• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Gone With the Wind Power

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
58,653
Reaction score
117,368
Location
Rocky Mountains

01EX5BZE9VV3AXA9ADKCJA3FJQ.png


ENERGY / BRIAN MARK WEBER / APR. 30, 2021

Gone With the Wind Power​

Neither wind nor solar energy have panned out quite as well as some folks keep insisting.

These days, so-called green energy is ostensibly becoming more popular. An increasing number of homes across the country sport solar panels on their rooftops and the landscape is dotted with giant windmills. The panels power a home with the sunshine of a glorious spring day, and the turbines turn gusts of wind into cheap, environmentally friendly energy. But is it effective?

The question has always been whether or not green energy could meet the demands of our country while keeping costs low.

The claim is that solar and wind will become viable if we can just get enough people on board. Consequently, tax credits have made alternative energy sources more tempting for those who want to cut ties with power companies while “saving the environment” from fossil fuel production.

As it turns out, however, the only thing green about “green energy” is the amount of money wasted on its development.

Now, many people are pushing back against wind and solar. The opposition is due to many factors including aesthetics, impacts on wildlife, the high cost of installing transmission wires, the unreliability of weather-dependent power systems, and the negative effects of wind turbines on human health.

Other concerns include the range of materials needed to expand wind and solar such as steel, copper, and rare earth elements, not to mention the significant amount of rural land needed for wind turbines.

No problem. We already have clean energy that is reliable, efficient, safe, and carbon-free.

“Nuclear plants are much more productive than wind turbines or solar panels, producing much more electricity per unit of installed capacity,” writes Isaac Orr of the Center for the American Experiment. “The additional bonus of nuclear power is that humans control when the power is generated and we are not subject to the whims of the weather. This makes each nuclear, coal, and natural gas power plant much more valuable to system reliability than wind or solar facilities.”

Orr adds, “Claims that energy policies designed to promote wind and solar are creating a panacea of so-called "clean energy” jobs are also highly misleading. The vast majority of these jobs are not in the wind and solar industry, they are jobs in the HVAC industry and jobs installing and manufacturing energy-efficient windows and doors.“

These are all inconvenient truths, and here’s another: America’s solar panels are often manufactured by Uyghur slave laborers in China. Moreover, to meet the rising demand, Chinese solar panel factories rely on carbon-pumping energy sources. Those same factories were accused of dumping toxic wastewater into nearby waters.

But we don’t have to look to China to see the environmental (or humanitarian) impact of solar panel production. Here at home, solar panels are producing toxic waste in our landfills. Wind energy doesn’t fare any better.

So much for "clean” energy.

But it doesn’t stop there. The move to embrace “green energy” is actually making electricity costs higher. In 2019, Michael Shellenberger, founder and president of Environmental Progress, wrote, “Solar and wind require that natural gas plants, hydro-electric dams, batteries or some other form of reliable power be ready at a moment’s notice to start churning out electricity when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining.”

A study at the University of Chicago found that renewable energy plants are typically located away from centers of population, further increasing the cost of energy transmission.

In spite of all this inconvenient reality, proponents of green energy make it seem as though they’ve stumbled onto some amazing new discovery, even if the idea for tapping into wind and solar goes back more than a century.

Indeed, it’s a very old idea that’s never fully panned out. Now that we’ve given it a real try, it’s becoming clear that we should leave the wind and sun for a day at the beach, not for meeting the energy needs of a nation of 331 million people.

 

nowon

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,985
Reaction score
5,415
Location
Now-here
New more efficient and cheaper battery technology would help with the weather related uncertainty... this could be it

Global Warming Solutions, Inc. Announces Novel Patent Filing for Sodium-Ion Battery Technology​



March 30, 2021 12:43 am ET

Global Warming Solutions, Inc. Announces Novel Patent Filing for Sodium-Ion Battery Technology
Temecula, CA, March 30, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Global Warming Solutions, Inc., (OTC MARKETS: "GWSO"), a worldwide developer of technologies that help mitigate Global Warming and its effects on the Planet announces the filing of its novel "Patent" for "Sodium-Ion Battery Technology" which could revolutionize and reshape the entire "Rechargeable Battery Industry Worldwide".
Vladimir Vasilenko, CEO of GWSO stated, "we have developed a new type of battery that we believe is more cost-effective and works far more efficiently than current technologies available in the marketplace today. It employs an advanced manufacturing technique for solid-state electrolytes. It has a large capacity anode due to its special design and creates higher specific energy due to air oxygen acting as a depolarizer. Based upon our research and testing we have found a much shorter recharging time for our battery due to its excellent electrical conductivity using solid electrolytes. This battery could be far cheaper to produce than conventional lithium ion batteries and provide a longer charge time."


