Wind turbine maker's shares plunge 19%

I think the problem wind turbine industry is facing is partly all the mis-information being spread around by the oil and coal companies.

Also, the biggest potential market is the U.S., yet it really takes governments or large corporations to make investments in significant wind farming operations. Since the U.S. is radically capitalistic, it seems unlikely the government would make significant investments in wind power.

Additionally, wind is the long-term investment, and many people are impatient and unwilling to invest in something over a 30 year time span. Just look how often people sell their homes and move away now.

Idealism is evil.

Perfect is the enemy of the good.

As long as people have "NIMBY" attitudes about our lifestyles and energy needs, no real progress can be made.

Wind is an inexhaustible power supply whereby one must never pay for fuel, nor for cleaning up and disposing of waste, yet NIMBY and idealism continues to defeat it to everyone's detriment.

I think the problem wind turbine industry is facing is partly all the mis-information being spread around by the oil and coal companies.

I think the biggest problem is reality, and the hyperbole and rhetorics of the wind advocates that hurt the credibility of wind power. Like:

Wind is an inexhaustible power supply whereby one must never pay for fuel, nor for cleaning up and disposing of waste

Except it isn't, and you do. Windmills aren't indestructible monoliths, they have to be replaced completely every 20-25 years because of material fatigue. That's a huge pile of rubbish that has to be recycled at a cost, and some which you can't recycle, like fiberglass. You can only "downcycle" it into less valuable products. The wind is free, but utilizing it is not.

As far as reality goes, all the large wind power users, Germany, Denmark, etc. have already ran into practical problems because they simply can't utilize any more wind in their grids due to the variability of it

The basic problem is, that to achieve the average output of wind power, even over a vast area up to 1000 kilometers in diameter, you get huge random power swings up to 5x the average output, and occasionally you get absolutely nothing.

How do you deal with it?

The answer is that you can't and you don't. The utilities build wind power, collect the subsidies and carbon credits, and then sell the electricity off across borders to places that don't have wind power. They only use a fraction of it themselves.

This principle of a "virtual battery" dilutes the random power swings into a larger grid. It works beause the amount of wind power in this larger unit is so neglible that it doesn't interfere with its normal operation - as long as nobody else builds more wind power.

It also means that the total amount of wind power you can globally utilize is likewise - neglible. Any more, and the cost of energy starts to rise drastically due to the practical issues of trying to tame chaos.

over a vast area up to 1000 kilometers in diameter, you get huge random power swings up to 5x the average output, and occasionally you get absolutely nothing.

The idea that thousands of turbines distributed throughout 780,000 km^2 could simultaneously experience no useable wind whatsoever suggests that you are inventing your numbers. Care to submit your source?

occasionally you get absolutely nothing.

How do you deal with it?

Yes you can. Just build wind farms to cover for the average needs, and burn gas or coal when there is not enough wind. It works, it is not perfect but it makes sense and you save more than half of gas & coal burning than without windmills, which (a half empty glass is better than an empty one, isn't it?). And as @returners said, perfect is enemy of the good.

It will be even better with future generations of new batteries. We will have to wait a few years but there is a lot if investment on this field and it will happen.

Meanwhile, I think it could be improved by changing the electricity price to match the reality, do important discounts at wind peak moments and charge more at bad times. Many industries could take advantage of it by producing the most energy intensive processes at the right moments. Difficult but not impossible, if it is profitable and you have the adequate laws it will happen

Wind is nice but I'm guessing wave is where the power is at. Vestas' equity woes don't seem markedly different from other companies in the double-dip recession.

If they could invent something that could harness hot air, we could plant a wind farm in Washington DC. :D

If they could invent something that could harness hot air, we could plant a wind farm in Washington DC. :D

It is invented, but it only works efficiently if you also have something cold nearby. For example Toronto is in the Ontario lake shore, and they are successfully using the temperature difference between the hot city and the cold deep water from the lake.

Except it isn't, and you do. Windmills aren't indestructible monoliths, they have to be replaced completely every 20-25 years because of material fatigue. That's a huge pile of rubbish that has to be recycled at a cost, and some which you can't recycle, like fiberglass. You can only "downcycle" it into less valuable products. The wind is free, but utilizing it is not.

I'm not an engineer but wouldn't counter rotating dual wind turbines reduce centrifical stress on the blades?
http://www.youtub...e8xUWtNI

in a time of economic turmoil and collapses, how does one not see an industry still in development take a hit as well?

The inevitable result of arrogant central planners, failure.

The inevitable result of arrogant central planners, failure.

Vestas is a private company. So it's a failure of capitalism.

The inevitable result of arrogant central planners, failure.

Vestas is a private company. So it's a failure of capitalism.

All the more reason not to invest in traditional wind technology from private or public funds because it's NOT PROFITABLE. It's not efficient/competitive enough to produce more wealth to go around.

The inevitable result of arrogant central planners, failure.

Vestas is a private company. So it's a failure of capitalism.

All the more reason not to invest in traditional wind technology from private or public funds because it's NOT PROFITABLE. It's not efficient/competitive enough to produce more wealth to go around.

I said it's a failure of capitalism, not technology. To allow all that free energy to radiate into space during peak oil is ludicrous. Besides, a capitalist would let the market decide. If the subsidies given to big oil were instead given to green energy, there would be no energy crisis. Oil is a dead end. The money spent on the Iraq oil war was enough to make every American energy-independent. Instead now they are broke debt-slaves with half now below the poverty line.

This has nothing to do with wind being practical or not (and eikka is full of shit i dont even know where to start but probably best not to).

The reason being that the economy is doing worse and worse, people use less energy because they cannot afford it, thus the investors look for something more "stable" to invest in.

So i have to agree with kochevnik, huge failure becuase of capitalism.

What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution. Meaning consumer behavior will choose which technologies can produce enough product to meet demand. If wind and solar power were productive enough to do this then they would be able to work on large scale and not micro scale but they can't and so wind/solar technology FAILS and not capitalism. Capitalism vets the weakest links and expunges them. Does the rest of the world like India and China subsidize their oil coal industries? I think not. Why? Because the meet demand reliably. And where u have demand you have value. BTW, oil is by no mean at a "dead end". Where do you think fertilizer comes from which effectively subsidizes your food creation? Where do plastics, herbicides, paints, pharmaceutics, cosmetics, etc. and everything in between come from? OIL which = modern society. Local liquification of 160 years worth of coal and the 2.5 trillion barrels of tar sands from Canada will be the oil sources of the future.

Wind power requires that energy is extracted from a system. Its is not clearly renewable and likely has impacts on the environment that have not been fully considered. Moving air for example carries water and when you interrupt the water cycle you alter the weather and in the long term you initiate climate change.

kaasinees, by "stable" do you mean artificially having to rely on irregular wind and solar patterns and pouring trillions of capital into building a grid to mitigate resulting power supply havoc? Would it make too much sense to just build coal gasification plants close to where demand is and reliably supply power day and night? You know if we had real capitalism in this country we'd likely be running on LFTR reactors because they're the lowest hanging fruit with least liability. But bigger government usually convolutes the market and supports established interests like the current uranium nuclear industry.

Wind power requires that energy is extracted from a system. Its is not clearly renewable and likely has impacts on the environment that have not been fully considered.

Wind power has been around for centuries and so far there is still life on Earth. You're right though about renewablility: The sun needs refueling every five billion years.

...by "stable" do you mean artificially having to rely on irregular wind and solar patterns and pouring trillions of capital into building a grid to mitigate resulting power supply havoc?

Your electric car soaks up and balances the load. That's a no-brainer. Batteries will soon have ten times more capacity. Enough to power the house and take you 2000 miles before recharging.

Wind power has been around for centuries

- Commie Nutter

A few windmills here and there. We are talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of these monstrosities world wide.

Of course Sol will still drive the wind but the transport of moisture (among other side effects) will change.

What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution.

But the 'progressives' support biological evolution and oppose the idea of a Central Planner of the universe.
Why do 'progressives' oppose economic evolution and engage in central planning?

If they could invent something that could harness hot air, we could plant a wind farm in Washington DC. :D

It is invented, but it only works efficiently if you also have something cold nearby. For example Toronto is in the Ontario lake shore, and they are successfully using the temperature difference between the hot city and the cold deep water from the lake.

I think the joke went a bit over your head.

What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution.

But the 'progressives' support biological evolution and oppose the idea of a Central Planner of the universe.
Why do 'progressives' oppose economic evolution and engage in central planning?

Vague terms by a vague person to make vague arguments. Shut up already -.-

Hmm capitalism = evolution? Really?

How about encephalon = central planning. You do have one, don't you?

