Re: Expensive oil is the only way to stop gluttony

Major Debacle wrote:
> 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?

Read what I wrote.

> Or that wind power alone is unfeasible for electricity generation?

This is true.

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

All so-called renewable sources are intermittent. Solar does not work
at night, it works less well on cloudy days, and heaven forbid if there's
a heavy snow or a sandstorm.

So basically you can't back up one 'green' source with another, you
need a traditional source big enough to cover the baseload when your
'green' power goes offline.

> You realize that, don't you?

You realize that this means you get to pay for 'renewable' power
twice?

> So if you are trying to make the case that wind power is totally useless

That's your misreading of something I did not write.

> as for electricity generation because the wind does not blow 
> continuously on any given location, please make that perfectly clear.

Read only what I write and you won't be so confused.

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

It is not sufficient without traditional backup.

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

Traditional power however works just fine, day and night, windy or
not. Why pay for both traditional and 'green' power? That's not
cost-effective and it's not efficient. Wind power is also more
costly.

[...]

>> 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.

They are WRT so-called renewable sources. And they will be for the
foreseeable future.

Cheers,

Rich