Sodium-Ion batteries consist of a cathode based upon a sodium-containing material and a liquid electrolyte containing disassociated sodium salts in polar protic or aprotic solvents. Sodium-Ion batteries have many advantages over competing battery technologies. These are far safer, and utilize readily available and abundant materials versus lithium ion batteries that use very rare and dangerous rare earth materials such as lithium, cobalt, and graphite, in addition to copper and nickel. The greatest advantage of Sodium-Ion batteries is the abundance of available sodium. (Wikipedia)

According to a January 29 article in "statistics.com", "the global lithium ion (Li-ion) battery market is expected to reach 100.4 Billion US Dollars by 2025, compared to a market size of 30.2 Billion US Dollars in 2017. Over half of the Li-ion market is expected to be used for the automotive market. In consumer electronics, mobile phones are expected to be the largest application for these batteries. Their ability to tolerate movement and temperature changes to some extent as well as quick recharging times makes them ideal for powering phones and other consumer products."
Mr. Vasilenko also commented, "our batteries have increased energy density which could make them suitable for electric vehicles, electronics, and both grid and home energy storage needs. There are only a handful of companies around the world who are developing "Sodium-Ion Battery Technology" and we are amongst the leaders. We are going to prove to be a force to be reckoned with in the industry".

Forward-Looking Statements
This press release may include predictions, estimates or other information that might be considered forward-looking within the meaning of applicable securities laws. While these forward-looking statements represent the Company's current judgments, they are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect the opinions of the Company's management only as of the date of this release. Please keep in mind that the Company is not obligating itself to revise or publicly release the results of any revision to these forward-looking statements in light of new information or future events. When used herein, words such as: potential, expect, look forward, believe, dedicated, building, or variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those contemplated in any forward-looking statements made by the Company herein are often discussed in filings the Company makes with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) available at www.sec.gov
Contact:
Vladimir Vasilenko
CEO

Global Warming Solutions, Inc.
Vladimir@gwsogroup.com
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
New nuclear unsubsidized LCOE is 3-4x more expensive than wind or solar.
The MARGINAL cost of keeping an existing nuke plant running is competitive, maybe for another 10 years.
New nuclear plants take 8 years to build and 30 years to breakeven.
When the grid gets flooded with cheap wind and solar at peak production and rates go negative, nuke plants are going to have to sell energy at a loss. Quick path to bankruptcy.

grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
And surely someone will bring up the canard of variability and storage...
Well, energy storage is basically competitive with nuclear now - pumped hydro, lithium ion or flow batteries.
And storage costs are declining faster than wind or solar. In 8 years, before a single new nuke plant gets built, storage will be far cheaper than nuclear power.

bnef-report.jpg
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
Not sure why anybody buys the nuke industry's bs, they've been promising electricity too cheap to meter for a half century.

1574232913_569223926.png
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
13,462
Reaction score
25,044
Location
South Floriduh
And surely someone will bring up the canard of variability and storage...
Well, energy storage is basically competitive with nuclear now - pumped hydro, lithium ion or flow batteries.
And storage costs are declining faster than wind or solar. In 8 years, before a single new nuke plant gets built, storage will be far cheaper than nuclear power.

View attachment 209368
That's interesting. I was not aware of this comparison. Somehow, though... I don't see how that addresses the results we observe with the wind generators falling apart, killing wildlife, and being stacked in eternal non-recyclable mountains.

1619952395971.png
1619952488305.png


Here is a whole line of abandoned wind turbines in situ, resulting in a visual horror of a landscape, and clearly not making a dime. I am not sure how that massaged chart was done, but intuitively it does not seem to reflect reality:

1619952825971.png
 
Last edited:

Buck

Trying Something Different!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
18,838
Reaction score
22,980
New nuclear unsubsidized LCOE is 3-4x more expensive than wind or solar.
The MARGINAL cost of keeping an existing nuke plant running is competitive, maybe for another 10 years.
New nuclear plants take 8 years to build and 30 years to breakeven.
When the grid gets flooded with cheap wind and solar at peak production and rates go negative, nuke plants are going to have to sell energy at a loss. Quick path to bankruptcy.

