Ignore the dire warnings about our lives because it’s just hysteria

[jon_berzerk]

distilling crude dates back to the 9th Century

 

[Freewill]

we are still in the age of oil

Yes. And the next age will come sooner rather than later. Thank goodness people are working on it.

it will happen when it does more then likely it will happen long before anyone notices

Yeah just like no one noticed when gasoline happened 100+ years ago

we had been well into the age of oil by then

No we hadn't. Whale oil was the most important oil in the world until John D. Rockefeller realized the waste from refining crude had value. It replaced whale oil practically overnight. Rockefeller saved more whales than anyone in all of history.

Kerosene was the oil of the day and made Rockefeller rich. Rockefeller realized a use for the by-product of kerosene as useful in gasoline engines, which made Rockefeller even richer. Nothing really to do with whale oil.

 

[jon_berzerk]

everyone used kerosene for the most part

 

[Andylusion]

Then stop saying it, and start doing it. You people talk a ton, and do very little. Where is this free energy? Huh? Where's it at?

I don't know. You and the OP are the ones raving about free energy. Don't ask us to prove your fantasies.

Remember, you're talking to liberals here, members of the reality-based community. Practicality is the driving force behind liberalism, compared to ideology driving conservatism. There is no free energy. Solar power and other renewable energy doesn't happen unless you work for it. We get it, you don't to want to work for energy, and you think it just appears magically. That's not practical, so we liberals reject your attitude.

Your type has been predicting an economic catastrophe with green energy for the last decade, and that catastrophe stubbornly refuses to happen. Every time mileage standards on cars were upped, you predicted an economic catastrophe, and the catastrophe never happened. Every time pollution standards were tightened, you predicted an economic catastrophe, and the catastrophe never happened. Given your perfect record of failure, why should we pay any attention to your latest pronouncements of doom?

I can't think of a single person that fits your description of a liberal or a conservative. Nor can I find any of the claims you have suggested. Liberal routinely talk about free energy, and conservative routinely talk about pratical energy. Nothing you said in your post meets the reality we see every day on this foeum.

In short you just proved what I was just saying about the left.

 

[mamooth]

If you're not making it all up, show us all these mythical liberals talking about free energy.

If you are making it all up, don't bother. We'll understand.

 

[Andylusion]

If you're not making it all up, show us all these mythical liberals talking about free energy.

If you are making it all up, don't bother. We'll understand.

Get Something for Nothing Free Power from the Sun

Solar Energy - clean free solar energy from the sun. Harness it. dasolar.com

DIY Solar Panel help - tutorials calculators and design tools for solar power

Google s Project Sunroof makes it easer to install solar panels on your house - Quartz
"The sun is a massive ball of free energy that could be powering your home"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-ellen-harte/climate-change-this-week_b_6018024.html
"Climate Change This Week: Driving Fast n' FREE on Solar, Record Rising Seas, and More!"

Good grief. The claim is everywhere by left-wing greenies. What rock you been hiding under, that you don't know this? I've heard it said on this very forum.

 

[mamooth]

So, a few people who don't identify politically used a certain figure of speech. That would demonstrate ... nothing. Not about liberals, not about anyone. All the liberals I know of will be pointing out that people should be accurate with their language.

Anyways, was there any actual point going along with the "free energy!" strawman?

 

[Andylusion]

So, a few people who don't identify politically used a certain figure of speech. That would demonstrate ... nothing. Not about liberals, not about anyone. All the liberals I know of will be pointing out that people should be accurate with their language.

Anyways, was there any actual point going along with the "free energy!" strawman?

At this point, you are damaging your own credibility.

Mary Ellen Harte, Ph.D Biologist, author of "Cool the Earth, Save the Economy. Solving the Climate Crisis is Easy", co-authored with Professor John Harte, featured on Bill Moyer, NPR's Marketplace and Science Friday, and Mother Jones, while Mary routinely blogs for Huffington Post.

That is as much an identity with the left-wing, as could possibly be. And I've seen many others.

What was my point? Well I already said it. The left claims to be practical, but they are not. They have said repeatedly that it would be cheaper, but it won't.

There is nothing currently practical about so-called 'green energy'.

Ohio has spent over $775 Million dollars building the wind farms that cover parts of Ohio.

For that money, we have now 432 Mega Watts of installed name plate capacity.

State Wind Energy Statistics: Ohio

And yet, here is an article about one single Steel Mill being built, granted in a different state, but it makes the point.

CrainsCleveland.com : Subscription Center

This one Steel Mill will consume, by itself, 425 Mega Watts of power.

That's just one Steel Mill. And it needs that power, 24/7.... all of it.