Yes you can. Just build wind farms to cover for the average needs, and burn gas or coal when there is not enough wind. It works, it is not perfect but it makes sense and you save more than half of gas & coal burning than without windmills

Nope. It doesn't work that way. You can't just push power into the grid. Production and consumption must always meet.

That's the problem. You can never build more wind power than the maximum amount of power you can sink into your grid at any given time, and then your windmills will produce only neglible amounts of your energy on average, because their average output is only around 20% of the design power. Even assuming that your consumption is constant, you'd have to burn gas to produce roughly 80% of all your energy, so that your windmills could sometimes produce up to 100% of their design power and you'd still be able to use it.

In reality you save next to nothing.

What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution.

But the 'progressives' support biological evolution and oppose the idea of a Central Planner of the universe.
Why do 'progressives' oppose economic evolution and engage in central planning?

Vague terms by a vague person to make vague arguments. Shut up already -.-

Are you an atheist?
Are you socialist?

If Capitalism [i.e. you are implying free market] is equal to evolution, how do you explain the existence of multicelled organisms, and for that matter the many that possess a CENTRALLY PLANNED nervous system.

Your innards are centrally planned Marjon, from the moment of conception driven by evolution. Maybe you should just get it over with and water the tree of liberty if you feel so strongly.

LOL, FH, you are such a twit. "Centrally planned" by whom? The term "planned" implies an active participate doing the planning. Are you saying GOD planned the central nervous system? Such things came about through a process of nature.

I asked months ago why it is that progressives don't care for free-market capitalism, but at the same time believe in evolution.

Both are similar, in that they both function from core natural processes. Capitalism requires the intrinsic egoistic nature of the individual, to seek to improve quality of life. Along, with this of course is competition and survival of the fittest. Profit, and the "desire for more", is not evil, as most progressives think, but a beautiful natural mechanism which has resulted in the western standard of living.

The "government" is not responsible for anything, and can only act as resistance to the above. The gov has never done a thing efficiently, while nature always does.

What's this about reading comprehension you and your sockpuppets are always harping on me about?

Your innards are centrally planned Marjon, from the moment of conception driven by evolution.

Driven by evolution, not God, as God does not exist you tard. The body obviously follows a plan of development set out in DNA. I mentioned nothing about intelligent design. Come on now you are really grasping at straws fool.

Capitalism WILL be the solution to AGW, if it is even an issue. As anyone can see clearly by world events,.. i'm seeing no central planning wrt solutions to AGW.

Given the volume of oil/coal used on the planet, ...no limp wrist "green energy" approach, nor social engineering and redistribution of wealth, will ever work.

Your innards are centrally planned Marjon, from the moment of conception driven by evolution.
Driven by evolution, not God, as God does not exist you tard. The body obviously follows a plan of development set out in DNA. I mentioned nothing about intelligent design. Come on now you are really grasping at straws fool.

I don't believe in God either, dingus. It sounds like you need an invocation of a "planning" mechanism (i.e. intelligent design) in your interpretation of evolution.

Take a few steps back. DNA itself is the result of evolution, i.e. natural processes. So, your interpretation that it's a "plan for action", as if a "biological progressive government", is faulty logic.

Capitalism is a natural process, while governmental social engineering is ad-hoc button pushing and dial turning in comparison, which the results of each have proven.

Have you ever heard of a body plan you hypocrite?

Of course you have. You are pretending not to to try to make it look like I'm saying something I'm not.

http://en.wikiped...ody_plan

A body plan is the blueprint for the way the body of an organism is laid out. An organism's symmetry,[1] its number of body segments and number of limbs are all aspects of its body plan.

No god, no intelligent design. Just your dishonest sophistry.

I'm not engaging in this anymore. This is off topic. And you are a racist and a liar.

no limp wrist "green energy"

You're also a homophobe. Big shock there.

Your arbitrary use of the charge if racism, only serves to dilute it's significance, thus you continue to do injustice to those who actually are victims of it. You're despicable, as is all the lestest race baiters.

You're not reading what I wrote. I know you don't believe in god or intelligent design. I'm saying your above faulty logic requires these notions despite this, thus you are inconsistent.

I know about DNA, that it too is a product of evolution. You stop at this point in its evolutionary development, only because it is convenient to draw the strained analogy between it and "central planning".

Unfortunately for you, this logic fails, because the existence of DNA is a result of evolution,.. NOT of any conscious planning, .i.e. government.

"The basic problem is, that to achieve the average output of wind power, even over a vast area up to 1000 kilometers in diameter, you get huge random power swings up to 5x the average output, and occasionally you get absolutely nothing.

How do you deal with it?" - Eikka

Averaging and short term storage.

Why does this continue to confuse you?

"Your arbitrary use of the charge if racism, only serves to dilute it's significance" - NoumenTard

Can you tell us again what your reason was for referring to Arab countries as "Rag Head Nations"?

"Capitalism is a natural process" - NumenTard

So is murder.

"Nope. It doesn't work that way. You can't just push power into the grid. Production and consumption must always meet.

That's the problem." - Eikka

No, the problem is that you don't seem capable of understanding that you throttle your production - or dump the remainder into storage systems when there is excess production capacity.

If you are using natural gas turbines, coal fired plants, oil fired plants, nuclear powerd plants, you turn them down or off, or start up motors that pump water into reservoirs or start charging batteries etc.

Ah, so sustainable energy production is impossible in your opinion. That leaves only the unsustainable option which of course, by definition is unsustainable.

So your prescription is to do nothing until mankind goes extinct.

Yours is a Libertarian/Republican response to a real problem. Do nothing, and allow the problem to grow worse and worse and then blame da gubderment for the problem you created.

"no limp wrist "green energy" approach, nor social engineering and redistribution of wealth, will ever work." - NumenTard

Then you will need to dramatically lower your wasteful energy consumption.

When will you comply? Or will you need to have your legs broken to do so?

"Capitalism WILL be the solution to AGW" - NeumenTard

You mean it will arrive just in time to save the day like Mighty Mouse?

Your plan worked well with the plague, and the Irish Potato Famine didn't it?

Sorry Tard Boy. But America's day in the sun is over. You losers are providing a wonderful example of how not do do anything.

Oh, probably because Free Market Capitalism has been such a spectacular failure for America, while evolution has been such a fantastic success for the biosphere.

You poor, confused, Tard.

"I asked months ago why it is that progressives don't care for free-market capitalism, but at the same time believe in evolution." - NumenTard

"The "government" is not responsible for anything..." - NumenTard

Yup, once you exclude maintaining standards of measure, and conduct, funding prisons, building infrastructure, funding virtually all basic science research, all medical research, and providing state protection, disaster relief, fire prevention and response, education and medical care, and protecting commerce, you are right. The government does nothing.

Can you tell us again what your reason was for referring to Arab countries as "Rag Head Nations"?

I already explained this to you. I will repeat it one more time, so read carefully; Turbins and hijabs, come right off if pulled,.. so they are not an intrinsic attribute of a particular race. In fact, they are worn in accordance with religious law, islam, and not to differentiate race. Obviously many races follow islam.

As to your stupid anti-capitalism, anti-American remarks,... I can't possibly take you seriously in order to supply a response.

Don't like them? Awwww. You will have to reduce your carbon footprint to compensate.

"A few windmills here and there. We are talking about tens or hundreds of thousands of these monstrosities world wide." - BlueHigh

"The "government" is not responsible for anything..." - NumenTard

Yup, once you exclude maintaining standards of measure, and conduct, funding prisons, building infrastructure, funding virtually all basic science research, all medical research, and providing state protection, disaster relief, fire prevention and response, education and medical care, and protecting commerce, you are right. The government does nothing.

Of course I meant that within the context of how the western standard of living came about (as opposed to historical examples of communism). I'm not anti-government, and know it is required for basic nuts and bolts of a society.

And Capitalism will continue it's evolution when subject to adequate government regulation.

"What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution." - Capitalism Fails

Generally, governmental regulation, is a hindrance and is counter to the natural process of free market capitalism.

It is an reactionary emotional invention of political man and is artificial in comparison.

"Capitalism WILL be the solution to AGW" - NeumenTard

You mean it will arrive just in time to save the day like Mighty Mouse?

Your plan worked well with the plague, and the Irish Potato Famine didn't it?

Sorry Tard Boy. But America's day in the sun is over. You losers are providing a wonderful example of how not do do anything.

What country are you from originally?

No, no magic, oil/coal will eventually become more and more expensive as it becomes more difficult to find and extract. The value will then go up.

The market for alternatives will then be able to compete. Why invest money into alternatives with oil/coal so cheap, now?

Wrt energy use, humans will take the path of least resistance, as economies cannot otherwise support. I'm just stating the reality of it.

