at twice the rate as the rest of the world average with the arctic area being the worst? This is an inverse relationship to population density which proves it's not human caused, and yet in the same news release yesterday, they claimed the majority of it was human caused. Does logic not apply to the anthropogenic climate change?

 

That question belongs elsewhere, over with the deniers on global warming hoax thread where there is much stamping of feet any crying foul (not fowl).

 

Let me ask a question -- this goes for colion and "JB" too -- why is anyone desperate to eliminate wind as one of the sources of electrical power?

 

 

You put words in my mouth.  I did not say eliminate wind as a source.  I said to increase nuclear and increase R&D funding for next generation nuclear and fusion which are our best shot for the intermediate to long term.  However, this might not happen until the first city goes cold and dark.  California is a good example.  It decided quite awhile ago that building new coal-fired power plants was a no-no with polling supporting this by 60-40.  This led to brownouts which people did not like and polling shifted overnight to 40-60.  Man will do whatever is necessary to keep the lights on.

 

As for wind or any other renewable I say go for it as long as they can stand on their own without subsidies.  The earth is not an infinite source of carbonaceous or nuclear fuels.  Political fads push one greenie solution or another for invalid reasons (e.g., AGW, etc.) but at this time they will fail for technological and/or economic reasons.

 

 

Ah, subsidies, subsidies...

 

America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them

 

 

 

Americans needs to rethink what subsidies are for

Subsidies are a way for the government to assist an industry, hypothetically for good reason. For example, wind and solar power help meet our energy needs without producing harmful pollution in the process. Because of the associated societal benefits, it’s possible to justify subsidizing clean energy. Alternatively, we could eliminate all energy subsidies and instead tax carbon and other forms of pollution. If rising energy prices are a concern, we could offset those costs by returning the pollution tax revenue to taxpayers.

There are numerous different policy options available to achieve the Paris climate target. We can avoid unacceptably risky levels of global warming while also achieving cleaner air, water, and public health without destroying whole landscapes. But continuing to funnel tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is perverse and counter-productive, as the OCI report noted:

Removing these highly inefficient [fossil fuel] subsidies – which waste billions of dollars propping up an industry incompatible with safe climate limits – should be the first priority of fiscally responsible climate, energy, and tax reform policies.


"If you've heard this story before, don't stop me because I'd like to hear it again," Groucho Marx (on market history?).

“I've learned in options trading simple is best and the obvious is often the most elusive to recognize.”

 

"The god of trading rewards persistence, experience and discipline, and absolutely nothing else."


#20 *JB*

*JB*

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 915 posts

Posted 03 April 2019 - 04:40 PM

I won't take time to address all the specious assertions you quote from these Pollyanna wind advocates. But let's start with one.

To replace a fossil fuel capacity of 1000 gigawatts you would need 3000 gigawatts of wind capacity ... AND ... ALWAYS RUNNING fossil fuel plants to keep electricity flowing.

Just because a wind turbine has a capacity rating of 1.5 megawatts, that doesn't mean it will produce that much power in practice.

Wind turbines commonly produce considerably less than rated capacity, which is the maximum amount of power it theoretically COULD produce if it ran all the time. For example, a 1.5-megawatt wind turbine with an efficiency factor of 33 percent may produce only half a megawatt in a year -- less if the wind isn't blowing reliably.

Industrial scale turbines usually have capacity ratings of 2 to 3 megawatts. However, the amount of energy actually produced is reduced by efficiency and wind availability -- the percentage of time a unit has enough wind to move.

If the wind drops in half, the output drops by a factor of 8. They work between 30 and 50 mph. Above 50 they have to be turned off.

Just once read some objective, factual, articles, not just those that make you feel right and are likely NOT written by scientists/engineers.
"Don't think...LOOK!"
Carl Swenlin, founder of Decision Point and original Fearless Forecasters board.