Whereas Wind power generally only produces about 1/3rd of it's name plate power, at best. That according to the EU.

Transparent Cost Database | Transparent Cost Database

I've seen other results that show as low as 15%. It all depends on the location. Ohio doesn't have continuous wind. So we would likely be at the lowest end of that scale.

Now compare that to the Dresdon Gas fired power plant, which started operation in 2011.

Combined-cycle power plant in Ohio begins operations

Total cost? $366 Million. Power generation? 580 Mega Watts.

So this one single power plant, for half the cost of all the windmills in the entire state, is producing more power, than all the windmills in the entire state, and by a massive margin.

That's why all the windmills in the entire state, produces a combined power output of less than 0.8% of the states total power consumption.

This is not practical. The left is living in a green energy fantasy world of myth and faeries. The right, is looking at the numbers and the facts, and we can see that it simply isn't a solution, and won't be for years, decades, maybe longer, depending on whatever scientific advances come up.

 

[mamooth]

What was my point? Well I already said it. The left claims to be practical, but they are not. They have said repeatedly that it would be cheaper, but it won't.

And my point is you can't support you claims.

That's just one Steel Mill. And it needs that power, 24/7.... all of it.

And that shows wind power isn't practical ... how?

It's making money. It's making energy. To normal people, that looks very practical. If there's not enough of it ... then we build more. Huh. What a practical concept.

This is not practical. The left is living in a green energy fantasy world of myth and faeries. The right, is looking at the numbers and the facts,

You left out any mention of costs at all, yet you claimed it was more expensive. That is, you seem to be avoiding the numbers.

and we can see that it simply isn't a solution, and won't be for years, decades, maybe longer, depending on whatever scientific advances come up.

A fine strawman, being nobody said wind power would immediately generate all the electricity.

Practical people don't fall for such strawmen. They plan for the future.

 

[Andylusion]

What was my point? Well I already said it. The left claims to be practical, but they are not. They have said repeatedly that it would be cheaper, but it won't.

And my point is you can't support you claims.

That's just one Steel Mill. And it needs that power, 24/7.... all of it.

And that shows wind power isn't practical ... how?

It's making money. It's making energy. To normal people, that looks very practical. If there's not enough of it ... then we build more. Huh. What a practical concept.

This is not practical. The left is living in a green energy fantasy world of myth and faeries. The right, is looking at the numbers and the facts,

You left out any mention of costs at all, yet you claimed it was more expensive. That is, you seem to be avoiding the numbers.

and we can see that it simply isn't a solution, and won't be for years, decades, maybe longer, depending on whatever scientific advances come up.

A fine strawman, being nobody said wind power would immediately generate all the electricity.

Practical people don't fall for such strawmen. They plan for the future.

And yet I just did support my claims, and you can't figure it out.

So lets recap... all of the wind farms across the entire state, for now a decade of development, all combined, can't produce enough sustainable power for a single Steel Plant. One Steel Plant.

For the same amount of money, we could have built a coal or gas power plant, that could provide enough power for several Steel Mills.

Now if you can't figure out why that isn't practical..... then that reflects poorly on you, and you alone. I guarantee every open minded person reading this thread right now, could figure out on their own, what I had to explain to you.

And now you are just flat out lying. Do you really think you can convince anyone anywhere of your argument, while lying to make that argument? "You left out any mention of costs at all". Everyone can see my post where I said specifically Ohio has spent over $775 Million on wind turbines, that have a name plate capacity of 432 GWs. Where as the gas fired power plant cost $366 Million, and produces 540 GWs.

Of course the wind turbines do not produce 432 GW, that's just the name plate capacity. Wind turnbines generally produces only a 1/3rd of that. So really it's $775 Million to produce 144 GWs, compared to Gas for $366 Million for 580 GWs.

So, not only are you apparently not able to follow basic logic, and flat out lying claiming I didn't mention cost, when it was mentioned several times, but you also are so intellectually bankrupt that you are accusing me of doing what you yourself just did.

You claim I made up a strawman argument, by saying that Wind power was supposed to produce ALL the electricity. That statement was never made in my post at any point, let alone the part you quoted.

So in fact, YOU made up the strawman, and attack me for a statement YOU made up. Hypocrite much?

So lets recap.... you have successfully identified yourself as mentally challenged, lying, hypocrite.... and all in one post.

Is there an achievement badge for that? Because you clearly earned it. Bravo....