That said, I'm all for a "Manhattan'esque project" to develop safe nuclear power, as a matter of national security.

No, no magic, oil/coal will eventually become more and more expensive as it becomes more difficult to find and extract. The value will then go up.

And this will magically happen at the same time that it will be necessary to switch over before climate change becomes catastrophic?

No, no magic, oil/coal will eventually become more and more expensive as it becomes more difficult to find and extract.

And this will magically happen at the same time that it will be necessary to switch over before climate change becomes catastrophic?

Again, its not magic, and will happen gradually. I'm just stating how economies function. As to your question, I don't know the answer. The catastrophic projections of AGW are speculation to begin with,... but I concede that it is possible that there will be irreversible effects done to the climate as a result of the industrial revolution.

What is certain, is that social engineering energy use will not work. As even those who buy into it 100%, can clearly see that nothing is being done about it, and there are no alternatives to oil/coal on the massive scale needed to replace it. We are still drilling for oil, and even squeezing ever drop out of the oil sands. Reality.

Again, its not magic, and will happen gradually.

Recall that sperm whale oil was used for home lighting creating a very profitable whaling industry. But then oil was discovered in PA and cheaper kerosene replaced sperm whale oil and eventually the electric lamp p replaced kerosene lamps.
And there were no govt subsidies involved and several of the worlds largest companies were launched, providing a product people wanted at market prices.

no limp wrist "green energy" approach, nor social engineering and redistribution of wealth, will ever work." - Noumenon

Then you will need to [..] lower your wasteful energy consumption. When will you comply? Or will you need to have your legs broken to do so?

You are starting to get it. No free individual will voluntarily reduce their energy use because of some global climate speculation, because it is not in their individual best interest to do so.

So indeed, they will have to be Forced into having their daily lives regulated by the government, if they are to substantially reduce their energy use.

There are a number of reasons why ultimately, this will not work in any case, but the only one that matters is that the people are the ones who determine the form of government in free nations, and they will not accept a communistic or socialistic one. Many, including me, would rather "go down with the ship", than accept conditions which are counter to our nature.

Again, its not magic, and will happen gradually. I'm just stating how economies function.

Just pointing out that nature doesn't care about economics.

Nature is the REAL thing we are based on and rely on for survival as opposed to something fictional - like economy (which is a - more or less consensual - fictional construct).

We shouldn't rely on fiction to get us out of real trouble.

Economics is the RESPONSE to nature.

I'm all for clean energy but why is everyone who denies AGW, or doesnt support Green (impractical) Energy, Government control over our lives or the supiority of progressivism, a racist homophob, hater and or nothing but a completely vile Hitler lover person according to the loving caring inclusive Progressives on this board?

Economies are fictional? What? I think you are misusing the word "fictional". I understand your attempted differentiation between economies and nature though, ...its just that you are wrong.

Free market economies are a manifestation of the egoistic nature of man, or maybe a epiphenomenon of it. It is real, not "made up".

Unless there is some unnatural force to prevent it, societies will develop with economies based on some form of capitalism,... where "the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system".

We shouldn't rely on fiction to get us out of real trouble. - anti-alias

It's naive to toss around "WE shouldn't do that..." or "WE should being doing this..". Nobody operates in their daily lives with WE in mind. Therefore, this reliance on "We should behave this way or that",.. is orders of magnitude less reliable than proposing that individuals seek their own benefit. It is clear that economies are based on the latter and not the former.

I hope, cold fusion will wipe out all these ugly material hungry projects from the surface of Earth soon.

Free Market Capitalism has been such a spectacular failure for America - Vendicar_Decarian

I will add this to my all time PhysOrg idiotic post list at my profile page. Thanks.

Your arbitrary use of the charge if racism, only serves to dilute it's significance - Noumenon

Can you tell us again what your reason was for referring to Arab countries as "Rag Head Nations"? - Vendicar_Decarian

Explained above. I've proven in the following thread, that FrankHubris frequently applies the "racism" charge to conservatives only.

http://www.physor...ars.html

Free Market Capitalism has been such a spectacular failure

Not to put too fine a point to it - but many of the most capitalist nations are heavily in debt. To communist China.

Economies are fictional? What?

As regards climate change: yes.

Economics is something humans dreamed up to work among ourselves. It has no relation to reality (i.e. those things in the universe which actually threaten us, like climate change). Try to argue with a storm or rising ocean levels based on your salary. See how much that impresses it.

Nobody operates in their daily lives with WE in mind.

You might not. Others do. We have realized that once the species goes extinct all the money in your bank accoungt means nothing - not even to the individual.

It is all nice and dandy to be egoistical as long as reality doesn't interfere (i.e. as long as you can play economy games without reality being affected). But that is no longer the case.

Free Market Capitalism has been such a spectacular failure

Not to put too fine a point to it - but many of the most capitalist nations are heavily in debt.

Surely you understand that this is due to government massive spending and waste (!?), and NOT a result of capitalism.

It is all nice and dandy to be egoistical as long as reality doesn't interfere (i.e. as long as you can play economy games without reality being affected). But that is no longer the case. - antialias_physorg

I'm all for reducing carbon emissions. I'm just stating the reality of the situation. The world economies are based on a free market capitalism, which in turn is feed with oil/coal on a massive scale. You can't just replace it with peanut butter or windmills because of the tree-hugger bedwetting of today. It will take time to gradually ease into a better technology for energy, because it will take time for economies to adjust accordingly and naturally.

If this means it will take too long to "save us", then humanity is doomed, because it is NOT generally accepted that AGW equates to catastrophic doom in the near future.

What do YOU suggest be done, as a realistic solution?

The world economies are based on a free market capitalism,

Some are. Some are not.

If you mean by 'free' that there is an open competition for goods by price and quality then the world economies cetrainly aren't free. All countries employ tariffs, customs, taxes, subsidies and other means by which local products are protected.

It will take time to gradually ease into a better technology for energy

In your world that means doing nothing. What do you think large polluters (or any company for that matter) will do? Change because of rising prices? Or simply lobby for more subsidies and tax breaks.

Hint: Big companies in the US, like GE, pay on the order of NEGATIVE 60 percent tax. That's right: For every dollar they should be paying (if all laws were applied) they are getting 60 cents worth in subsidies.

Free market? Don't make me laugh.

If this means it will take too long to "save us", then humanity is doomed, because it is NOT generally accepted that AGW equates to catastrophic doom in the near future.

Tell that to the island nations which are already being inundated and will soon cease to exist.

What do YOU suggest be done, as a realistic solution?

There are countries which are converting to alternative, CO2 neutral, energy sources (Sweden, Iceland, Germany, ... ) at an astonishing rate and with NO negative effects to their economy (quite the opposite). So the argument that it would take too long doesn't hold water. Changeover by 2050 is realistic.

The technology and science behind it isn't hard. wind energy (as per the article) is one way to go in the future energy mix.

Just this year germany alone installed 7.5GW (peak) of alternative energy sources. at a total use of 80GW (peak) you can see that the time until most coal and nuclear power plants are obsolete isn't far off.

Capitalism is a natural process, while governmental social engineering is blah

Extinction is also a natural process, and the result of both evolution AND unfettered capitalism. Today we civilized people decry extinction when it happens in either realm, and work to prevent it by regulating both nature and free markets as needed.

What was it Aristotle said? Democracy, which is the political Doppleganger of capitalism, is only one step above despotism. Unfettered capitalism (if indeed it is capable of being regulated at all) RESULTS in despotism.

The fittest end up on top and they get there by exploiting weaknesses in the system. They cheat, bribe, steal, collude, and extort their way to the top. Free markets created the Mob right? This is evolution at it's best.

As to windmills is it possible that the market is saturated for the moment? Did anybody mention this?

Have a nice day.

There are countries which are converting to alternative, CO2 neutral, energy sources (Sweden, Iceland, Germany, ... ) at an astonishing rate and with NO negative effects to their economy (quite the opposite). So the argument that it would take too long doesn't hold water. Changeover by 2050 is realistic.

I didn't say it would take too long, I said it will have to happen in accord with existing economies (and IF that was too late then,...), which as you pointed out above Germany is doing a good job. Actually the USA uses more wind, and Germany's stated goal is to go to renewable sources for half of it's energy use by 2050, not all,... which is still great if they can do it. As I said , I'm all for alternatives via technology, not social engineering nor redistribution of wealth that the political far left want as a solution now.

Germany's stated goal is to go to renewable sources for half of it's energy use by 2050

Too late and too little, and we are talking about Germany, a country with abundant means and strong determination for renewables which is an exception rather than a rule. Warmer world is inevitable. The only thing that will force humanity to decrease CO2 emmisions globally is PEAK OIL, and that will be a much bigger threat for human civilisation than climate change ever will.

