If 25% of a commodity is removed, will the consumers' cost go up?

[Turtlesoup]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking each other away and giggling like crazy.

The point is that when they suspend new leases, that means the 25% is frozen and as Heath said will "eventually" be eliminated. I'm not like you, I actually read his OP.

And we both know Biden would never have approved the end of the "pause" in leases. Stop lying

It was the drilling permits that would have endangered production much sooner. But that ended months ago. It's was always doubtful that Joe would be able to abolish oil production on federal lands through his pause on lease sales.

So Joe's not responsible because he should have knows the courts would stop them. So you only support Joe TRYING to fund despotic governments and drill and drill and ship oil from overseas because you think that doesn't affect our environment.

A standard you applied to Trump ... never ...

Or in your native language, slap, slap, giggle, giggle.

Joe is responsible for both pauses and neither one cause a big spike in prices at the pump. Speaking of Trumpybear, he proudly protected the oil in Syria after stabbing our allies against ISIS in the back.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking and giggling away, you're just ranting. You hate Trump to the point of total irrationality. I got it

You brought up the old Trumpyberra.

You still lack credibility.

Right, I pointed out that your standard's totally changed when the President switched from Trump to Biden. It's called hypocrisy.

But then you are just one of the girls in the Democrat locker room poking each other and giggling. You're not even engaged in anything real. Just Trump is bad, Biden is good. Justify whatever Biden does.

But it is a fact that you're supporting funding despotic governments and actually believe that drilling overseas and shipping oil in little boats across big oceans is better than drilling domestically. That's just wrong for a lot of reasons. But you aren't going to process them. It contradicts Trump bad, Biden good, as deep as you get

You didn't point out anything. You just make more and more wild claims that you never back up.

Carter championed energy independence from the ME 45 years ago. RayGun hooked us up.

Carter was lying manipulative a-hole. He created the fake oil crisis.....as soon as Reagan got in, Reagan calling the sauds lie about oil extinct bullshit, the gas lines went away permanently.

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

"You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line."

- That's a simplification of what I'm arguing. I am saying first that we would get a far greater payback for replacing coal with nuclear gas and clean coal (even better with nuclear). And we aren't doing that. I'm not the one making it the either or. I'm also pointing out that our energy needs are growing and wind is never going to remotely solve the problem. Hence my question, would you rather save 50% of a $1,000 bill or 100% of a $50 bill? Wind is a big distraction. I'm also saying flat out that wind isn't worth it. Our energy needs are growing and wind is far to little payback and potential. It's not a we can't walk and chew gum argument, it's a let's not chew gum argument.

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

I didn't have to work hard at all. Your flaming insults just begged for a suitable response, it was like a force took over my fingers and automatically typed it out.

I remembered it a was a slogan from Houston's Can Academy.

Democrats have been calling us all racists for at least 40 years, that's as long as I remember. Not sure when it started before that. I've had it, I'm giving it back until you stop. God, a Democrat whining about insults. You're priceless

Granted it was an insult trap that I was pretty sure an astute guy like you would easily trigger.

Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon.

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

"What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible."

l'm a bit confused by this part. I am saying there are a lot of negative externalities too.

Mostly I am saying that the energy production and potential are not where we should be putting our focus. Yet we are NOT doing things with a far greater payback and we are doing this even though the potential isn't there and our energy needs keep growing.

Think about this. Our energy needs are growing faster than all wind production. Wind can't even solve increases in energy needs much less replacing current energy production

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

"Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it."

Thanks! What was fascinating to me was how much the engineers loved someone from management wanting to actually learn about this stuff. They would take me around and show me all kids of equipment and materials they use to train engineers at the plants. I have also toured all sorts of energy facilities. Nuclear and the offshore wind companies were the most interesting

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm talking about all carbon used to produce a windmill. I am talking about giant windmills, includingy the ones in the ocean. There is steel, they have to make the components, they have to assemble the windmill. Ocean windmills are giant and there is a whole bunch more underwater foundation.

You can word slice and bicker, but if you are claiming emissions, you have to count the entire creation process.

As a Democrat, you don't want to count all that.

Good then we're on the same page. The Figures I posted amortized the manufacturing carbon footprint over the lifetime of all the green energy production models and compared them to the various fossil fuel models. Pretending otherwise make this a useless argument.