 

[sear]

"all combined, can't produce enough sustainable power for a single Steel Plant." Al #70

Splendid.

a) Melting steel is energy intensive. Doing that with electricity is sub-optimal. Natural gas would be a much better choice.

b) No two forms of commercial electric power generation produce kW at precisely the $same $cost.
And I've never heard anyone suggesting we should therefore shut down all the nuke plants, or the hydro-electric plants, etc.

c) Wind turbine generated commercial electric power is more expensive per kW today, because today we have fossil fuel alternatives.
It would be insane beyond imagining if we waited until the last cubic foot of natural gas, the last nugget of coal, the last drop of oil was gone,
before we began to investigate alternatives.

d) Wind turbines are ALREADY the low cost generator, in environments like remote hilltop cabins, sailing yachts, remote island homes, etc.

Reportedly we're already past peak oil.
There will be more, and more, and more of us,
and less, and less, and less oil.

And when it is gone, we'll either get our energy elsewhere, or revert to stone knives and bearskins.

 

[westwall]

If those you support hadn't stood in the fucking way for the past several decades, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Actually it's you and your pals who have been holding things up by giving good hard cash to ancient energy systems. Windmills were so great that the second fossil fuels became available the windmills all went away. Now the greenies want to bring them back and they don't produce near as good as they claim.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If those you support hadn't stood in the fucking way for the past several decades, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Actually it's you and your pals who have been holding things up by giving good hard cash to ancient energy systems. Windmills were so great that the second fossil fuels became available the windmills all went away. Now the greenies want to bring them back and they don't produce near as good as they claim.

That's awesome. You think windmills were an early source of electricity....but were replaced by fossil fuels. It's this type of high level thinking that puts the average nutbag at a severe disadvantage when it comes to policy making.

Wind turbines...the awesome things that produce electricity from wind......are not the same thing as windmills....which are strictly mechanical. Nobody wants to bring windmills back. Dumbass.

 

[mamooth]

So lets recap... all of the wind farms across the entire state, for now a decade of development, all combined, can't produce enough sustainable power for a single Steel Plant. One Steel Plant.

And you still haven't shown how that's relevant to practicality. Is a small hydro dam impractical because it's small? Why your selective hate for wind power?

For the same amount of money, we could have built a coal or gas power plant, that could provide enough power for several Steel Mills.

Your strawman again, the one you deny using. So, was someone saying to build no new fossil fuel plants? No. Which makes your argument dumb.

Oh, practical people also factor in operating costs. You don't. The operating costs thing is why wind makes a profit, even with bigger startup costs.

Now if you can't figure out why that isn't practical..... then that reflects poorly on you, and you alone. I guarantee every open minded person reading this thread right now, could figure out on their own, what I had to explain to you.

I guarantee you're not coming across as well as you think you are.

And now you are just flat out lying.

New to this internet thing? You're going to need to toughen up.

You claim I made up a strawman argument, by saying that Wind power was supposed to produce ALL the electricity. That statement was never made in my post at any point, let alone the part you quoted.

But it was clearly implied. You said wind power was impractical because it produced a small fraction of total electricity. The only way that makes any logical sense is if you're also saying wind power should make a large fraction of power right now.

So in fact, YOU made up the strawman, and attack me for a statement YOU made up. Hypocrite much?

Your whining is boring.

So lets recap....

Let's not, because your whining is boring. If you can't back up your crazy claims that wind power loses money and is impractical, just admit it.

 

[westwall]

If those you support hadn't stood in the fucking way for the past several decades, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Actually it's you and your pals who have been holding things up by giving good hard cash to ancient energy systems. Windmills were so great that the second fossil fuels became available the windmills all went away. Now the greenies want to bring them back and they don't produce near as good as they claim.

That's awesome. You think windmills were an early source of electricity....but were replaced by fossil fuels. It's this type of high level thinking that puts the average nutbag at a severe disadvantage when it comes to policy making.

Wind turbines...the awesome things that produce electricity from wind......are not the same thing as windmills....which are strictly mechanical. Nobody wants to bring windmills back. Dumbass.

No, they were a source of WORK.....look it up, it is actually defined. Just as the current windmills are a source of WORK. Albeit, a very inefficient one.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If those you support hadn't stood in the fucking way for the past several decades, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Actually it's you and your pals who have been holding things up by giving good hard cash to ancient energy systems. Windmills were so great that the second fossil fuels became available the windmills all went away. Now the greenies want to bring them back and they don't produce near as good as they claim.

That's awesome. You think windmills were an early source of electricity....but were replaced by fossil fuels. It's this type of high level thinking that puts the average nutbag at a severe disadvantage when it comes to policy making.

Wind turbines...the awesome things that produce electricity from wind......are not the same thing as windmills....which are strictly mechanical. Nobody wants to bring windmills back. Dumbass.