France managed to switch to 80 % nuclear in 20 years or so.

You people who want more inherently inefficiency central planners to arbitrate energy market forces really don't understand the science of economics and human behavior. People are hardwired to pursue the path of least resistance and fossil fuels provide that path. It's natural law and you can't fight it. You green NeoComs are just too yellow to admit your RED.

...really don't understand the science of economics and human behavior.

More like after free access to information, people are sick and tired of the lies and toxins put out by big oil. Information access has sped up dramatically. For example I could not find a company in the USA for over a decade. Yet with google I found them in five seconds. People are tired of your snake oil hucksterism. Sustainability is hard-wired into the DNA, not paths of least resistance. As masters of the planet the biosphere will live or die by human actions. Your way is death.

As I said , I'm all for alternatives via technology, not social engineering nor redistribution of wealth that the political far left want as a solution now.

No, you're for redistribution of wealth and control of energy into the hands of the 1%, using fraud and deception. Typical conservative.

I hope, cold fusion will wipe out all these ugly material hungry projects from the surface of Earth soon.

This post was downovoted for example with M_N, CapitalismPrevails, orac, Fagamemnon, OverweightAnatolian, PetiteAmerican, PaoloIlTipoBasso, IVT, iTwanker, Libtard, ryggesogn3, gregor2 , CManhole82, DenseAetherTheory, Pirouline, RacistsCommieHypocrite, KingOfPhysorg.. Apparently, too many guys here are involved in research of alternative ways of energy production, storage and transport, which the cold fusion finding would render useless. If nothing else, it explains in illustrative way, why the human civilization implements this finding so slowly - without need of any conspiracy theories. Because most of scientists responsible are engaged in competitive research already.

Do these guys support capitalism? I'd say, they just want to protect their jobs sponsored with tax payers from mandatory fees - so they're actually Bolsheviks in their hearts.

People are hardwired to pursue the path of least resistance

Says you?
People pursue what is in their self interest and will take whatever path needed.

@Callippo, Those are all FrankHerbert screen names. The guy is an absolute mental child.

@Callippo, Those are all FrankHerbert screen names. The guy is an absolute mental child.

I seriously doubt it. For the application of voting filter the single downvoting would be enough. It's not necessary to downvote me multiple times just for keeping my score low. It's definitely a spontaneous job of many people.

In addition, I'm making many blurbs in this forum, but just the notion of cold fusion did upset so many people. The other posts of mine are usually downovoted with single person only (orac). So why the orac should use all his accounts just for downvoting of this particular post?

What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution.

If evolution created perfection there would be one species and no cancer.

Competition is one tiny part of the process of evolution. The abstract math of capitalism reflects the ambitions of those who created it (and their limitations), not a perfect algorithm for achieving perfection.

Capitalism isn't true to itself because it relies on the community to create consent. It does this through indoctrination, peer pressure, domination, hording of vital resources,... etc that contradict the free market. Capitalism is impossible without nationality and unified law, language, math, money, materialism,... facilitated by the nation.

You ignore that most people in this world do not mathematically benefit from working harder or making decisions that increase our efficiency.

Evolution creates complexity through replication, mutation and selection. It does not strife for logic or perfection, it does not strife for anything.

What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution.

What you guys fail to understand, the evolution is not driven with individual interests only, but with collective synergies too. For example, many living organisms spontaneously organize into colonies and herds not because they're socialistic by their very nature, but because it gives then an additional level of fitness and evolutionary advantage. In AWT the evolution is in dynamic equilibrium of socialistic and capitalistic aspects of society, because its part of gradient driven reality. The biosphere composed from individuals or single crowd of them would be too homogeneous for to evolve in maximal speed possible.

Capitalism is impossible without nationality and unified law, language, math, money, materialism,... facilitated by the nation.

False.

Capitalism isn't true to itself because it relies on the community to create consent.

Community? Why? What does capitalism mean to you? Capitalism can't use the force of the nation. Participants must persuade.

If evolution created perfection there would be one species and no cancer.

Perfection? How would one species be perfect? That species would need to be cannibalistic to survive.

It does not strife for logic or perfection, it does not strife for anything.

You think capitalism strives for perfection? Only socialists claim to strive for perfection (Utopia). Capitalism a system that allows its participants to satisfy their needs and wants in a persuasive environment. Not a coercive one.

@Callippo, Those are all FrankHerbert screen names. The guy is an absolute mental child.

I seriously doubt it. For the application of voting filter the single downvoting would be enough. It's not necessary to downvote me multiple times just for keeping my score low. It's definitely a spontaneous job of many people.

It's the same guy, FrankHerbert. He does it to me also, and votes others he agrees with up. I've been dealing with this clown over PM for months.

What you guys fail to understand is capitalism=evolution.

What you guys fail to understand, the evolution is not driven with individual interests only, but with collective synergies too. For example, many living organism spontaneously organize into colonies and herds not because they're socialistic by their very nature, but because it gives then additional level of fitness and evolutionary advantage. In AWT the evolution is in dynamic equilibrium of socialistic and capitalistic aspects of society.

Socialism is requires force, coercion.

evolution is not driven with individual interests only,

Of course it is.
It is in the self-interest of the herd animal to stay with the herd. It is in the self interest of the wolf to hunt in packs.
Some humans have the opportunity to choose what is in their self interest and create environments, physical and social, to support that self interest.

I was responding to the arguments of CapitalismPrevails who suggested that capitalism like evolution creates the best outcome (perfection).

It is coercive. You are defined and limited by - and indebted to - the nation from the second you are born.

I had the experience of being poor when I was young (my mother succumbed to mental illness) so I was very aware of how worthless I was to my community and how that limited my ability and ambition to compete for social status.

I have experienced my role in the economy as unfair, involuntary, and unnatural to my impulses. Buying and owning stuff brings me no pleasure, yet it dominates my life. The choice is becoming greedy and never satisfied or being dominated by the greedy.

I don't like my life, I don't like what happened to my biosphere, I DO NOT like Money.

I work because I'm forced to. Because I will suffer if I don't. My only purpose in life is to facilitate the greed of the people that spat me out when I was helpless en needy.

I work because I'm forced to. Because I will suffer if I don't.

So you would prefer the govt force other people to work to take care of you?

was very aware of how worthless I was to my community

You must not have been raised in the USA or any other country that enables free markets and opportunity.

Buying and owning stuff brings me no pleasure,

Then don't.

@Callippo, Those are all FrankHerbert screen names. The guy is an absolute mental child.

I seriously doubt it. For the application of voting filter the single downvoting would be enough. It's not necessary to downvote me multiple times just for keeping my score low. It's definitely a spontaneous job of many people.

In addition, I'm making many blurbs in this forum, but just the notion of cold fusion did upset so many people. The other posts of mine are usually downovoted with single person only (orac). So why the orac should use all his accounts just for downvoting of this particular post?

Dude I'm surprised at the magnitude of your disconnect here. You and others are being attacked by one person (not otto).

This has happened to you before. It has caused you to create many sockpuppets of your own. Remember?

I wonder if, upon examining this disconnect, it might inform you of other such massive disconnects in your physics conjectures.

It appears that when FrankHerbert lies on the couch he changes his name to "Pieter_Jan_Catteeuw"

I work because I'm forced to. Because I will suffer if I don't. My only purpose in life is to facilitate the greed of the people that spat me out when I was helpless en needy. - "Pieter_Jan_Catteeuw"

Capitalism is not perfect, especially when polluted by reactionary politics. In fact it is intrinsic in this system that some will prevail while others fail; natural evolutionary elements.

That is entirely you own fault. There has never been a society in human history where one did not have to work and where there was not some standard monetary exchange. Even the earliest state of man as a savage, had to work to acquire food to eat and maintain his existence.

What you call "greed" is not an evil or detriment to humanity, in fact quite the opposite, as every living thing requires this motive force to maintain its existence. You sound like someone barely alive.

Force or violence is an ineliminable aspect of human existence. Marjon (ryggesogn) wants to "privatize" violence, so that "market forces" can regulate it. He's not a conservative, despite his rhetoric. He's an anarchist. His belief is that the market will simultaneously establish a high cost for the production of violence, so that little violence will actually be produced, while at the same time set a low price for violence itself, so that the honest businessman has the same access to violence as conmen, hucksters, thugs and theives.

He has never seen the value of a monopoly on violence guided, not by profitability, but by the values of justice and equality as established by a democracy. He thinks the market for violence should be a private one, where the highest bidder gets the quality and quantity of violence he desires, and where the rest become victims of that violence. That's all you really need to know about marjon.

What are you talking about, Thrasymachus? Has ryggesogn ever suggested that there be NO government?