View attachment 209367
you do realize, 'they' have worked for a generation to achieve an equilibrium with the available power sources to measure and more importantly charge an equal amount of money per amount of energy

they've done this with production of widgets for centuries but the way these energy industries are running now puts all the rest to shame

it's not about supply and demand, it's about costs across technologies and how they're all about equal

not by nature but by design

they're now offering corn oil as motor vehicle fuel while we've got oil in abundance...they're separating water for motor vehicle fuel (that's a large part of us) while we've got oil in abundance


let me add: you don't believe me or you don't want to believe me...
let me point out:
they're giving us electric vehicles while shutting down power plants...

while we've got oil in abundance...

who ya gonna believe???
 

southfork

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
17,023
Reaction score
16,532
Bottom line battery storage, saw a ton of used batteries from electric cars for like 6/7== so why they selling them or why did they change them out if theyre still good.
 

Rollie Free

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,342
Reaction score
7,879
Location
Nebraska
Of course those who make their living off nuclear energy are going to espouse their version. And that applies the same to coal, wind, and solar. Their charts are no more viable.

Here is the thing. If you have a clean, cheap, and efficient source of energy no conniving will be needed. They will break your door down.
I had read some things that made having a wind turbine sound very cool. Then I found out the other side of the story. Getting a turbine for home use is a ridiculous undertaking. To be efficient you need it 150 feet in the air. Ooookay. Then you have to be willing to lose money on the project as opposed to being on the grid. Sounds pretty delightful. Solar and wind are only a labor of love.
In my town they erected two massive turbines a number of years ago. They have added none since. There were options on our electric bills to help pay for them. Well that there is a strong red flag. At this point it's just someones bad idea.

But wait, technology is advancing and all those problems will be solved. Ok, but I am not going to buy a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon as long as you dont drive it over 10 miles an hour and a couple miles between charges with the promise they'll figure out some upgrades.....someday.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
6,659
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
The purpose of "Wind Power" is not, repeat NOT, to produce electrical power!

It's to delude the Stupids while the Left pursues their Green Raw Deal, their De-Growth Agenda, covertly. Or partly covertly. It's hard to cover up what they're doing; but the windmills give a fig-leaf covering to their War On Electricity, which is right here with their War On Oil.

This is why they irrationally refuse to consider nuclear power, even as they work themselves into hysteria over conventional power plants.
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,139
Reaction score
5,807
Location
Taxachusetts
I will consider nuclear power if, and only if, they deal with the already created radioactive waste the goobermint promised to take care of like 40 farking years ago.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Midas Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
58,653
Reaction score
117,368
Location
Rocky Mountains
they're now offering corn oil as motor vehicle fuel while we've got oil in abundance...they're separating water for motor vehicle fuel (that's a large part of us) while we've got oil in abundance
Reminds me of 'Paper or Plastic?"

We have to save the forest by using plastic bags....

Now it's we have to save the landfills from all the plastic, so bring your own reusable bags....
Here is the thing. If you have a clean, cheap, and efficient source of energy no conniving will be needed.
Didn't Nikola Tesla have this nailed down already...?
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
New more efficient and cheaper battery technology would help with the weather related uncertainty... this could be it
Sounds good in theory. What is cost per kWh and timeline for commercialization?
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
Selective outrage about birds.

15195.jpeg
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
Of course those who make their living off nuclear energy are going to espouse their version. And that applies the same to coal, wind, and solar. Their charts are no more viable.

The nuke advocate in OP did not quote cost. There's a reason for that.

Here is the thing. If you have a clean, cheap, and efficient source of energy no conniving will be needed. They will break your door down.
I had read some things that made having a wind turbine sound very cool. Then I found out the other side of the story. Getting a turbine for home use is a ridiculous undertaking. To be efficient you need it 150 feet in the air. Ooookay. Then you have to be willing to lose money on the project as opposed to being on the grid. Sounds pretty delightful. Solar and wind are only a labor of love.
In my town they erected two massive turbines a number of years ago. They have added none since. There were options on our electric bills to help pay for them. Well that there is a strong red flag. At this point it's just someones bad idea.

Ten years ago wind was 3x more expensive than it is now. Sucks to be on the bleeding edge.

