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.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 08:32:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/22/2018 8:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 8:13 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/18 7:13 AM, 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.Â* Thats 876,000 gallons per year,Â* 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.Â* 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 qualifiedÂ* climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.


Mark Levin is a well-known crackpot conspirationalist and Michaels is
a paid hack for the fossil fuel industry and the Cato Institute,
which, by the way, is a libertarian front for the right-wing Koch
brothers. One would not expect any of them to be supportive of the
prevailing facts and theories on climate change and its causes.

Some 98% of climate scientists believe that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities,
in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and
methane.





I didn't expect anything less from you Harry.Â* Try to ignore your
political brainwashing for a moment and consider what he said.



Carbon dioxide is a natural fertilizer and it's increase in the
atmosphere is improving new growth, especially in areas that have
been over-harvested. New growth uses carbon dioxide
and releases O2 to replace it. Naturally occurring cycle that is
beneficial to planet Earth. There's another reason it causes what is
referred to as the "Greenhouse effect".

You ignore the financial reasons many scientists support the
government's line. They'd be out of a job if they didn't.

I believe man is increasing CO2 levels but most of it seems to track
the rise of agriculture. (at least for 8000 years since we have had
real agriculture). We are replacing natural forests and grasslands
that act as CO2 sinks all year long with farms that harvest the plants
just about the time they really start sinking CO2. Then there are the
issues with livestock (aka cow farts)
We might make a dent in this CO2 stuff if we can just return world
population to what it was in the 18th century when the left thinks the
climate was perfect and let all of that farm land go back to weeds and
trees.
Who wants to go first?

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.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/18 11:59 AM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/18 8:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2018 8:13 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/18 7:13 AM, 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.Â* Thats 876,000 gallons per year,Â* 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.Â* 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 qualifiedÂ* climatologist with academic and
professional experience that would even impress Harry.


Mark Levin is a well-known crackpot conspirationalist and Michaels is
a paid hack for the fossil fuel industry and the Cato Institute,
which, by the way, is a libertarian front for the right-wing Koch
brothers. One would not expect any of them to be supportive of the
prevailing facts and theories on climate change and its causes.

Some 98% of climate scientists believe that most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities,
in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and
methane.





I didn't expect anything less from you Harry.Â* Try to ignore your
political brainwashing for a moment and consider what he said.


He's a paid hack, in the employ, as it were, of the fossil fuel
industry. That's what he said, even if he didn't say it it directly.


So the other “ climatologists “ are not in the employ of a biased money
funding group?


About 98% of scientists are on the side in opposition to the beliefs of
Michaels, and most of them wouldn't appear on a show hosted by the
crackpot Mark Levin.


Brain fart. Not what the question was!

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.

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?

wrote:
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?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
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?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.

On 10/22/2018 9:06 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
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?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.



Another issue with solar at one time was the long term efficiency of the
panels ...

At one time a solar system would be rated at producing "X" amount
of electricity when new but it dropped off significantly
after years of use.

It could be that the photovoltaic materials used have improved in the
past 10 to 15 years.

wrote:
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:45:01 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote:

wrote:
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?


Sure a battery. Losses just keep adding up. Line losses, battery charging
losses, how much more power would it require than no batteries? They
offered a battery wall for my solar power. Then they said I could use that
in the evening and not pay for juice. But would take away from the power I
sell back to the power company during that prone charge time. And have
battery charging losses. And late in the evening my rates drop from peak
rate of $0.425 to $0.123 a KWh. Lose lose.

How big of a system did you get? They were trying to sell me 2.7 KW
for $17,000, minus whatever government subsidies available and that
turned out to just be the federal tax credit since the state program
ran out of money.
They told me to plan on seeing that 2.7kw for 5-6 hours a day averaged
out over the year. (higher at solar noon on a sunny day, less as the
sun moved off the center of the array and when it was cloudy).
By the most optimistic guess it was a tad less than $770 a year worth
of electricity and what I sold back to FPL would just be at the grid
interchange rate, not the retail rate. (the same as they would pay
Georgia Power).
Based on my experience with the generator I doubt I would have much if
any surplus anyway so that was not that big a deal. There was still no
way the numbers worked as long I was buying power from FPL for 13
cents a KWH (all day).
If I could get that down around $3800 (5 year payback) it might make
sense but that also assumes nothing ever breaks or needs service.
I am kind of limited by appropriate roof so my system can't get much
bigger.


I have 25 panels. About $27k in the end, not including fed tax credit.
Needed a new meter box, which adds about 3k. About 7k at max output.
Other day was looking at it, when final inspection was done and was getting
5.7k. California has very high utility prices. California makes the
utility buy at highest rate. Which is 43+ cents an KWh. I have a time of
Use plan and 11pm to 6am weekdays is 12.3 cents a KWh. Mine is an EV1
plan, electric vehicle. You can see the plans on the PG&E website.