No, they were a source of WORK.....look it up, it is actually defined. Just as the current windmills are a source of WORK. Albeit, a very inefficient one.

You should have just apologized for your stupidity. You made zero sense with that weak sauce.

 

[westwall]

If those you support hadn't stood in the fucking way for the past several decades, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Actually it's you and your pals who have been holding things up by giving good hard cash to ancient energy systems. Windmills were so great that the second fossil fuels became available the windmills all went away. Now the greenies want to bring them back and they don't produce near as good as they claim.

That's awesome. You think windmills were an early source of electricity....but were replaced by fossil fuels. It's this type of high level thinking that puts the average nutbag at a severe disadvantage when it comes to policy making.

Wind turbines...the awesome things that produce electricity from wind......are not the same thing as windmills....which are strictly mechanical. Nobody wants to bring windmills back. Dumbass.

No, they were a source of WORK.....look it up, it is actually defined. Just as the current windmills are a source of WORK. Albeit, a very inefficient one.

You should have just apologized for your stupidity. You made zero sense with that weak sauce.

And you just demonstrated how you don't know the first thing about SCIENCE.

 

[LoneLaugher]

If those you support hadn't stood in the fucking way for the past several decades, we'd be much further along than we are now.

Actually it's you and your pals who have been holding things up by giving good hard cash to ancient energy systems. Windmills were so great that the second fossil fuels became available the windmills all went away. Now the greenies want to bring them back and they don't produce near as good as they claim.

That's awesome. You think windmills were an early source of electricity....but were replaced by fossil fuels. It's this type of high level thinking that puts the average nutbag at a severe disadvantage when it comes to policy making.

Wind turbines...the awesome things that produce electricity from wind......are not the same thing as windmills....which are strictly mechanical. Nobody wants to bring windmills back. Dumbass.

No, they were a source of WORK.....look it up, it is actually defined. Just as the current windmills are a source of WORK. Albeit, a very inefficient one.

You should have just apologized for your stupidity. You made zero sense with that weak sauce.

And you just demonstrated how you don't know the first thing about SCIENCE.

Of course. I am the one who said windmills were replaced by fossil fuels.

Weeeeeeeeeee! Nutters can never admit their mistakes.

 

[Andylusion]

"all combined, can't produce enough sustainable power for a single Steel Plant." Al #70

Splendid.

a) Melting steel is energy intensive. Doing that with electricity is sub-optimal. Natural gas would be a much better choice.

b) No two forms of commercial electric power generation produce kW at precisely the $same $cost.
And I've never heard anyone suggesting we should therefore shut down all the nuke plants, or the hydro-electric plants, etc.

c) Wind turbine generated commercial electric power is more expensive per kW today, because today we have fossil fuel alternatives.
It would be insane beyond imagining if we waited until the last cubic foot of natural gas, the last nugget of coal, the last drop of oil was gone,
before we began to investigate alternatives.

d) Wind turbines are ALREADY the low cost generator, in environments like remote hilltop cabins, sailing yachts, remote island homes, etc.

Reportedly we're already past peak oil.
There will be more, and more, and more of us,
and less, and less, and less oil.

And when it is gone, we'll either get our energy elsewhere, or revert to stone knives and bearskins.

First off, the entire foundation for the push for wind and solar power, is the belief system that CO2 is destroying the planet, and that fossil fuels will run out.

Having the steel mills run by natural gas defeats the purpose of driving for wind power.

Second, electric Arc Furnaces, is the future of Steel Making in the US. Most all Mini-Mills that are popping up all over the country, are all Arc Furnaces. Even the major companies are now moving in that direction.

Why U.S. Steel Will Benefit From Electric Arc Furnaces - Market Realist

US Steel is now adopting Electric Arc Furnaces. EAF systems have several key benefits, most notably the ability to shut down and start up, on a short time scale. Blast furnaces can't do this, and most remain in 24/7 operation for decades. The EAF allows the company to change production to meet demand, and save money and power by the way.

Without EAF systems in America, I would hazard a guess that all Steel making in the US would cease to exist in the near future.

So regardless of what we'd like to believe is the best 'optimal' solution, EAF is here to stay, and if you want jobs in the US, they need stable, consistent power, and a heck of a lot of it. Wind is not a solution.

Third, that is true, no two energy sources have exactly the same cost per KWh. Of course we haven't suggested shutting all of any type down. It is both natural, and logical to have multiple sources of power.

However, Gas, Coal, and Nuclear, are all consistent, reliable, safe sources of power that we can count on. Wind is not, nor is it cost effective compared to the other three.