You wouldn't grow wheat on a backyard scale and expect to compete with a farm operating at ten thousand of acres. Why expect putting a single turbine on your house to be competitive with grid scale?

But wait, technology is advancing and all those problems will be solved. Ok, but I am not going to buy a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon as long as you dont drive it over 10 miles an hour and a couple miles between charges with the promise they'll figure out some upgrades.....someday.
No such car exists.
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
New nuclear power is 3-4x more expensive than combined cycle gas, solar or wind. It is simply uneconomic.

https://www.savannahnow.com/news/20...not-protected-in-new-plant-vogtle-owners-deal
"Vogtle’s electricity was projected to cost 11 cents per kWh when the project was certified, PSC staff reported through spokesman Bill Edge. In the latest monitoring report, the 19th VCM, that’s up to 13 cents per kWh. For comparison the current cost of a combined cycle natural gas plant’s generation is 4 cents per kWh.

“Note that the cost of combined cycle is closely tied to the price of natural gas,” Edge wrote in an email. “If natural gas prices move up then the 4 cents per Kwh moves up. For example, if natural gas prices doubled then combined cycle is about 6 cents per kWh. The combined cycle cost does not include any CO2 emission charges which may be applicable in the future.”
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
6,659
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
I will consider nuclear power if, and only if, they deal with the already created radioactive waste the goobermint promised to take care of like 40 farking years ago.
Radioactivity is normal - like oil creation within the Earth, is normal (and continuous, geologists are learning). The core of the Earth generates its heat from this radioactivity.

Just deep-burial of the radioactive waste, until some better process evolves. The Left has ginned up this panic about nuclear waste and weapons and power...look at Japan. Japan, nuked twice on a relatively-small island, recovered in a generation. They actually recovered faster from nuclear strikes, than they have from Western-style Financialization...the Lost Decade, started in 1990 by the Central Banksters, has now continued for THREE decades, and is ongoing.

So let's dispense with the emotive Junk-Science of the Left.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
13,462
Reaction score
25,044
Location
South Floriduh
Selective outrage about birds.

View attachment 209399
Statistics like that annoy me. Not the poster, the sneaky POS StatistaCharts that put that truelies number up there.

The birds that are taken down by the blades are not the kind cats ever come near. Strictly the total opposite. So that top line is deception.

The quarter-million admitted to are eagles and the like. The turbines are place in high-wind areas, right? Well what type of bird thrives in high wind areas. Yup. Large ones.

Statistics can lie very easily.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
13,958
Reaction score
18,044
if wind power is so awesome and fills so may needs then why are 1/2 of more not turning at all?
 

Ebie

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
3,095
How much energy loss occurs between power plant and consumer, if the consumer is 200 miles away.
I heard that it is much more than they admit.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2021
Messages
162
Reaction score
354
These turbines are a blight on the landscape. I drive to central Indiana down I-65 more times than I like and the wind farm on the way is disgusting.

Saw an episode of a car show out west where they were driving and the whole hillside was covered w/ varying sizes of windmills. These windmills ruined the otherwise beautiful scenery. I mean BEAUTIFUL.
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
7,758
1620006642122.png
Oil spills are down right cute next to windmills...
 

ErrosionOfAccord

#1 Global Warmer
Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,864
Reaction score
6,576
Location
Coal Country
As an energy worker I highly recommend anyone interested in this fiasco to watch this. He lays my thoughts on the subject out exactly the way it is.
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
6,659
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
if wind power is so awesome and fills so may needs then why are 1/2 of more not turning at all?
They have to be immobilized if the wind is stronger than what the turbine is designed for. They're designed for the statistically-average wind in the installation area.

If they're not...go on the Tube of Ewe, and search "wind turbine fire." You'll see some impressive carnage.

There can be other reasons as well...failures, or pockets of calm...it's really a sloppy, erratic way to generate electricity. It would almost seem to make more sense to use windmills to pump water to a pond to rush a small dam-turbine powerhouse.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
13,462
Reaction score
25,044
Location
South Floriduh
And the final nail in the pro-wind turbine concept coffin:

Experience. The experience of TEXAS. <--The Texas disaster should first be addressed by any pro-winder in satisfactory fashion.

Thanks to the lovely, green wind turbines of Texas, people were saving money like crazy... just as touted in those graphs, right?

