Wind energy cuts the electricity bill

Sep 03, 2014
Analyzing the various renewable sources separately, the researchers saw that there are substantial differences between them. Credit: UPV/EHU

The promoting of renewable energy is at the heart of the current debate on energy policy. From an economic perspective, the question focusses on determining the cost of the feed-in tariff systems. Firstly, whether the incentives are as expensive as has been maintained in the most recent regulatory modifications, and secondly, whether the effect is similar with respect to all renewable technologies. The study by the UPV/EHU's Bilbao Energy Research Team (BERT) tackles these questions empirically, and concludes that wind energy continues to produce greater savings than what its incentives amount to, while photovoltaic solar technologies are still in the development phase. The study has been published in the journal Energy Policy.

The UPV/EHU study analyses the electricity market in Spain during the 2008-2012 period -a time of maximum renewable penetration in Spain when production within the Special Scheme saw a 57% increase- and quantifies its cost.

To do this, they firstly measured the market savings produced by participating in , and secondly, they calculated the amount paid in the form of incentives to green energy. The difference between the two figures represents the net cost of renewable energy. In contrast to other studies published until now, "in this work the separate results for renewable technology are presented for the first time, demonstrating that the general conclusions cannot be applied to all the technologies across the board," pointed out Cristina Pizarro-Irizar, the lead author of the research.

As regards the most significant results obtained, they stress that in the initial stages (2008-2009), when the installed renewable capacity was much lower, the savings that renewable generation as a whole produced on the electricity market exceeded the costs of the system. "It signified savings of between 25 and 45 euros per megawatt hour (MWh), depending on the year," stresses Pizarro-Irizar.

However, from 2010 onwards when renewable generation began to grow exponentially, the regulatory costs rose excessively, imposing a positive net cost on the system. "The penetration of renewable energy starts to be so high that the market prices do not fall any further and yet the costs of the incentives do in fact rise. There is a turning point and it is at that precise moment that the system is no longer sustainable. On the Spanish electricity market, that turning point was reached in 2010," explained Cristina Pizarro-Irizar.

Separate analysis of the different sources

In any case, when analysing the various renewable sources separately, they saw that there are substantial differences between them. This is due "firstly to the market penetration of each of the technologies and, secondly, to the difference in incentives between technologies," stressed Pizarro-Irizar.

So "today, wind energy continues to produce greater savings than what its incentives amount to, while photovoltaic solar technologies have not yet managed to secure a big enough participation on the electricity market to be profitable, as they are still in their ," she pointed out. In other words, "the market costs would be higher if there was no , but that would not happen with solar technologies, which have traditionally received higher feed-in tariffs," pointed out Pizarro-Irizar.

Cristina Pizarro-Irizar concludes that "the results of this research point to the importance of designing the incentive systems correctly and the risk of oversizing the feed-in tariff for some technologies".

It should be pointed out that Pizarro-Irizar does not view the future as very promising for , because owing to the lack of grants, among other things, no new renewable capacity is being installed in Spain. "All this will affect us, from the environmental point of view -since we will go on generating energy using technologies that emit carbon dioxide- and also economically -due to the use of technologies that use gas, which has to be imported-," pointed out Pizarro-Irizar.

Explore further: NREL finds up to six-cent per kilowatt-hour extra value with concentrated solar power

More information: A. Ciarreta, M. P. Espinosa, C. Pizarro-Irizar. "Is green energy expensive? Empirical evidence from the Spanish electricity market". Energy Policy 69: 205-215 (2014) dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.025

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Philippine clean energy tariffs to start next year

Mar 27, 2013

The first power projects under the Philippines' main incentive scheme for renewable energy should finally come online next year after a long regulatory struggle, an official said Wednesday.

Rising gas prices make renewables a sure bet

Aug 12, 2014

New analysis by UNSW suggests that renewable investment is likely to be cheaper and lower risk for Australia, since rising and uncertain gas prices make baseload gas-fired electricity high risk and high cost.

Fully renewable electricity could be competitive

Apr 03, 2013

(Phys.org) —A carbon price of between $50 and $100 per tonne of carbon dioxide would make coal-fired and gas-fired power less economical than renewable electricity, a UNSW study shows.