 

[danielpalos]

Upgrading our grid can provide jobs and increase capacity by at least twenty-five percent.

 

[kaz]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

I didn't have to work hard at all. Your flaming insults just begged for a suitable response, it was like a force took over my fingers and automatically typed it out.

I remembered it a was a slogan from Houston's Can Academy.

Democrats have been calling us all racists for at least 40 years, that's as long as I remember. Not sure when it started before that. I've had it, I'm giving it back until you stop. God, a Democrat whining about insults. You're priceless

Granted it was an insult trap that I was pretty sure an astute guy like you would easily trigger.

Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon.

You are like a guy in the KKK who goes to the meetings and puts on your white hood and goes to lynchings and cross burnings. Then you say, but it wasn't me!

The distinction of your personal role is lost on me. I'm tired of the left being based on flaming insults and fascism. You are at best silent when it comes to stopping it while you butt slap and hug all the Democrats who do it. There is a point where you fight fire with fire. I've had it. Knock it off.

"Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon."

False analogy. That's just stupid

 

[BlindBoo]

The pause for review on new leases did not cause a drop in production on federal lands.

Saudi Arabia accounts for less than 10 % of our petroleum imports.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking each other away and giggling like crazy.

The point is that when they suspend new leases, that means the 25% is frozen and as Heath said will "eventually" be eliminated. I'm not like you, I actually read his OP.

And we both know Biden would never have approved the end of the "pause" in leases. Stop lying

It was the drilling permits that would have endangered production much sooner. But that ended months ago. It's was always doubtful that Joe would be able to abolish oil production on federal lands through his pause on lease sales.

So Joe's not responsible because he should have knows the courts would stop them. So you only support Joe TRYING to fund despotic governments and drill and drill and ship oil from overseas because you think that doesn't affect our environment.

A standard you applied to Trump ... never ...

Or in your native language, slap, slap, giggle, giggle.

Joe is responsible for both pauses and neither one cause a big spike in prices at the pump. Speaking of Trumpybear, he proudly protected the oil in Syria after stabbing our allies against ISIS in the back.

You and the girls in the Democrat locker room are just poking and giggling away, you're just ranting. You hate Trump to the point of total irrationality. I got it

You brought up the old Trumpyberra.

You still lack credibility.

Right, I pointed out that your standard's totally changed when the President switched from Trump to Biden. It's called hypocrisy.

But then you are just one of the girls in the Democrat locker room poking each other and giggling. You're not even engaged in anything real. Just Trump is bad, Biden is good. Justify whatever Biden does.

But it is a fact that you're supporting funding despotic governments and actually believe that drilling overseas and shipping oil in little boats across big oceans is better than drilling domestically. That's just wrong for a lot of reasons. But you aren't going to process them. It contradicts Trump bad, Biden good, as deep as you get

You didn't point out anything. You just make more and more wild claims that you never back up.

Carter championed energy independence from the ME 45 years ago. RayGun hooked us up.

Carter was lying manipulative a-hole. He created the fake oil crisis.....as soon as Reagan got in, Reagan calling the sauds lie about oil extinct bullshit, the gas lines went away permanently.

Hahahahaha....um History! MAGA style!

If it fits the moment! Maga_Nut.

What Iran’s 1979 revolution meant for US and global oil markets | Brookings

The Iranian revolution and the oil price shocks that followed catalyzed a number of important changes in petroleum markets that remain in place today.

www.brookings.edu

A Short History of Gasoline Price Controls - Econlib

In the Weekend Interview in today’s Wall Street Journal (WSJ editor Rob Pollock interviews George Shultz), Shultz says the following: And one thing you know from experience is when you control the price of something, you end up getting less of it. So if you control the price of health-care...

www.econlib.org

 

[kaz]

I'm talking about all carbon used to produce a windmill. I am talking about giant windmills, includingy the ones in the ocean. There is steel, they have to make the components, they have to assemble the windmill. Ocean windmills are giant and there is a whole bunch more underwater foundation.

You can word slice and bicker, but if you are claiming emissions, you have to count the entire creation process.

As a Democrat, you don't want to count all that.