"While I'm trying to get gas and groceries and make sure that my pipes don't explode, the last thing I'm thinking about is a $7,000 bill from my utility company,"
Well, maybe they did not save too much, as many Texans had to pay SIXTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY FOR ELECTRICITY.

Wind turbines = Total Fail. QED. nem. con.
 

Mujahideen

Owner Operator
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,500
Reaction score
26,718
Location
OTR
And the final nail in the pro-wind turbine concept coffin:

Experience. The experience of TEXAS. <--The Texas disaster should first be addressed by any pro-winder in satisfactory fashion.

Thanks to the lovely, green wind turbines of Texas, people were saving money like crazy... just as touted in those graphs, right?

"While I'm trying to get gas and groceries and make sure that my pipes don't explode, the last thing I'm thinking about is a $7,000 bill from my utility company,"
Well, maybe they did not save too much, as many Texans had to pay SIXTEEN HUNDRED DOLLARS A DAY FOR ELECTRICITY.

Wind turbines = Total Fail. QED. nem. con.

to be fair, I don’t think it was only wind turbines that failed, but that is the misleading story that’s being pushed.
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
13,462
Reaction score
25,044
Location
South Floriduh
to be fair, I don’t think it was only wind turbines that failed, but that is the misleading story that’s being pushed.
A lotsa stuff failed... but the key is that the Texas gummint bet the farm on the windmills. They had no backup for when they ALL froze, so everything turned to crap.

In other words, the wind farms were anti-money-saving in all ways: Initial cost, damage to wildlife, total failure when needed the absolute most, and completely un-recyclable landfill hazard crap at the end of the day.

If they weren't already broken, they still didn't create enough electricity to trip the relay in a lightning bug's ass.

No cramps and jolts. Just icy sentinels.
 

brosil

Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
2,646
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Oak Harbor, Ohio
On nukes, First: get rid of the SALT treaties. You've got to be able to reprocess nuclear fuel to get the costs down. Second
: Thorium is $8.87 a pound versus Uranium at $32.15. You get less energy per pound but it's easier to deal with. Third: Both plutonium reactors and batteries work fine when designed right and no, you don't get a plutonium battery for your car.
 

Fatrat

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 15, 2018
Messages
6,548
Reaction score
7,758
By the way, the endless wars for oil aren't great for the environment either...
 

Unca Walt

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 15, 2011
Messages
13,462
Reaction score
25,044
Location
South Floriduh
By the way, the endless wars for oil aren't great for the environment either...
You are correct. Intelligence is NOT a good survival trait.

Dinosaurs went millions of years. Maximum about 500,000 for what we could call human. And in that short period, we have learned how to harness star-power, to design deadly diseases, and finally the biggest:

We are out of worthy opponents. Even the mighty lion can only be hunted with limited weapons... and it still doesn't have a chance. So we fight each other. I foresee no path to 40,000,000 years of human existence...
 

Casey Jones

Ridin' that train
Silver Miner
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
4,309
Reaction score
6,659
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
We are out of worthy opponents. Even the mighty lion can only be hunted with limited weapons... and it still doesn't have a chance. So we fight each other. I foresee no path to 40,000,000 years of human existence...
Our reach is exceeding our grasp. I see how the future may play out, now...right now is when it all comes apart, the wheels come off, superstition and tribalism replace science, logic, Rule of Law and organized society.

As we move into collapse and De-Growth, our food output is cut. Drastically. ONLY chemically-enhanced, mechanized agriculture enables us to feed over 7 billion mouths, most of whom don't contribute the cost of their sustenance.

Famine coming, in other words. This unfolds in stages: Societal collapse, war, internal or external, and in more than one nation-state and continent. Then, food production drops WAY down. Money, being made into fiat over the last 50 years and more...is worthless as a rationing tool for food. That means violence.

Whether you eat depends on what violence you are capable of, and how many violent friends/subordinates/slaves you have.

Those who survive will NOT be the brightest. The Chopins and the Hansens and the Molyneauxes of this world will not be the ones to carry it forward. Man, what's left of man, will rally around the likes of Ghengis Khan or Idi Amin or Mao Tse-Tung.

We take an evolutionary step WAY back, for tens of thousands of years. Remember...Cro-Magnon Man was an evolutionary dead-end. Or so they taught us when I was in school. It was the evolution of Neanderthal Man, slope-browed, dull, violent, who eventually formed Greece and Rome.
 