Recommended for you

First-of-a-kind supercritical CO2 turbine

Oct 20, 2014

Toshiba Corporation today announced that it will supply a first-of-a-kind supercritical CO2 turbine to a demonstration plant being built in Texas, USA. The plant will be developed by NET Power, LLC, a U.S. venture, together w ...

Drive system saves space and weight in electric cars

Oct 17, 2014

Siemens has developed a solution for integrating an electric car's motor and inverter in a single housing. Until now, the motor and the inverter, which converts the battery's direct current into alternating ...

User comments : 223

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2014
The difference between the two figures represents the net cost of renewable energy.


How?

It seems to me that they're doing the calculation as follows: company buys electricity for $2 and government pays the producer another $1 so the benefit of the electricity is $2 - $1 which equals $1 which is considered a "saving" because otherwise they'd have bought the $2 worth of electricity from someone else.

But in reality the cost of the electricity is $3 because the producer is in fact recieving $3 for the electricity they sell.

The fallacy is in imagining that using the renewable energy saves any other form of energy or money, when it's really just another cost for the society. The abovementioned $3 represents the total economic activity necessary for the producer to exist, and if that is higher than the typical electricity producer then no actual savings occur; the society is instead using a larger portion of its resources to have the windmills than whatever they replace.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2014
It seems to me that they're doing the calculation as follows: company buys electricity for $2 and government pays the producer another $1

They're calculating savings minus subsidy. Not cost minus subsidy.

I.e: Company pays X$ - 3$ buying renewables (as compared to before where it was paying X$ buying fossils/nuclear) and government pays 1$ green incentive.
Net result: renewables are really saving 2$.
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2014
They're calculating savings minus subsidy. Not cost minus subsidy.


The savings they're calculating are derived from the estimated reduction in the day-ahead market prices, which don't take into account the amount or price of spot priced electricity a company relying on wind power would have to buy to offset the variability.

A company that sells electricity to customers buys energy in day-ahead contracts and patches any disrepancies between actual supply and demand with spot market electricity, the price of which depends on how direly you need it.
Eikka
not rated yet Sep 03, 2014
The thing to remember is that the actual levelized cost of wind power is at par or higher than different types of coal and natural gas based power - at least in Germany right now - and the more of it you want the more it costs (marginal cost of production) as pointed out by the article.

That's why it seems suspicious to claim that you're actually saving any money unless you take a very narrow definition of saving money - i.e. you save money here, someone else loses money there.

Or you cherrypick your cases and make a faulty generalization. Maybe Spain or Ireland does have it cheaper - doesn't mean France or Poland would have it.

hangman04
5 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2014
From what i understood from this article it's about the demand/offer dynamic.
So because of new offer - from the extra green energy on the market - the price drops. But at a macro economical level this energy is payed from two entities : consumers (market spot price) and governments ( subsidies which again is an indirect cost of the consumer).

Their conclusion is that for every dollar invested as subsidy the effect on the market price of energy is at least as equal as $1 or more.

It's like on your block there is 1 store from which you buy food etc. You give money to another 3-4 entities to build other stores in the same blocks. Due to competition, the price for food etc drops enough that the extra profit you get from the lower price is more than the money you invested in the 3-4 new stores.

Also i have to say this is no easy task since there is a problem of diminishing returns as for every extra cent per MWh as subsidy you will get less and less impact on the market prince...
hangman04
5 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2014
...... till you get a negative effect (+ critical moments where due to extreme competition you have also drops in offer that increase the price). The most important thing is to set subsidies at the optimal level and not to create macro economic distortions.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2014
Ah, the accounting trickery equivalent of hide-the-decline.
Eventually when the subsidies disappear you are screwed.
hangman04
5 / 5 (1) Sep 03, 2014
Ah, the accounting trickery equivalent of hide-the-decline.
Eventually when the subsidies disappear you are screwed.

It all depends if the technology optimization and efficiency can compete with fossils. Solar can't atm, wind is starting to be competitive and we haven't seen yet the new generation of high altitude wind turbines in mass production.
Aligo
Sep 03, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2014
Wind energy is among the most expensive alternative. Said so right here at phys.org a month ago. That, and part time power is no way to run a modern society.