Obviously violence, (unless you are giving it a ridiculously wide meaning), is a matter of laws and therefore falls under the scope of the government. This has nothing to do with the private sector.

Indeed he has, many times. And violence itself is ridiculously broad. The conman who talks you out of your life savings is using violence, though he never uses a weapon or threatens injury. Indeed, as a Kantian, the principle of violence should be pretty easy for you to understand. It is any act whose intention involves disrespecting another agent as an autonomous being. Because there are a lot of ways to disrespect another agent, there are a lot of different flavors of violence. And because you don't have to realize you're disrespecting someone to actually disrespect them, you can likewise commit violence against someone without meaning to.

And the proper application of violence is central to the functioning of a free-market system, or indeed any social organization that claims authority. Without the threat of violence, contracts would not be enforced when one party no longer benefits from it. Loans would neither be made nor paid back. Trade would not be possible.

You are indeed stretching the term "violence" to include any negative consequence associated with lack of personal responsibility, and any ill effect that reality may cause to one as a result of relative incompetence, or in fact any ill effect caused by merely existing.

It is rather astounding the length that idealistic liberal bed-wetters will go to intellectually contort themselves into an ass-ball.

You have diluted the term "violence" so much that it no longer has any useful meaning.

Your use of the term applies to every and all forms of government, and every and all states of man throughout all history.

The liberal idealistic utopia where no one every receives more benefit from another, nor ever needs to compete with another, nor is ever disrespected by another, ... is utter pure mindless fantasy,.. has never existed, ..nor will ever exist,.. except Saturday mornings on the cartoon network.

Free Market Capitalism directly reflects the reality and nature of man. Grow a pair.

As to windmills is it possible that the market is saturated for the moment? Did anybody mention this?

One of the problems they face is that windmills must be connected to the grid - which makes it necessary to expand upon the already aging grid infrastructure in many countries.

Add to that, that the grid is mostly owned by energy companies operating traditional power plants and you can see how they are loathe to supply the wind farms with the means of easy connection.

Saturation doesn't seem to be the problem (at least not if you look at all the wind parks being planned)

Capitalism is impossible without nationality and unified law, language, math, money, materialism,... facilitated by the nation.

False.

Only if you have weapons and know how to employ them. Which in your case I doubt.

Capitalism isn't true to itself because it relies on the community to create consent.

Community? Why? What does capitalism mean to you? Capitalism can't use the force of the nation. Participants must persuade.

Persuasion is bunk. Authority is required. Without a government there won't be land patents, right of ways, patents, land surveys, environmental regulation. So you assertion that capitalism can work in a vacuum of blatant self-interest alone is laughable. Of course every court needs a jester, and that's where your ideas fill a need.

Socialism is requires force, coercion.

Ever hear of market forces? Every system employs force. Some don't reward trust-fund babies, so you're against those.

Bastiat said it well, The Law begins with the individuals right to self-defense. Individuals can join and agree to collectively protect everyone's property rights with laws and institutions such at titles, patents, etc.
When those laws are used to violate individual property rights, as the socialist do now in the US and elsewhere, those laws must be vigorously opposed.
Statists like to use Somalia as a example of what happens without a state, but the Somalis do have a laws and an economy without a formal, UN recognized nation-state.
Government does not create the society, but govt can destroy societies.
As for anarchy, nation-states exist in anarchy. There is no world govt. Nation-states do what then can and must do with other nation-sates to benefit themselves.

Ever hear of market forces?

Free markets can't use weapons or put people in jail and still be considered free. Market forces persuade, not coerce.

Violence or Hate speech to a progressive is anything said against them that might possibly hurt their feelings, regardless if it is true, even if a progressive would use the same, similar, or worse things against a conservative.

I have a new product that I am launching soon. Capitalism will reward me IF it is something people want at a price they want it at. If people do, I will make money. Now if I was a progressive in power, I would force people to buy that product at a price I demand.

What I want government to do is make sure that no one steals my patents and that people who buy the product for an agreed to price, pay for the product.

What I want government to do is make sure that no one steals my patents and that people who buy the product for an agreed to price, pay for the product.

And this is why there are shortages of some drugs. Govt fixes prices and making it impossible for anyone to make a profit.
If a business does not make a profit is must close. Or, the govt must force people to work for them, aka slavery.

Market forces persuade, not coerce.

Like your libertarian utopia, Somalia?

You have diluted the term "violence" so much that it no longer has any useful meaning.

Your use of the term applies to every and all forms of government, and every and all states of man throughout all history.

You're absolutely right, every form of government, from tribal chiefdoms to monarchies to democratic republics works to monopolize the production of violence for itself, nor is it wrong to do so.

And far from being meaningless, violence does not refer to any and all negative consequences from behavior, but those negative consequences that are imposed by the agreement of other men and women. If you starve because of the drought, you are not a victim of violence. If you starve because someone took all your food and money to pay your standing debts, you have been.

Yet without the authority to take people's things, or even their lives, and the wisdom to apply that authority properly, the free exchange of goods and services is severely limited if not impossible.

Market forces persuade, not coerce.

Like your libertarian utopia, Somalia?

They are no worse off than their nation-state neighbors and in some measures, better.

the wisdom to apply that authority properly

Who has that wisdom?

Ok, Thrasymachus, I think I see your point better. There is a role for government wrt protection of private property. I don't think Rand was for No government, just limited government in the private free market,... but she could have developed her Objectivist philo that way, I'm not aware.

,... the term "violence" seems suspiciously over used here though. A debt is not a violence, it is a responsibility self inflicted through free choice. The court system exist for cases otherwise.

,... the term "violence" seems suspiciously over used here though. A debt is not a violence, it is a responsibility self inflicted through free choice. The court system exist for cases otherwise.

The US does have a pretty effective free market method to incentivize debt repayment: credit scores.
But then the govt steps in and demands some with low credit scores be given a loan. And when they default, taxpayers pick up the tab.
But if you don't pay your govt debt, you may be forced to go to jail or have your property confiscated. This is violence.

It's illegal for Guido to take your house or business but not for the IRS.

Yes, we saw what happened when the government got involved pressuring banks to lend sub prime. It is an ad-hoc "wrench into the works". The mere existence of the gov entity of Fannie-Mae caused an unnatural flow of bad loans.

People say that there was not enough regulation in this case, but the gov in setting up conditions where lending to unqualified borrowers is legitimized even though counter to free market reason, is in effect a gov regulation. So any further regulation needed in this context is just duck tape.

There was plenty of bad regulation and poor enforcement of any good regulations.
Were any govt regulators fired? Were any govt regulation agencies put out of business?
Of course not. They just complained they didn't have enough money or people to do their job.
When Arthur Andersen was caught failing, they were out of business, FAST.

...I'm surprised at the magnitude of your disconnect here. You and others are being attacked by one person (not otto)...

Can you prove, the accounts M_N, ShotmanMaslo, ghidon, Thrasymachus, CapitalismPrevails, orac, Fagamemnon, OverweightAnatolian, PetiteAmerican, PaoloIlTipoBasso, IVT, iTwanker, Libtard, ryggesogn3, gregor2, CManhole82, DenseAetherTheory, Pirouline, RacistsCommieHypocrite, KingOfPhysorg, GDM, ghidon, orac, freithinking, Tardicus_Rex, godbert, FagsForJesus, 1337Jesus666, GubmintCheese are maintained with the same person? Many of them (like the CapitalismPrevails) are even downvoted with orac and others. Anyway, who cares. I've no problem with these accounts.

Actually, private property rights are not, in my opinion, the most important rights for the monopoly on violence to be used to protect and expand. They are certainly important, but not the main reason violence must be monopolized.

In any trade, there are risks that the effects of that trade are not what was anticipated. In some cases, great rewards are gleaned from a trade where neither participant had any reason to believe such gains would be in the offing. In other cases, great losses are suffered without any signal that such a thing could occur. In neither case, where luck is the determinant of advantage or disadvantage, can the recipient be said to deserve those things. I would contend that when one receives an advantage through luck, then leverages that advantage for one's own benefit to the detriment of others, even through what would otherwise be perfectly permissible trading, that one is committing violence against those others.

@ryggesogn2 But if you don't pay your govt debt, you may be forced to go to jail or have your property confiscated. This is violence.

Only to a libertard deadbeat welfare queen.

the wisdom to apply that authority properly

@ryggesogn2 Who has that wisdom?

Licensed/certified professionals

the wisdom to apply that authority properly

@ryggesogn2 Who has that wisdom?

Licensed/certified professionals

Licensed/certified professional....what? And who does the licensing/certifying?

They are certainly important, but not the main reason violence must be monopolized.

What is more important?