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated so I'm good!
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
60,598
Reaction score
118,263
Location
Earth
You are correct. Intelligence is NOT a good survival trait.

Dinosaurs went millions of years. Maximum about 500,000 for what we could call human. And in that short period, we have learned how to harness star-power, to design deadly diseases, and finally the biggest:

We are out of worthy opponents. Even the mighty lion can only be hunted with limited weapons... and it still doesn't have a chance. So we fight each other. I foresee no path to 40,000,000 years of human existence...
As usual Walt, you're spot on. I firmly believe this planet had a number of previous civilizations which ultimately destroyed themselves and their environments. Millions of years of evolution created a subsequent, new civilization which grew, matured beyond it's moral control and ultimately suffered the same fate as those civilizations which proceeded them. We're just the latest civilization on this planet to approach the point of self extinction, and probably won't be the last
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
13,958
Reaction score
18,044
By "half of them not turning" is an observation where the other half are in operation
 

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated so I'm good!
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
60,598
Reaction score
118,263
Location
Earth
These green initiatives have been draining our wallets for decades and they won't stop coming until we say NO MORE and back it up with deadly force (or maybe we just keep trying to change things at the voting booth)
 

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated so I'm good!
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
60,598
Reaction score
118,263
Location
Earth
By "half of them not turning" is an observation where the other half are in operation
half of them stopped turning and the other half never started turning
 

Buck

Trying Something Different!
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
18,838
Reaction score
22,980
We are out of worthy opponents.
good post...

this has been bothering me since i was a child......


why have I been taught to think like a hammer and everything else is a nail???

our lives have been manipulated to the point, we're taught to believe everything is an opponent and / or the rest of it must be dominated, competition is our only goal...

while we've also received partial messages / training:
all the 'turning the cheek' type stuff never has had any 'follow-through' about how to 'strike back' so the other cheek isn't required...but we're not told that part of any of the stories...



now kneel knaves.....let .gov tell us the 'whole truths', without the hassle of actually telling us anything of value at all
 

the_shootist

I identify as already vaccinated so I'm good!
Midas Member
Sr Midas Supporter +++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
60,598
Reaction score
118,263
Location
Earth
good post...

this has been bothering me since i was a child......


why have I been taught to think like a hammer and everything else is a nail???
This reminds me, I need to buy more ammo :hunt:
 
Last edited:

Rollie Free

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,342
Reaction score
7,879
Location
Nebraska
"You wouldn't grow wheat on a backyard scale and expect to compete with a farm operating at ten thousand of acres. Why expect putting a single turbine on your house to be competitive with grid scale?" (Gnome)

So you admit with a poor illustration that wind has no real value except on a massive grid and a landscape dominated by hulking turbines.

Take a drive from west LA out to Joshua Tree and you'll see what real wind power would look like. It's just destroyed the environment. Its been in the works for some time but there isn't a lot of municipalities following suit. In order to power a population you need to wreck nearly as much land as they live on to pull it off.
 

gnome

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
6,136
Reaction score
5,170
A lotsa stuff failed... but the key is that the Texas gummint bet the farm on the windmills. They had no backup for when they ALL froze, so everything turned to crap.

In other words, the wind farms were anti-money-saving in all ways: Initial cost, damage to wildlife, total failure when needed the absolute most, and completely un-recyclable landfill hazard crap at the end of the day.

If they weren't already broken, they still didn't create enough electricity to trip the relay in a lightning bug's ass.

No cramps and jolts. Just icy sentinels.
Disagree.

According to ERCOT, 66% of the power failure was natgas, leaving 33% of the fault to wind power.
Both natgas & wind failures were avoidable simply by winterizing. But utilities cut corners.

Not a failure of either technology, a failure of greed and risk management.

Same as Fukushima was not a failure of nuclear power, but risk management. In Fukushima, they knew a disabling tsunami was possible, but highly unlikely, so they built a seawall that wasn't big enough to stop it.
Same story with freak storm in Texas... it was a known risk, they just poo-pooed it and paid the price.

As for the $7000 bills, they deregulated the power cos, leaving ratepayers in buyer beware situations.
People opted in to contracts with unlimited pricing. This has never happened anywhere else, despite the fact many other states use wind and natgas.

Antarctica station. Look at the pic and give a think.

unnamed-1.jpg