On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 17:58:55 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 12:50:20 -0400,
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 15:59:31 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 5:59 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 17:29:21 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:00:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Interesting. Haven't checked all the facts yet.

http://funkyimg.com/i/2MdxT.jpg

(Mainly a test of my new image display link - thanks to Luddite.)

===

Unfortunately I believe the assertion with that picture is total BS.
It's my understanding that a typical wind mill produces the same
electrical power as a 2,000 horsepower diesel generator that would
burn approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel per hour, 2400 gallons
per day. Thats 876,000 gallons per year, enough diesel fuel to fill
a mile of railroad tanker cars - way more than would be needed to
produce the steel in the windmill.

Some of the fake news floating around about wind power is just
astounding and makes me wonder who is behind it and why. I suppose
the usual suspects would be the petro industry.

Haven't checked those facts either.



I watched an interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels last night on
Mark Levin's Sunday evening show, "Life, Liberty and Levin".

Michaels is a highly qualified climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.

He offered very interesting facts and rebuttals to the claims of
the doom and gloom aspects of climate change that are so widely
spread by scientists. He doesn't deny the fact that climate change
exists but insists that it's a naturally occurring process that
actually has benefits to the balance of nature on the planet.

For example, the higher levels of CO2 (greenhouse effect) is promoting
the new "green" growth on earth with the most visible affects being
the rain forests that have been destroyed by mankind over the years.
The greenhouse effect is also promoting grassland and grazing fields
in areas that have become dry and barren over the years.

He points to a study consisting of 32 world scientists representing
many nations and their predictions of global warming. The problem is
that the average of all these predictions are at least 10 times higher
than what has actually happend, based on real measurements.

He also gave a history lesson as to why the federal government has
become the main source of funding for these research programs.
It was following WWII and the development of the atomic bomb.
Before he died Roosevelt recognized the benefit of having key
scientists addressing a problem and promoted the establishment
of a federally financed Academy of Science. Thus began the
government funding of grants, etc. The problem is that (according
to Michaels) the government ends up putting a bias on what
the results of these scientific studies produce and the scientists
feel compelled to support the government's position in order to
continue receiving funding.

He pointed out a 2014 study about hurricanes for example. Much is
talked about in scientific groups and then repeated by the media that
global warming is causing storms like hurricanes to become more frequent
and increasing in strength. The 2014 report he cited contained data
from 1980 to 2009 and showed a general strengthening of hurricanes
during that period that supports the global warming argument. But then
he pointed out that those years were "cherry picked" to produce the
results wanted. The report was released in 2014 yet the data used
started in 1980 and ended in 2009. Reason? Because if you include
data from 2009 to 2014 or any data prior to 1980, the results indicate
that overall the hurricane strength has not changed at all.

Here's some of his credentials:

https://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels


I think Wayne is high on the 200 gallons an hour. More like a little less
than 60 gallons an hour looking at industry charts.
As to the climate change, 10,000 years ago, we were still in an Ice Age.
The Glacier National Park glaciers were formed in the 1800’s mini ice age.
Just goes to show climate is not static. Man has added to global warming,
just because there are so many of us.



===

My estimate was 100 gallons an hour, not 200. Even at your number of
60 gallons saved per hour that's a huge amount over a year, and that's
just for a single windmill.



I wonder how that compares to a several megawatt natural gas plant
that is more realistic for commercial generation.

My problem with all of this is you really can't believe anyone's
numbers since they all have some kind of axe to grind, whether it is a
political agenda, a sales pitch, a stockholder report or just trying
to dodge some taxes. I am sure someone has the real cost per
megawatt/hr for a wind plant but we know it ain't free. I still think
the future is nuclear.


I feel the future should be nuclear, but doubt it happens for at least a
100 years. Too much political baggage. When my roof top solar was
installed, the contractor’s inspector was in love with solar and wind.
Figured would fulfill all our needs. Sun doesn’t shine all the time, wind
does not blow all the time. California shut down San Onofre Nuclear power
plant. I think last in state. Supplied 20% of power generation. Moonbeam
as governor wants all vehicles electric. How? We have brown outs now in
the summertime.

Yeah that is my problem with most of this "green" stuff. It may help a
little but it is far from a practical solution to our energy needs.
The biggest problem with Solar is it gets dark at night and that is
when people turn down the A/C. I still haven't seen a real battery
solution. I know Elon Musk wants to sell lithium batteries to
utilities but what would a fire there look like? Dresden in Feb of 45?