Once we come to rely on wind power in the distant future we are going to realize that it has a significant adverse effect on the environment like anything else. Changing wind patterns affects rainfall, which in turn affects the biosphere.

Hint: You cannot extract and convert energy in massive quantities from any system on Earth without having some significant detrimental effect.

You cannot extract and convert energy in massive quantities from any system on Earth without having some significant detrimental effect.

Look at the amount of energy impacting the earth from the sun. Look at the amount that gets converted into wind (or just do the calcultion of the amount of energy one midsized storm has)
Then look at the amount of energy humans need.
Even if we took all our energy needs from wind that is such a piddling fraction that I'm not sure it affects anything at all. Wind patterns range hundreds of meters high (or even kilometers high). Taking a small percentage of the bottom 50 meter high part of that isn't going to alter any major wind currents.

What is more important?

Not that I expect you to agree or recognize them as such, in order, I would put rights of mutual survival, rights to equality of opportunity, rights of social inclusiveness and participation, and then rights of exclusive possession.

But ultimately, the set of values a democracy should use its monopoly on violence to protect and promote ought to be determined by public participation through voting and representation.

What is more important?

Not that I expect you to agree or recognize them as such, in order, I would put rights of mutual survival, rights to equality of opportunity, rights of social inclusiveness and participation, and then rights of exclusive possession.

But ultimately, the set of values a democracy should use its monopoly on violence to protect and promote ought to be determined by public participation through voting and representation.

Then you don't accept the inherent right of every individual to life, liberty, opportunity and property.
Some humans are more equal to others in T's world.

On the contrary, marjon, if you would perhaps care to actually read and attempt to comprehend what people post, I mentioned the rights to mutual survival (life) and the rights of social inclusiveness and participation (liberty), and, like that old saw, prioritize them over the rights of exclusive possession, i.e. property.

Right to 'mutual' survival? Does this mean some must be sacrificed for others to survive?

What is a right to 'social inclusiveness'? Some must be forced to include those they don't want to play with on the playground?

BTW, your life is your property so property tops the list.

T, you have it backwards. The Law, the states function is to protect the rights of each individual: life, property, etc.
This is an emergent concept that best guarantees mutual survival.
What I hear you say is the typical top down, socialist/statist perspective.

There are three sources of law. There is the accumulated history of judicial precedent, known as the Common Law. There is the law passed by the Legislature, which, in the US is composed of two bodies of elected representatives. And there is executive law, the policies and practices of the officers of the government in enforcing the other two types.

The Common Law is the only place you could hope to find some sort of justification for the precedence of property rights over other types of right, and not only will you not find any consistency in the prioritization of property rights over other rights in the Common Law, law passed by the Legislature still trumps it.

The term "mutual" is inclusive. It means everybody survives, at least to the extent that we don't kill each other either directly or through the indirect effects of our actions. As for emergence, how about the violence that emerges from the radical inequality engendered by your anarcho-fascism?

As for emergence, how about the violence that emerges from the radical inequality engendered by your anarcho-fascism?

Please explain what you are saying here.

Look at the amount of energy impacting the earth from the sun. Look at the amount that gets converted into wind (or just do the calcultion of the amount of energy one midsized storm has)
Then look at the amount of energy humans need.
Even if we took all our energy needs from wind that is such a piddling fraction that I'm not sure it affects anything at all. Wind patterns range hundreds of meters high (or even kilometers high). Taking a small percentage of the bottom 50 meter high part of that isn't going to alter any major wind currents.

Not sure that I agree with that as written, but I said that you cannot extract AND CONVERT energy in massive quantities from any of Earths systems without negative consequence. We would ultimately be turning wind energy into heat and pollutants. There is nothing I can do here and now to prove that you cannot do this on a massive scale without negative affect other than tell you that I believe that to be so.

Emergent law is described by Bastiat in The Law. Individuals with desiring to protect their inherent right to life and property join to create laws that protect those rights.
Good law prevents injustice by protecting everyone's life and property equally. Good law makes no attempt to equalize outcomes (to violate the rights of some for the benefit of others), but protects all, equally from violence from other individuals AND violence from a mob (govt).

We would ultimately be turning wind energy into heat and pollutants.

Pollutants? Please explain.

And what do you think happens to wind energy anyways? ALL wind energy gets eventually converted into heat one way or the other - whether we harness it or not.

The argument is that what we would be doing would not be a 'massive scale' by any definition of what wind has to offer.

Pollutants? Please explain.

Well, I was thinking along the lines of a good deal of the electricity we generate goes to manufacturing, though I guess that pollution should be ascribed to manufacturing itself and not to the energy used.

And what do you think happens to wind energy anyways? ALL wind energy gets eventually converted into heat one way or the other - whether we harness it or not.

Not sure I see this, but I can see it might be the case.

The argument is that what we would be doing would not be a 'massive scale' by any definition of what wind has to offer.

You're probably right here, but in my defense my original statement was that you cannot extract massive amounts of energy from any of Earths systems without detrimental side effects. If the wind energy we extract does not qualify as massive amounts when compared to the whole what I said doesn't really apply.

Point is, Earths dynamic systems are balanced and fragile, throwing off the balance is bad.

Earths dynamic systems are balanced and fragile, throwing off the balance is bad.

Earth's dynamic systems are always out of balance and are continuously seeking stability. The moon and sun create tidal forces, solar storms affect the atm, gamma ray bursts, cosmic rays, earthquakes, volcanoes, .... where is the balance?

Well, plants extract massive amount of wind (every time a leaf of gras bends that amounts to an extraction of wind energy). Instead we would be extracting such close-to-ground wind energy with wind turbines. I'm not sure where the 'detrimental effect' would come from if some trees or leaves of grass didn't bend so much during the year.

Certainly we aren't going to be affecting weather patterns, migratory brird routes or even pollen distribution to any extent. it's not like that, on a windy day, the air behind a wind turbine is suddenly still.

Point is, Earths dynamic systems are balanced and fragile,

On the contrary. Earth has ample buffer systems in all directions which cause the climate to be pretty stable. If it didn't we'd be seeing VASTLY different ecological upheavals un short timespans over the planets history. It is only when those buffer systems are over-extended (as we currently see with rain acidification/CO2 absorption) that we get into trouble.

Emergent law is either the Common Law or Executive policies and practices. And people don't join together to protect their "inherent right to" their lives and their property, they join together to protect their lives and their property. That you fail to see the proper distinction between a right to something and the thing itself is one of your greatest blindnesses.

And Noumenon, I think you know perfectly well what I am saying. When a tiny minority of a society secures for itself the vast majority of the economic and political power of the population, to the detriment of the majority of that population, violence emerges. Unregulated capitalism facilitates that inequality.

So T, you don't believe you have a inherent right to your life and a right to use force to protect your life?

Well, plants extract massive amount of wind (every time a leaf of gras bends that amounts to an extraction of wind energy). Instead we would be extracting such close-to-ground wind energy with wind turbines. I'm not sure where the 'detrimental effect' would come from if some trees or leaves of grass didn't bend so much during the year.

Assume in 100 years mankind replaces 90% of it's energy needs with wind turbines. Assume that from almost any point of land on earth a wind turbine is somewhere in your field of view. You can't imagine any negative affect that could have on the environment? We would be completely changing airflow patterns at low altitudes... you know what else is at low altitudes? EVERYTHING! All of the plant an animal life on the planet is at low altitudes (with respect to the ground, not sea level). You don't think that permeating that region with wind turbines would have any negative affect?

I can't prove it would, I'm just saying I see the potential.

You can't imagine any negative affect that could have on the environment?

No. Look at how much space needs to be converted into solar panels on Earth to satisfy humanity's needs for energy. That's really so little compared to all the solar radiation that hits the planet.

EVERYTHING! All of the plant an animal life on the planet is at low altitudes

Yes. So? Which of that life is dependent on consistent airflow patterns? Airflow does not seem to be an energy source for any animal or plant we know of.

A problem would be if we'd affect heat/humidity transfer, but that is accomplished by the entire airflow - not just the extremely low altitude part.

Additionally ind turbines are shut down at extreme high winds (which accomplish most of the above) and where is the problem?

(90% would probably also be a unrealistically high number. I'd advocate a mix of solar, wind, hydro, and biogas to offset any variability in the first three, So we're looking at 25-40% from wind tops.)

And Noumenon, I think you know perfectly well what I am saying. When a tiny minority of a society secures for itself the vast majority of the economic and political power of the population, to the detriment of the majority of that population, violence emerges. Unregulated capitalism facilitates that inequality.

Natural law facilitates that inequality. It's not capitalism that is "unfair", it is realty. All men are NOT created equal, but only should be treated so under the law. In a free society this natural imbalance in capacities of men find their natural place. Regulating nature is a crime.

