Gone with the wind: England’s most important coastline

ZappasGuitar said:
Yes, it is.

How much oil at $90 a barrel is needed to turn those turbines? how much natural gas?

NONE...

And what do you know,

wind power is...

wait for it...

FREE!!

Everyone here understands you spew your venal little attacks because you can't refute the positions taken by those who anger you so.
Click to expand...

Dear moron; the cost to build such inefficient stupidity that will do NOTHING....wait for it....to promote energy independence is far beyond what it would cost to build a nuclear plant on a much tinier footprint that produces a thousand times more electricity.

It isn't FREE by any stretch of one's imagination unless of course one is a clueless brain dead leftist twit who moronically parrots leftist talking points like a lemming.

But alas, you're a clueless Liberal stuck on that special brand of stupid that doesn't know how to do simple math. You think 6 story buildings are 600 feet tall.

DUNCE

:legion:
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Yes, it is.

How much oil at $90 a barrel is needed to turn those turbines? how much natural gas?


NONE...


And what do you know,


wind power is...


wait for it...


FREE!!


Last time I checked...FREE was cheaper than whatever they are charging per barrel of oil right now.





Everyone here understands you spew your venal little attacks because you can't refute the positions taken by those who anger you so.
Click to expand...

The cost of the infrastructure and the maintenance is not free, far from it. Without huge subsidies they wouldn't be there at all.
 
Truth Detector said:
LMAO

:legion:
Click to expand...


Dim Bulb Truth Deflector can't refute my points, so he pretends to ignore them.

LMAO!

Keep up the good work TD...JPP posters from both sides of the political aisle come together to enjoy a hearty laugh while gazing at your incredible, never-ending stupidity.
 
Abraxas said:
The cost of the infrastructure and the maintenance is not free, far from it. Without huge subsidies they wouldn't be there at all.
Click to expand...


Just as one must factor in the cost of maintenance and infrastructure when generating power from oil and natural gas.
 
Abraxas said:
Well when you do that and effect a comparison the numbers just don't stack up. If you read the article you also note that oil is rarely used for electricity generation in the US except in Hawaii.

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2011/01/27/the-economics-of-wind-power/
Click to expand...

The numbers don't stack up because wind power is an industry that is still in it's infancy.

Are the coal fired plants of today more efficient than the plants of 100 years ago?

To think there won't be advances in wind power as the technology improves is ludicrous.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
The numbers don't stack up because wind power is an industry that is still in it's infancy.

Are the coal fired plants of today more efficient than the plants of 100 years ago?

To think there won't be advances in wind power as the technology improves is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Hmm, without some kind of storage system that is not going to happen anytime soon. I suspect that you need to bone up on the fundamentals a bit more.

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2010/12/09/fitting-wind-onto-the-grid/

Have a look at the nearly real time graphs for Bonneville Power Administration and see how erratic wind really is.

http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
 
Last edited:
ZappasGuitar said:
Dim Bulb Truth Deflector can't refute my points, so he pretends to ignore them.

LMAO!

Keep up the good work TD...JPP posters from both sides of the political aisle come together to enjoy a hearty laugh while gazing at your incredible, never-ending stupidity.
Click to expand...

They were refuted you dimwitted moron; the picture is how you look when you erupt with your glraing stupidity and ignorance.

But alas, I am arguing with an idiot who likes to spend inordinate amounts of time wallowing in a never ending circle of stupidity.
 
Abraxas said:
FFS pay attention, it's not my fault that you can't read or have never heard of the Jurassic Coast.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=j...tC4it7Qak1ICQDQ&ved=0CE0QsAQ&biw=1278&bih=847
Click to expand...

my apologies to the coasts of England....now, what does the ocean look like from the Jurassiac Coast....
251a.jpg
 
Abraxas said:
Hmm, without some kind of storage system that is not going to happen anytime soon. I suspect that you need to bone up on the fundamentals a bit more.

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2010/12/09/fitting-wind-onto-the-grid/
Click to expand...


Really? Are we still using the same archaic technology we utilized a century ago to run the coal fired plants we have today?

How did we manage this without having "some kind of storage system" that you seem to feel we need before wind power technology can advance.