But the problem get's worse, because not only is it not consistent, and not only is it not cost effective, but it is also does not replace anything.

Power grids can no operate at partial power, even for a few minutes. There must be consistent full power supplied to the grid, or else the entire system goes down. You end up with rolling black outs that happened in California.

So if you have a power grid to a urban area, that requires 1,000 Mega Watts of power, and you have 250 Mega Watts of wind turbines, that doesn't mean you can get by with a 750 Mega Watt gas fired plant, or coal fired, or nuclear. No no, you have to build a power plant of conventional power, to cover the entire consumption demand of the grid, as if the wind farm didn't even exist.

Moreover, you can't even have the plant shut down to 750 Mega Watts. No no. The plant must be burning gas, or burning coal, or burning Uranium, running at idle. The water must be hot, and the fire must be going. Why? Because if the wind stops blowing, you can't wait 4 to 8 hours for a gas, or coal fired plant to get up to speed. The entire city would be black before the plant came online to cover the shortage from the lack of wind power.

So the wind turbines don't actually stop the burning of coal, gas, nuclear, at all. They effectively do nothing. I have not found yet, a single example where a conventional power plant was shut down, or a future power plant was not built, because of wind power. At least, I have not found such an example yet.

And many people have said, well they are fixing that with battery, or energy storage. Perhaps. But once you add in the millions of dollars in capital costs, and the upkeep (replacement) of those batteries, whatever attempt to make wind power cost effective against conventional sources will be absolutely demolished.

Maybe at some point in the future, some new technology will completely change the current economics, and if that happens, sign me up. But as it stands now, there is absolutely no redeeming value in wind power at all.

Lastly, saying that wind is already cost effective in situations where there is no other solution, is intellectually bonkers. Of course if you have no other option, then any option looks good.

I don't particularly care for gummy bears, but if I'm starving in Africa, and you offer me gummy bears, I'm going to take them. Doesn't mean gummy bears are the end all for food sources.

Of course wind is cost effective, if you are on a remote island with no other energy alternative to choose from. How exactly does this apply to the discussion at hand? What kind of a nut case, suggests we move away from conventional sources of power, to wind power, because it's practical on a remote island......

And along those lines of bonkers.... why bring up oil? We do not get electricity from oil. And until wind power can make a plane fly, or a train move, then oil will always be a requirement. Even if 100% of electricity came from wind, we'd still be using trillions of barrels of oil, and we would still be importing it from all over the world.

Oh, and yes yes, peak oil, we're all doomed... just like we were doomed in the 2000s, and the 90s, and the 80s, and the 70s.... we've been hearing that for decades on end. Then when the price went up enough, someone came up with fracking, and now we're waiting for the new peak oil, and I'm sure we're all doomed in the 2010s, and 2020s, and 2030s... Yeah yeah. Any minute now...

 

[Andylusion]

So lets recap... all of the wind farms across the entire state, for now a decade of development, all combined, can't produce enough sustainable power for a single Steel Plant. One Steel Plant.

And you still haven't shown how that's relevant to practicality. Is a small hydro dam impractical because it's small? Why your selective hate for wind power?

For the same amount of money, we could have built a coal or gas power plant, that could provide enough power for several Steel Mills.

Your strawman again, the one you deny using. So, was someone saying to build no new fossil fuel plants? No. Which makes your argument dumb.

Oh, practical people also factor in operating costs. You don't. The operating costs thing is why wind makes a profit, even with bigger startup costs.

Now if you can't figure out why that isn't practical..... then that reflects poorly on you, and you alone. I guarantee every open minded person reading this thread right now, could figure out on their own, what I had to explain to you.

I guarantee you're not coming across as well as you think you are.

And now you are just flat out lying.

New to this internet thing? You're going to need to toughen up.

You claim I made up a strawman argument, by saying that Wind power was supposed to produce ALL the electricity. That statement was never made in my post at any point, let alone the part you quoted.

But it was clearly implied. You said wind power was impractical because it produced a small fraction of total electricity. The only way that makes any logical sense is if you're also saying wind power should make a large fraction of power right now.

So in fact, YOU made up the strawman, and attack me for a statement YOU made up. Hypocrite much?

Your whining is boring.

So lets recap....

Let's not, because your whining is boring. If you can't back up your crazy claims that wind power loses money and is impractical, just admit it.

So, you have no worth while response at all. All you did was complain I was boring, while failing to make any valid points. New to this internet forum thing? Need to wise up a bit before posting again.

Got it? Well, if you have nothing else of value to say, you are dismissed. Thanks for stopping by.