I do not have an unregulated right to use violence to protect my life or my property, and the rights I do have to use violence to protect myself and my property are granted and legitimized by the State.

Regulating nature is a crime

So growing crops is a crime? Damming up a river to control flooding and generate electricity is a crime? Reality is capricious. Unregulated capitalism magnifies the effects of that capriciousness. The cause of extremes of wealth and poverty is not hard work and intelligence or its lack, but luck. This is easily seen in that capacities in intelligence and ability to perform tasks do not follow a power curve, but both the distribution of wealth in a capitalist system and the rewards from any system of gambling do.

I do not have an unregulated right to use violence to protect my life or my property

Why not?

rights I do have to use violence to protect myself and my property are granted and legitimized by the State.

And can be taken by the state, anytime.
Which seems to suit the socialists/statists here.

I do not have an unregulated right to use violence to protect my life or my property

Why not?

Because it would not be right to use an arbitrary level of violence to counteract a threat, and it some cases, it would not be right to counteract the threat at all. Otherwise, I would have the right respond to the mugger threatening me with a knife by throwing molotov cocktails at him, or I would have the right to contrive to murder the judge who's about to sentence me to death for my previous crimes, or the executioner who's about to carry out that sentence.

The State has always claimed absolute authority over the lives and property of its subjects, originally through divine right, and subsequently through consent of the governed. The latter form of government does not cede this authority by being democratically organized. Democracy only guides the application of this authority, it does not limit it. You despise this authority. You are, therefore, an anarchist.

I would have the right respond to the mugger threatening me with a knife by throwing molotov cocktails at him,

If that is all you have, why not?
The NYC crime wave in the 70s was because the police failed to arrest muggers.
The SCOTUS has ruled the police are not required to protect your life or your property. If the govt is not required to protect your life, who will?
DC banned the right of citizens to defend themselves and crime soars.
Same for Chicago.
The inevitable result of T's world is govt with bad laws that fail to protect you. Chicago requires people to register to buy drain cleaner. Socialist govts like Chicago prohibit people from defending themselves creating opportunities for criminals to attack. After all, what do they have to fear?
Recently in Houston police shot a 15 year old for failing to drop a pellet gun that looked like a real weapon. They were justified in doing so just as I would be if he threatened me.
Again, I am not surprised T favors a police state

T, popular movies in the 70s were "Death Wish" and "Dirty Harry" and their many sequels because the state failed to protect life, liberty and property and would not allow people to protect themselves.

When Drano is outlawed, only outlaws will have Drano.
http://chicago.cb...cleaner/

"When two men appeared at McKinley's door the young widow, with an infant, called 911.

"This guy is up to no good. My husband just passed away. I'm here alone with my baby. Can I get a dispatch out here?" McKinley said.

According to police, Dustin Stewart and Justin Martin were the two men trying to enter McKinley's home.

"I've got my door locked. I've got guns in my hands. Is it OK to shoot him if he comes in the door?" McKinley asked the 911 operator.

Police say the two men knocked for about 20 minutes and then tried to bust into the home.

McKinley said Martin had a 12-inch knife and came toward her.

McKinley said she then shot and killed him.

McKinley said, "I wouldn't of done it, but it was my son. I was trying to protect him."

Read more: http://www.koco.c...j6xhAJsL
In T's world, this woman and baby would be dead.

Well, you've just made the evidence abundantly clear. You want to claim the right to be a sovereign, with the concomitant right to use violence to whatever extent and whatever purpose you choose. This is inconsistent with the existence of an authoritative State. You are therefore an anarchist.

And all of your examples that purport to show the government failing to use their monopoly on violence appropriately, or of government delegating their authority to commit violence to private individuals in certain circumstances and for certain purposes and those individuals using that authority appropriately only serves to reinforce the argument that you are an anarchist. You present your examples to establish two points: 1.) government sucks at employing it's monopoly on violence itself, and 2.) private individuals, when granted the authority by the state to commit violence, rock at it. Therefore, the government's monopoly on violence should be broken up and privatized. Classic anarchism

I always laugh when people mention "natural law"... natural law is the absence of law, natural law is synonymous with might makes right and anything goes.

Also, rights are not inherent. Rights are fought for and protected, which would be unnecessary if they were inherent. The DESIRE for rights is inherent. All humans of sound mind desire freedom from coercion, that desire is inherent.

You know marjon, you're constantly harping on people to admit their political views, that liberals and progressives should admit that they're really "communist" or "fascist" or whatever because they want to use the power of the State to confiscate some people's property or claims to property and redistribute it to others. I fully admit that this is what I desire politically and economically, though I decline to call it communism or fascism as I know that those terms have specific meanings of subtlety you are unable to comprehend. I desire this because I believe that some small fraction of individuals in our society is presently and has in the past managed to secure for themselves a majority of property and claims to property and that they have no moral right to either such acquisition or possession.

But if I am being honest about myself, why won't you be honest about yourself and admit that you are an anarchist?

You know marjon, you're constantly harping on people to admit their political views, that liberals and progressives should admit that they're really "communist" or "fascist" or whatever because they want to use the power of the State to confiscate some people's property or claims to property and redistribute it to others. I fully admit that this is what I desire politically and economically, though...

That's bad enough...

That's bad enough...

Maybe, but what's the alternative? That what's yours is whatever you can defend from the depredations of others?

But not only do I justify my preference for redistribution, you have to keep in mind my audience here: marjon. Any use of force by the government is redistribution. And I'm not inclined to disagree with him just so we can have a semantic debate. In fact, I would probably agree with it on the grounds that the distribution of resources within its jurisdiction is one of the foundational problems of government. In other words, finding the appropriate distribution of resources is one of the reasons we form governments in the first place.

So ultimately T must acknowledge and accept the end result of his socialist philosophy, tyranny and state murder.
I have advocated for a LIMITED govt the protects everyone's individual, inherent right life and property.
What are the limits to T's state? Nothing.

finding the appropriate distribution of resources is one of the reasons we form governments in the first place.

No, it is not. USSR proved this fails. No central planner can successfully, appropriately distribute resources. The best the govt can do, and should do, is protects people's rights to decide how to allocate those resources that is in their self-interest.
So be honest T, you prefer tyrannical socialism because you desire power to control others. Like the other socialist 'elites' they believe they know what is best for all and are willing to kill people to prove it.
BTW, why do you fear anarchy? The world exists in anarchy. Somalia may not have a state, but they have a society with laws.

That's the problem. You can never build more wind power than the maximum amount of power you can sink into your grid at any given time,

why not. Nobody says that you have to ahve all of it running at the same time. Just like with solar: Overdesigning the capacity by a bit is prudent in case of low wind/sun conditions (which isn't as much of a problem as one might think when your grid is continental size - as all grids are in developed nations.)

Regardless of the energy source, creating flexible grid would be useful.
Don't hear much about flexible grids where local solar, local wind, local mini-nuke can stay local.

Another example of the failure of central planners:
"For patients and pharmacists in financially stricken Greece, even finding aspirin has turned into a headache."
"One major cause is the Greek government, which sets prices for medicines. "
http://www.bloomb...-up.html

This is what T advocates.

More from T's world:
"Children are being abandoned on Greece's streets by their poverty-stricken families who cannot afford to look after them any more.

Read more: http://www.dailym...jChyklpG
"

Keep digging marjon. You've already exposed yourself as a loony radical anarchist to anybody who's been paying attention. The more hyperbole and ad hominems you post, the loonier you prove yourself to be.

But there is no need to 'go down with the ship'.
Free market innovations that meet our individual self interest will create more efficient energy and enable conservation. How do I know? Because it has been demonstrated.

Free market innovations that meet our individual self interest will create more efficient energy and enable conservation

You mean by how all auto makers kept making less efficient cars because they are allied with the big oil companies - until the STATES stepped in and made better efficiency mandatory?

Or how they made particle filters mandatory (something that no car maker would ever have done)?

Or how the energy companies are still fighting nail, tooth and claw against any changeover to sustainable energy?

or...

Yeah...right..free markets will create 'efficient' stuff. Not.

Free markets will produce stuff that creates PROFIT most efficiently. If profit maximization can be easier reached by disinformation, buying up of 'dangerous' patents, sweat shops or bribing politicians in order not to pass regulations - then that's what happens...not 'better product'.

until the STATES stepped in and made better efficiency mandatory?

The State didn't allow more efficient cars to be imported.

Or how the energy companies are still fighting nail, tooth and claw against any changeover to sustainable energy?

Why shouldn't they? Central planning fails.
Free markets saved the sperm whales, created efficient kerosene production, created an auto industry with its waste product, gasoline, which cleaned up cities littered with dead horsed and manure.
Free markets replaced kerosene lamps with an electric lamp. No central planning.