Good then we're on the same page. The Figures I posted amortized the manufacturing carbon footprint over the lifetime of all the green energy production models and compared them to the various fossil fuel models. Pretending otherwise make this a useless argument.

Post Number?

Were these apples to apples? Dragonlady 's posts clearly were entirely different things. She was talking about baby windmills in the desert that produce microscopic power

 

[BlindBoo]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

I didn't have to work hard at all. Your flaming insults just begged for a suitable response, it was like a force took over my fingers and automatically typed it out.

I remembered it a was a slogan from Houston's Can Academy.

Democrats have been calling us all racists for at least 40 years, that's as long as I remember. Not sure when it started before that. I've had it, I'm giving it back until you stop. God, a Democrat whining about insults. You're priceless

Granted it was an insult trap that I was pretty sure an astute guy like you would easily trigger.

Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon.

You are like a guy in the KKK who goes to the meetings and puts on your white hood and goes to lynchings and cross burnings. Then you say, but it wasn't me!

The distinction of your personal role is lost on me. I'm tired of the left being based on flaming insults and fascism. You are at best silent when it comes to stopping it while you butt slap and hug all the Democrats who do it. There is a point where you fight fire with fire. I've had it. Knock it off.

"Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon."

False analogy. That's just stupid

You just can't help yourself can you?

 

[NightFox]

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible."

l'm a bit confused by this part. I am saying there are a lot of negative externalities too.

I apologize if I wasn't clear on what I'm asking, what I'm trying to get to is a cost that takes into account ALL externalities both positive and negative with the goal being to arrive at an accurate cost. Then we can do an apples to apples comparison against all other alternatives.

Mostly I am saying that the energy production and potential are not where we should be putting our focus. Yet we are NOT doing things with a far greater payback and we are doing this even though the potential isn't there and our energy needs keep growing.

Think about this. Our energy needs are growing faster than all wind production. Wind can't even solve increases in energy needs much less replacing current energy production

I don't believe that wind power can REPLACE existing coal plants with wind, I do however suspect that it can play a role in expanding current capacity, granted it's a small role but it needs to be looked at where the geography makes sense, thus the quest to arrive at a true cost so we can do a meaningful comparison to all other alternatives. My limited experience with wind farms indicates that in at least one area (Palm Springs, CA) wind power has done an excellent and cost-efficient job of supplementing energy requirements.

 

[kaz]

Actually, much carbon is released during the manufacturing process. Even in the Netherlands, it takes 10 years for a carbon footprint from a windmill to get to zero. The Netherlands is the BEST place for wind energy.

The carbon footprint for electric car batteries rarely exceeds the life of the batteries.

The whole global warming business is a scam

"More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. "

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

I wasn't talking about the cost of operating the windmill after it's built, I was talking about the carbon footprint of building it.

You didn't know it takes carbon to build a windmill? Seriously?

And I said "during the manufacturing process," moron. READ what you are responding to

You didn't think to READ the link where those figures came from, here you go:

"Of course the wind blows without carbon emissions, but catching it isn’t easy. Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

All of it has a carbon footprint. Making steel requires the combustion of metallurgical coal in blast furnaces. Mining metals and rare earths is energy intensive. And the manufacture of concrete emits lots of carbon dioxide.

In the case of wind and solar power, those emissions are nearly all front-loaded. That contrasts with fossil-fueled electric power plants, where emissions occur continuouisly as coal and natural gas are combusted."

But then again you hardly ever provide links to the numbers you throw out there.

Windmills generate tiny energy compared to natural gas and nuclear. It doesn't take one windmill to replace a power plant, it takes thousands of them. They can't do it, it's not feasible. You're just playing games on the fringes, not solving anything

Success is found in a can.

Cool. That's normally where you can be found, leaning over one

Nope, dope. Because you will always find failure in can't!

“You will always find failure in can’t”

Nice turn of phrase Boo, I think I’ll steal that one and use it the next time one my junior engineers claim …”but that’s just CAN’T be done!”.

No problem, I wish I could say I though of it, or even remember who I heard it from.

I would have been more impressed if you hadn't worked so hard to take what I said out of context to force it in for the joke

I didn't have to work hard at all. Your flaming insults just begged for a suitable response, it was like a force took over my fingers and automatically typed it out.

I remembered it a was a slogan from Houston's Can Academy.

