Re: Expensive oil is the only way to stop gluttony

Rich wrote:
> Major Debacle wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>> Major Debacle wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Do you actually think a that a man smart enough to make billions of 
>>>> dollars dealing in oil is going to be stupid enough not to put a wet 
>>>> finger to the wind?
>>> I think you are not smart enough to realize and understand that the
>>> wind does not always blow.
>> Not even *you* are stupid enough to think that.
>>
>> If the wind blows for only 364 days out 365 a year, is that reason 
>> enough not to put a wind farm there?
>>
>> If the wind blows for only *363* days out 365 a year, is that reason 
>> enough not to put a wind farm there?
> 
> It not only has to blow, it has to blow fast enough to generate
> meaningful power. I don't know how many times I've driven past
> the wind farms in CA and all were at a dead standstill or when
> only a few were turning.
> 
>> At what point does it become uneconomical not to put in a wind farm?
> 
> Wrong question. At what point does it *become* economical?
> 
>> If the fact that the wind does not blow continuously in a given area
> 
> There's no place where the wind blows continuously. Is there any
> place where the demand for power is not continuous?

Are you making the point that wind power is totally useless for 
electricity generation?

Or that wind power alone is unfeasible for electricity generation?

I'm not making the case for depending solely on wind power for 
electricity generation.

You realize that, don't you?

So if you are trying to make the case that wind power is totally useless 
as for electricity generation because the wind does not blow 
continuously on any given location, please make that perfectly clear.

Which is it? Wind power is never feasible for electricity generation?

Or wind power is not feasible as a sole source of power for electricity 
generation?

> 
>> were reason enough not to put in a wind farm, there would be no wind 
>> farms in the world. But there *are* wind farms all over the world, in 
>> spite of your petulant belief that anything less than a ceaselessly 
>> blowing wind is not worth exploiting.
> 
> Backed by conventional power because the wind don't always blow.
> So wind power costs twice as much as you need both wind and
> conventional.
> 
>>> Is he smart enough to make the wind always blow? I don't think so.
>> No, but he's rich enough to build the world's largest wind farm and you

>> are only rich enough to say it's not a good idea.
> 
> He plans to make a profit from it, that cheap power you've been
> teasing everyone about ain't gonna happen.


Target and Walmart both make profits and most people would say that 
there prices are cheap.

Profit and cheap prices are not mutually exclusive.