As long as you're sure marjon, because being sure about something is at least as good as being right about it, if not better.

Central planning fails.

Let me give you a quick primer on how free market capitalism works:

Let's say 10 companies compete fo a certain (mass) market (food, tablet PCs, whatever). All of them are profitable. But the important thing is NOT to make a profit but to make MORE profit than the rivals - because that means in the long run you can buy them up.

Result: Companies need to become more efficient to compete in turning a profit (so far so good). One such measure is to lower wages or put your manufacturing base in countries with low wage standards.

Now, the product needs to be bought by SOMEONE (remember: mass market), which means that the laborers of such companies are ALSO the consumers of that (and all other) companies' products.

Having low wages means that they cannot afford to buy expensive products (e.g. free range chickens vs. factory farmed ones).

(cont.)

(...cont.)

So companies cannot go to better QUALITY products (e.g. by including gratuitous particle filters in cars or having all chickens raised free range) - even though that would make a better product.

The better product is not competitive because the ONLY criterium open to low wage by which to choose a product earners is price. Such products can only be niche products for the higher echolons of companies (i.e. not the mass market)

Result: free capitalism leads to shoddy, substandard, products ni which all extraneous concerns (environmental impact, health concerns for consumers, etc. ) are completely omitted due to not being relevant for the point of sale.

Free capitalism works. But only if all consumers have infinite money at their disposal.

As long as you're sure marjon, because being sure about something is at least as good as being right about it, if not better.

Data supports the failures of central planning.
Why do socialists continue to pursue a system proven to fail? Could it be they know it fails to support liberty and prosperity? Could it be they support socialism for the sake of having the power, the control over billions of people to stroke their egos?
What other motivation could socialists have to support an political system that destroys individuals?

Free capitalism works. But only if all consumers have infinite money at their disposal.

What BS!
Does Apple make a cheap shoddy product? Some fools wait in very long lines to buy the latest. Do they have infinite money?
Economics is ALL about the allocation of scarce, meaning limited, resources. Money must be limited or it has only value of the cost to print it. (Which is what Somalia uses.)
If people what to buy cheap, shoddy products the market will produce them. If people don't want cheap shoddy products, they won't be manufactured.
Factories making cheap, shoddy products relocate to communist states like China because the govt only cares about the revenue, not the costs.
Factories located in cities/states that want their citizens to be safely employed and have a safe environment are safe, clean and efficient.
The ultimate control in a free market is the customer and the investor.
And again, data supports this.

Yes, understanding economics is as simple as getting out of the way of people with property, so they can trade that property. That's why despite the fact that there's whole fields of study devoted to understanding it and a Nobel prize specifically dedicated to it, you can get a PhD in the field by sending in three cracker-jack box tops, as marjon has obviously done. And that's why, according to him, guys who've been dead for over 150 years, who rode horses to work or had slaves, and who's contemporary population was a tenth ours have the final word on the Truth about "free trade."

In T's socialist economic world PhDs have certainly led to world wide liberty and prosperity.
No?
Wait, socialists economies around the world are collapsing. Those that followed the advice of those old guys riding horses are doing much better.
I suggest the quality of modern economics education is quite lacking and suffers from the typical socialist elitism that they are smarter than everyone and can, and should, plan everyone's life for them.
Typical 'liberal', reward failure.

So let's see, according to the CIA handbook, the wealthiest 10 countries in the world, in order are:

Qatar - Islamic monarchy, state owned oil and gas company highest earner

Lichtenstein - European socialist state

Luxembourg - European socialist state

Bermuda - Offshore financial center (This is where companies say they're from to avoid taxes from the places where they actually do business)

Singapore - Offshore financial center, shipping hub, 2nd largest gambling economy (as in casinos), and oil refining center. Among the highest levels of income inequality in the world. Probably closest to "free market capitalism" possible in the modern world.

Jersey - specializes in financial services, territory of Great Britain

Norway - European socialist state

Brunei - Islamic monarchy

United Arab Emirates - federation of Islamic monarchies

Kuwait - Parliamentary system, huge oil reserves

United States - Too socialist for marjon

Andorra - tax haven, European socialist state

According to the IMF, that list is, again in order

Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Brunei, Hong Kong (communist!), UAE, US, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

In other words, there are at least as many "socialist states" in the top ten wealthiest nations as there are "free market states," if not more, especially if you count the Islamic monarchies controlling government-owned and operated energy companies.

In T's socialist economic world PhDs have certainly led to world wide liberty and prosperity.

Isn't it one of the mantras of modern-day conservatism that even the poor now have access to sufficient food and shelter that they don't really run a danger of starving to death or dying of exposure? That certainly wasn't the case 150 years ago, or even 50 years ago in most parts of the world. Seems those PhDs have done a pretty good job. On the other hand, we know what you would rather the whole developed world looked like: Somalia.

Maybe, but what's the alternative? That what's yours is whatever you can defend from the depredations of others?

Two wrongs do not make a right, stealing (and that's what I consider it) from the wealthy through taxation to give to the poor through social welfare is wrong. Yes, I care about the poor and starving and I contribute some of my wealth to help that cause in ways of MY choosing. It is not right for the government to increase my taxes just so they can throw money at people in a very disorganized manner that is fraught with corruption. I would probably feel much more inclined to voluntarily contribute my time and wealth to the problem if the government wasn't already reaching into my pocket to do so forcefully on my behalf.

Furthermore, some people deserve to be poor and some deserve to be rich. If I was in control of who and when I helped people I could make sure my contribution went to those who I felt deserved it.

Those top ten states became wealthy by free trade and the free flow of capital.
Socialists depend upon free markets to fund their habit.

the poor now have access to sufficient food and shelter

Which has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with free markets, free trade and opportunity.

There are only a few PhD economists that have been accurate. None support socialism.

Does Apple make a cheap shoddy product?

Have you ever seen a teardown of the iPad or the IPhone? The components are low quality. The manufacturing is done with child labor. Only the case is high quality. This has been true of Apple computers since, well, forever.

Apple has HUGE profit margins because their product is all hype and no content.

If people what to buy cheap, shoddy products the market will produce them.

Why do you think people buy clothesy at Woolworth? Because they don't want quality product? No. Because they can't afford to buy anywhere else.

stealing (and that's what I consider it) from the wealthy through taxation to give to the poor through social welfare is wrong

Is it wrong if that wealth was garnered itself through the act of stealing? Or is this not more akin to the act of exacting justice?

Woolworth? They are out of business.

BTW, quality is defined as meeting the needs of the customer at the price the customer wants to pay.

Is it wrong if that wealth was garnered itself through the act of stealing? Or is this not more akin to the act of exacting justice?

No one forced anyone to buy Rockefeller's quality kerosene at lower market prices than his competitors.
Profit earned in a free market is not theft as competitors have the opportunity to provide a better product and no one is forced to buy.
Only when the govt steps in can plunder begin. Govt plunders taxpayers for companies, like Solyndra, that can steal along with hundreds of other businesses who use the state to use regulations to limit their competitors.
But plunder is the only way a socialist knows.

"the secret to the pursuit of happiness is earning our own success; creating value with our lives and in the lives of others. This earned success is the fruit of hard work and just rewards in a system built on merit. Only in a free enterprise system is effort and innovation rewarded over connections and predation. (And this means that we have to draw a distinction between free enterprise, which is based on opportunity and competition between ideas, and corporate cronyism, which is just another form of statism masquerading as free enterprise.)"
http://www.aei.or...-wealth/
How many of you socialists believe that no grades should be given at university? Everyone should pass, no one should fail. Academic merit should not be rewarded, is should be punished.

BTW, quality is defined as meeting the needs of the customer at the price the customer wants to pay.

The price the costumer CAN pay. If you dump wages to increase profits (as exoplained before) you get people who can't afford better products even if they wanted to pay more fo them.

So if you're saying that capitalism makes the best product for the available market: true
But you were arguing that capitalism will prduce products that are optimal and/or will adjust automatically to global environmental changes then you've just dropped the ball (yet again).

guys who've been dead for over 150 years, who rode horses to work

T, are you still using calculus and physics discovered by a guy who has been dead for over 300 years?

capitalism will prduce products that are optimal

What are optimal? Who decides?

adjust automatically to global environmental changes

Free markets DO respond to global environmental changes most quickly and efficiently.
Did you hear OJ futures are up because a fungicide was discovered in Brazil OJ? Futures prices send signals to producers and consumers that help them make better decisions to meet the needs of their customers.

@T,
A just released transcript from a 2006 Federal Reserve meeting show they and no clue the housing bubble was bursting.

Yet there were non-socialist economists who predicted the collapse.