Democrats have been calling us all racists for at least 40 years, that's as long as I remember. Not sure when it started before that. I've had it, I'm giving it back until you stop. God, a Democrat whining about insults. You're priceless

Granted it was an insult trap that I was pretty sure an astute guy like you would easily trigger.

Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon.

You are like a guy in the KKK who goes to the meetings and puts on your white hood and goes to lynchings and cross burnings. Then you say, but it wasn't me!

The distinction of your personal role is lost on me. I'm tired of the left being based on flaming insults and fascism. You are at best silent when it comes to stopping it while you butt slap and hug all the Democrats who do it. There is a point where you fight fire with fire. I've had it. Knock it off.

"Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon."

False analogy. That's just stupid

You just can't help yourself can you?

Whatever that means. I answered your question. You're like a KKK guy who gives a black family a business card for your lawncare business while you're watching your buds lynch their father and you tell them to ignore the white robe you don't really support that, it's not you. Then you get mad because they like blame you for standing in their yard wearing a white robe with the people doing the lynching? You told them it wasn't your fault! Don't they get that?

 

[kaz]

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible."

l'm a bit confused by this part. I am saying there are a lot of negative externalities too.

I apologize if I wasn't clear on what I'm asking, what I'm trying to get to is a cost that takes into account ALL externalities both positive and negative with the goal being to arrive at an accurate cost. Then we can do an apples to apples comparison against all other alternatives.

Mostly I am saying that the energy production and potential are not where we should be putting our focus. Yet we are NOT doing things with a far greater payback and we are doing this even though the potential isn't there and our energy needs keep growing.

Think about this. Our energy needs are growing faster than all wind production. Wind can't even solve increases in energy needs much less replacing current energy production

I don't believe that wind power can REPLACE existing coal plants with wind, I do however suspect that it can play a role in expanding current capacity, granted it's a small role but it needs to be looked at where the geography makes sense, thus the quest to arrive at a true cost so we can do a meaningful comparison to all other alternatives. My limited experience with wind farms indicates that in at least one area (Palm Springs, CA) wind power has done an excellent and cost-efficient job of supplementing energy requirements.

"I apologize if I wasn't clear on what I'm asking, what I'm trying to get to is a cost that takes into account ALL externalities both positive and negative with the goal being to arrive at an accurate cost. Then we can do an apples to apples comparison against all other alternatives."

Note again that I used the best case, the Netherlands. In California beautiful countrysides are just littered with butt ugly windmills, and more than half of them aren't spinning at any particular point in time. We again are already using the most windy places. The growth model isn't there.

If wind had an upward potential to be a significant source of power then maybe I could get there comparing positive with negative externalities, but it isn't so I can't.

My God, you want zero emissions production? Focus on nuclear. Or if you're a finance guy like me and care about results for the cost, focus on natural gas and clean coal.

Note you're kind of doing what I'm pointing out the politicians and market are doing, obsessing on windmills which is way down the list of bang for the buck payoff.

My opinion BTW is that ultimately our primary energy will be solar. That one isn't capped like wind. By far the most energy on the earth is the sun. But it's too widely spread. We need to keep making devices more efficient and make batteries to continually capture solar power more efficient. But we're probably a century away from getting there.

If you believe that global warming is real, focus on nuclear, natural gas and clean coal. That's where the payback is

 

[kaz]

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible."

l'm a bit confused by this part. I am saying there are a lot of negative externalities too.

I apologize if I wasn't clear on what I'm asking, what I'm trying to get to is a cost that takes into account ALL externalities both positive and negative with the goal being to arrive at an accurate cost. Then we can do an apples to apples comparison against all other alternatives.

Mostly I am saying that the energy production and potential are not where we should be putting our focus. Yet we are NOT doing things with a far greater payback and we are doing this even though the potential isn't there and our energy needs keep growing.

Think about this. Our energy needs are growing faster than all wind production. Wind can't even solve increases in energy needs much less replacing current energy production

I don't believe that wind power can REPLACE existing coal plants with wind, I do however suspect that it can play a role in expanding current capacity, granted it's a small role but it needs to be looked at where the geography makes sense, thus the quest to arrive at a true cost so we can do a meaningful comparison to all other alternatives. My limited experience with wind farms indicates that in at least one area (Palm Springs, CA) wind power has done an excellent and cost-efficient job of supplementing energy requirements.