Abraxas said:
Have a look at the nearly real time graphs for Bonneville Power Administration and see how erratic wind really is.

http://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
Click to expand...

Nobody is saying generating power with wind isn't erratic...

I bet the first generation of coal fired plants encountered all sorts of problems that caused their generating capability to be "erratic".

Increases in the technology took care of that problem...just as they eventually will with wind power.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Really? Are we still using the same archaic technology we utilized a century ago to run the coal fired plants we have today?

How did we manage this without having "some kind of storage system" that you seem to feel we need before wind power technology can advance.




Nobody is saying generating power with wind isn't erratic...

I bet the first generation of coal fired plants encountered all sorts of problems that caused their generating capability to be "erratic".

Increases in the technology took care of that problem...just as they eventually will with wind power.
Click to expand...

So will these advances in technology mean that the wind itself is less erratic? It seems to me that you are waiting for the laws of physics to change as well.

It wasn't that long ago that I was telling you that nuclear fusion is closer than you think and you were telling me that it was still many decades away.
 
Abraxas said:
So will these advances in technology mean that the wind itself is less erratic? It seems to me that you are waiting for the laws of physics to change as well.
Click to expand...


Advances in technology will mean the turbines MORE EFFICIENTLY HARVEST the wind power that is there causing power production to become mush less erratic over time.


Abraxas said:
It wasn't that long ago that I was telling you that nuclear fusion is closer than you think and you were telling me that it was still many decades away.
Click to expand...


Tell me...how many homes are currently being powered by Nuclear Fusion?

Not a one, huh?

Is there a timeline for when Nuclear Fusion might actually produce energy for you and I?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Advances in technology will mean the turbines MORE EFFICIENTLY HARVEST the wind power that is there causing power production to become mush less erratic over time.





Tell me...how many homes are currently being powered by Nuclear Fusion?

Not a one, huh?

Is there a timeline for when Nuclear Fusion might actually produce energy for you and I?
Click to expand...

It is supremely ironic that you have so little faith in technological advances when applied to fusion yet quite the opposite when applied to wind power. What you seem unable to grasp is the simple concept that without storage it is impossible to tame the erratic and capricious nature of wind power. I am sorry that you can't see that but there it is. There is currently around £100 billion spent annually on wind power worldwide yet only a fraction of that is being spent on thorium and fusion reactors. Wind power is a cul de sac that makes politicians feel better but is ultimately doomed at present.
 
Last edited:
Abraxas said:
It is supremely ironic that you have so little faith in technological advances when applied to fusion yet quite the opposite when applied to wind power. What you seem unable to grasp is the simple concept that without storage it is impossible to tame the erratic and capricious nature of wind power. I am sorry that you can't see that but there it is. There is currently around £100 billion spent annually on wind power worldwide yet only a fraction of that is being spent on thorium and fusion reactors. Wind power is a cul de sac that makes politicians feel better but is ultimately doomed at present.
Click to expand...


So I take it that's your way of saying "NO", you can't tell me when even a single home will be powered by Nuclear Fusion.

The fact is, in terms of power generation, wind power is DECADES ahead of Nuclear Fusion.

Wind power is CURRENTLY PRODUCING power for consumption...something you can't say about Nuclear Fusion.

What is sad is you putting your blind faith behind a pipe dream that has yet to generate even a single WATT of useable power, while whining about how little wind power provides.

The bottom line is Wind Power currently provides much more useable power than Nuclear Fusion.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
So I take it that's your way of saying "NO", you can't tell me when even a single home will be powered by Nuclear Fusion.

The fact is, in terms of power generation, wind power is DECADES ahead of Nuclear Fusion.

Wind power is CURRENTLY PRODUCING power for consumption...something you can't say about Nuclear Fusion.

What is sad is you putting your blind faith behind a pipe dream that has yet to generate even a single WATT of useable power, while whining about how little wind power provides.

The bottom line is Wind Power currently provides much more useable power than Nuclear Fusion.
Click to expand...

Is that your argument, who said otherwise? As has been pointed out to you previously, wind does not add a single watt of extra power it only supplants existing power generation capacity and still needs it as a reliable backup. It is a simple enough concept but one that seemingly escapes you. It doesn't save oil because that is not used for power generation except in places like Hawaii.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top