How to replace the petroleum energy supply

All Biden Has to Do Now Is Change the Way We Live




So that's why the wind future isn't going to happen.

 

Thanks for that. Although global warming alarmists are routinely asked that question they never answer it.

 

LOL!!! I posted every fact that was even remotely relevant.

 

That is an occasion to LOL.

 

With wind power we get:

- lower health care expenditures due to air quality.
- lower electricity bills
- less greenhouse gas emissions
- higher employment, as there are already more green energy jobs today than there are in oil, for example.

AND bonus: we get to hear you whine about that!!

Plus, NOBODY has suggested we're going to solve all our energy needs with wind.

 

The terminology gets a little weird, maybe, but that's no excuse.

Utilities such as PG&E on the west coast are for profit corporations owned by its share holders and run by its executives.

It is public in the same way that corporations traded on the stock markets are public. You can buy shares in PG&E.

If/when they decide to create more electricity (rather than buy it wholesale) that is entirely their decision, not the decision of any branch of government. Obviously, they are subject to regulation.

There are at least 6 companies such as that in CA. Beyond that, there are companies that create power or store and resell power sold wholesale.

There are also utilities that are not like that at all.

In the Northwest, there is Energy Northwest. They are NOT a for profit corporation. It operates more like a city in that it can sell municipal bonds. It's members include a collection of counties and their non-private PUDs.



Sheesh. This is all public info for anyone interested.

 

PG&E is controlled by the state of California.

 

And yet...in multiple posts in multiple threads you keep harping on wind, just as if it's "going to solve all our energy needs."

If it was cheaper and that was the ONLY factor in electrical energy generation, you wouldn't need to be hyping it up, it would already be our major prominent power source. I'm not opposed to wind, I support ALL of the methods of producing electrical power as appropriate, but the article I linked wasn't some cigar chomping oil executive, it was a lefty liberal journalist writing to other lefty liberals to not get too over your ski's on wind because there are real limits to it, limits that in your boosterism you refuse to acknowledge.

 

No. I point out that wind is the cheapest way to generate electricity in a significant region of America.

And, you assumption that it would already have been done is obviously ridiculous.

Take a look. It's the cheapest. It isn't done.

I also point out that we are not going to be 100% wind in ANY region.

Why are you so upset that you have to misrepresent what I say?

How about just looking at the facts, and agreeing?

 

Yes why don't I simply agree with you and be done with it? Glad to see you haven't lost your sense of humor!

I didn't dispute that wind was the cheapest, although I didn't really bother to check it out, but on the other hand, there wasn't any need. I wasn't disputing the cost. Merely that single metric isn't enough, there are other factors involved. Wind power costing zero isn't going to replace the fact it's an unreliable power, it requires a massive amount of land area, and the best sites are not co-located with power needs, requiring a massive new infrastructure which had already bankrupted one venture.

There is no doubt room to grow in expanding wind, but it's limited and isn't ever going to be anywhere near the nation's primary power source. Which is why your constant campaigning for it is odd. Wind Power is an alternative, we get it, but it's limited and always will be.

 

I've said that wind will never be 100% - over and over again. Please try to remember that this time.

We're underperforming on wind generation by a lot, considering that it is cheapest in a large region, that it IS dependable, that we have HUGE open area for wind generation (since it is fully compatible with central region agriculture), and that it is clean (not just in terms of carbon).

Having large amounts of power in the central region is a strong draw for increased economic activity in a huge region of red state America that is not leading America in GDP contribution.

Plus, having our central region farmers have a second income stream is something we should want.

 

Carolina

I once looked into building a wind system. Most information was from the 1930s. A home system that is. The biggest puzzle would be how to shape the propeller. I never had enough wind to see it through.

 

OK I guess I need not have replied. You have your mantra and you're sticking with it.

 

I've cited experts on the exact topics you have commented on.

You have not.

Why do you think I should change position based on your unsubstantiated opinions?

 

I think I offered observations more than opinions. You believe experts think wind is superior to all forms of power and should be predominate, yet for some mysterious reason isn't. OK.

 

NO, once AGAIN you totally misrepresent what I said.

This is why I need a cite for what you claim. You can't even quote my own posts.

 

Elon Musk Says World Needs More Oil and Gas​

• “I think we actually need more oil and gas, not less, but simultaneously moving as fast as we can to a sustainable energy economy. I’m also pronuclear .” Mr. Musk said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musk-says-world-needs-more-oil-and-gas-11661772916

 

They are regulated - as are all businesses.

They make their own business decisions.

 

Context means a lot here.

Do you believe Musk would reject a move toward wind power where wind is the cheapest way to create electricity?

 

The carbon foot print is greater than that of
off shore wind production.


Moi

​

 

I'm sure you are aware that the issue being commented on is that of how to invest in additional capacity.

And for that, wind is the cheapest way to create more electricity in a fairly large region of the USA.

Today, clean energy electricity is growing faster than the growth in electricity demand.

This is in part due to the significant downward slope of coal fired electricity, as natural gas takes over more of our electricity production.

 

Please
Do Not Paraphrase Moi


Gracias

 

This youtube clip is pure BS. If there was a way to build a such device which supply free energy, the maker of a such device would became an instant billionaire. Tesla left patents and writings - and he didn't leave instructions how to build device which will supply free energy - so we need to wait for another solution.

 

Hmm, fossil fuel companies have the major share in the market for energy. Of course, these kinds of inventions don't exist on commercial levels because they are suppressed or the patents have been buried (figuratively). Only an idiot can't work that out.

N. Tesla vs J.P. Morgan
"It is said that Tesla could not complete his Wardenclyffe project because Morgan killed it saying “if anyone can get electricity anywhere, then where do we put the meter?”.