"I don't believe that wind power can REPLACE existing coal plants with wind, I do however suspect that it can play a role in expanding current capacity, granted it's a small role but it needs to be looked at where the geography makes sense, thus the quest to arrive at a true cost so we can do a meaningful comparison to all other alternatives. My limited experience with wind farms indicates that in at least one area (Palm Springs, CA) wind power has done an excellent and cost-efficient job of supplementing energy requirements."

With a 10 year payback for power grade windmills and our rapidly expanding energy needs, that's far more wish than reality

 

[kaz]

Granted it was an insult trap that I was pretty sure an astute guy like you would easily trigger.

Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon.

You are like a guy in the KKK who goes to the meetings and puts on your white hood and goes to lynchings and cross burnings. Then you say, but it wasn't me!

The distinction of your personal role is lost on me. I'm tired of the left being based on flaming insults and fascism. You are at best silent when it comes to stopping it while you butt slap and hug all the Democrats who do it. There is a point where you fight fire with fire. I've had it. Knock it off.

"Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon."

False analogy. That's just stupid

You just can't help yourself can you?

Whatever that means. I answered your question. You're like a KKK guy who gives a black family a business card for your lawncare business while you're watching your buds lynch their father and you tell them to ignore the white robe you don't really support that, it's not you. Then you get mad because they like blame you for standing in their yard wearing a white robe with the people doing the lynching? You told them it wasn't your fault! Don't they get that?

BlindBoo - you can laugh, but if you spent 40 years, your entire adult life being called racist, racist, racist, racist anytime Democrats disagreed with you, there is a point you'd say enough. You wouldn't be laughing. It's easy to not take it seriously when you're sitting there agreeing with the fascists and they aren't targeting you because of that, isn't it?

 

[kaz]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm talking about all carbon used to produce a windmill. I am talking about giant windmills, includingy the ones in the ocean. There is steel, they have to make the components, they have to assemble the windmill. Ocean windmills are giant and there is a whole bunch more underwater foundation.

You can word slice and bicker, but if you are claiming emissions, you have to count the entire creation process.

As a Democrat, you don't want to count all that.

Good then we're on the same page. The Figures I posted amortized the manufacturing carbon footprint over the lifetime of all the green energy production models and compared them to the various fossil fuel models. Pretending otherwise make this a useless argument.

Post Number?

Were these apples to apples? Dragonlady 's posts clearly were entirely different things. She was talking about baby windmills in the desert that produce microscopic power

Granted it was an insult trap that I was pretty sure an astute guy like you would easily trigger.

Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon.

You are like a guy in the KKK who goes to the meetings and puts on your white hood and goes to lynchings and cross burnings. Then you say, but it wasn't me!

The distinction of your personal role is lost on me. I'm tired of the left being based on flaming insults and fascism. You are at best silent when it comes to stopping it while you butt slap and hug all the Democrats who do it. There is a point where you fight fire with fire. I've had it. Knock it off.

"Of course we can build enough windmills. We've sent men to the moon."

False analogy. That's just stupid

You just can't help yourself can you?

Whatever that means. I answered your question. You're like a KKK guy who gives a black family a business card for your lawncare business while you're watching your buds lynch their father and you tell them to ignore the white robe you don't really support that, it's not you. Then you get mad because they like blame you for standing in their yard wearing a white robe with the people doing the lynching? You told them it wasn't your fault! Don't they get that?

BlindBoo - you can laugh, but if you spent 40 years, your entire adult life being called racist, racist, racist, racist anytime Democrats disagreed with you, there is a point you'd say enough. You wouldn't be laughing. It's easy to not take it seriously when you're sitting there agreeing with the fascists and they aren't targeting you because of that, isn't it?

OMG. I didn't realize you were so aggrieved. Please contact Mrs. Waite, our lead counselor in the grievance department. Helen is the finest we have. So make an app;ointment to go see Helen Waite, I'm sure she will do you a ton of good just by talking to her.

 

[NightFox]

10 years to get to break even is a hell of a "one time thing."

As opposed to fossil fuels which have similar upfront cost and are NEVER carbon neutral.

Not with burning fossil fuels. You keep harping on windmills not being carbon neutral. Why is carbon neutral the requirement for windmills when comparing it to fossil fuels which can never be carbon neutral?

Exactly

That is a total bastardization of what I said and it adds zero insight into solving our energy needs.

It takes 10 years for a windmill to produce enough energy to produce itself (in the best case, the Netherlands) and equal the fissile fuels that were used to build it.

Kaz, are you considering the positive externalities offered by wind power into your "10 year pay back" equation? specifically:

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

Granted due to the geographic restrictions on it, wind power has a relatively small role to play in any reasonable strategy to address our energy needs but given its energy generation efficiency (kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity vs. (fuel) -> heat -> kinetic energy -> kinetic energy -> electricity), lack of negative externalities, low ongoing cost of operation IMHO it definitely has a role to play.

1. There is no pollution associated with wind power based electricity generation
2. There are no negative environmental impacts associated with the acquisition of fuel nor with the disposal of fuel related waste.

First as I keep pointing out we are doing way too many resources into wind for the minimal return. We would get so much more bang for the buck if we put that into replacing coal plants with natural gas much less nuclear. Nuclear BTW produces way, way more power than wind and is also zero emissions. But nuclear is an immediate reject by the anti-science Democrat party.

You seem to be implying that it's an either-or proposition with respect to wind or <other alternatives>,we both know it isn't, as far as "bang for your buck" isn't that a decision that's best left to private enterprise? After all its their bottom line.

As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive.

As for wind only producing positive externalities, that isn't true. Actually many leftist groups oppose them because they kill birds. But mostly they are ugly and again when you do the math of what we put into them, we would get far more by directing the same resources to other areas. Clean coal is another area that has a lot of potential. Democrats block it because "coal." Clean coal is harder to exploit because it has less carbon, but we do have the technology and there are quite a few clean coal turbines out there. There could be far more if it wasn't for ew, they are coal! Stop them! Democrats. It's as deep as they go.

What I asked was if you have factored in those specific positive externalities into your "10 year equation", killing birds isn't pollution nor does it correlate to a cost burden on society (i.e. no links to illness, property degradation, etc..,), but hey, if you want to factor that negative externality into your equation, that's great since the objective is to arrive at the most accurate cost picture possible.

I spent a big part of my career in management in energy companies. My role was more finance and IT management, but I constantly talked to the engineers about this stuff, it was fascinating. My experience incudes gas and nuclear and I spent a year in the Netherlands with a major wind energy producer. My role there was also finance, but again I talked to the engineers

Awesome, I've done some IT work for the Energy Sector myself nothing that would afford me any claim to expertise in energy production or grid design but enough to have given me an intense interest in learning more about it.

"As far as nuclear goes, seems to me the primary opposition is waste disposal and the accident risk, personally I don't object to nuclear at all (I'm a proponent of development) but the most common resistance I've seen are those two points, which do need to be addressed before moving forward with the expansion of nuclear based generation capacity. Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind and it does carry with it negative externalities (fuel acquisition, fuel waste and cooling water waste), enormous potential negative externalities (accidents) along with being capital intensive."

Well, waste was solved with Yucca mountain, but Obama destroyed that. We can re-create it though. As for accident risk, I won't argue perfection, but the industry has gone through several order of magnitude increases in safety since three mile island.

The baseline has to be not perfection but comparing nuclear to the certainty of continuing to put carbon into the atmosphere like the alternatives. That's an easy win for nuclear

When you say, "Nuclear does produce a lot of power volume however as I've said it's not as efficient as wind."

I don't know what you mean by efficient in that, but wind is a toy compared to nuclear. Nuclear can replace significant fissile fuel plants. Wind can't. Why would you compare nuclear to wind at all? Compare nuclear to coal. And factor in how you're going to charge electric cars.

Wind is a pimple on the butt of that, nuclear could replace significant fissile fuel energy

Efficient as in energy input versus energy output (I.e energy conversion), wind is more efficient in that regard than nuclear is (around 45% vs. around 38%), from what I’ve read. It makes sense because the wind conversion is a lot simpler (kinetic to kinetic to electricity) nuclear is fission to heat to kinetic to kinetic to electricity.