North America needs 100 1000 megawatt fission plants. We should settle on a design and start construction tomorrow*

*hint: that would be real, carbon free, alternative power.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (7) Sep 03, 2014
Hi Forum. :) The transition aspects/subsidies always involve govt 'choices' as to wider/longterm. There should of course be a 'lifetime' value/target set for all such develpoment incentives/assistance. But at heart, the point of govt intervention early-on in the development/implementation stage is the future/social benefits 'targets' will be sooner/better achieved if the intervention encourages/accelerates the ECONOMIES OF SCALE necessary for any 'alternatives' products/infrastructure.

The wider benefits? Not only cleaner/sustainable air/environment, more jobs etc, but also the new competition/alternative avoiding the rising costs of fossil fuels, lessening mining/fracking etc damage to water systems/arable lands. The more/faster alternatives on-line, the less 'scarce' and hence less costly the price/rate increase of fossils. The less alternatives, increasing scarcity/costs of 'traditional fuels' would be unsustainable.

So expediting alternatives is sensible/cheaper longterm. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Sep 03, 2014
Heres some reality for alternative enthusiasts

"SCOTLAND'S LANDSCAPE could be blighted by the rotting remains of a failed regeneration of windfarms, according to a scathing new report.

"The results appear to show that the output from windfarms — allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics — declines substantially as they get older.

"By 10 years of age, the report found that the contribution of an average UK windfarm towards meeting electricity demand had declined by a third.

"That reduction in performance leads the study team to believe that it will be uneconomic to operate windfarms for more than 12 to 15 years — at odds with industry predictions of a 20- to 25-year lifespan.

"They may then have to be replaced with new machinery — a finding that the foundation believes has profound consequences for investors and government alike."

-So... soon after you complete a wind farm you have to begin replacing turbines. How cost effective is that?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2014
Don't forget that all new systems have lead-in and evolution stages. The point is that these distributed systems will better avoid total 'blackouts' from the failure in some mega-fossil plant/distribution network, so that LOCAL communities have SOME power for essentials.

Add to that immediate benefit, the increasingly advanced electrical/electronic and materials/engineering systems/technologies, and the future/replacement 'versions' will be less costly/vulnerable than these first generation types which have been by necessity 'rushed into service' early on in the evolutionary/transition stage from traditional fossil fuel systems to alternatives across-the-board which will be better/cheaper and more LOCALLY/GLOBALLY reliable/available (as better STORAGE systems also developed/implemented).

The political will, govt incentivs and advancing technologies and more measured implementation/materials and engineering/distribution will eventually overcome all current 'objections'. Cheers! :)
hangman04
not rated yet Sep 04, 2014
PS: one of the main reasons the renewables are so expensive is because of accounting. They say a solar panel or a wind turbine can be used for an extensive period of time but the company doesn't use the whole period of the assets. Because the technologies are under development and every year we see new designs which are better and better, the life cycle of a wind turbine is not how much it will last till it will broke, but how much it will last till something new will make it uncompetitive. So instead of using a 10year amortization plan for example they use a 3 year plan, hence the unusual high cost (especially for solar).
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2014
Let's see how many baseless assumptions can we find in rc's post?
That wind turbines in the study are in a lead in and evolution stage
That newer tech will be less expensive
That it can be incorporated into existing systems and equipment
That more durable equipment wouldn't in fact be much more expensive
That existing tech was 'rushed into service' rather than adequately engineered and tested
That 'mature' systems will be better/cheaper
That investors were not misled by claims of 25y lifespans which is in reality only 12y, with constant degradation
Or that there is any incentive to improve existing tech

"This study confirms suspicions that decades of generous subsidies to the wind industry have failed to encourage the innovation needed to make the sector competitive."

"Some investors will be aware of the decline in performance, but nevertheless continue to invest, suggesting that the subsidies are so generous as to compensate for the fall in output"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2014
-Or that there would be any incentive whatsoever to fix or replace them.

Windmill graveyards
"Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California 'big three' locations which include Altamont Pass, Tehachapin and San Gorgonio, considered among the world's best wind sites," writes Andrew Walden of the American Thinker. "In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills."

"It is all about the tax subsidies," writes Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail. "The blades churn until the money runs out."

"the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America's so-called 'wind rush', the world's first major experiment in wind energy."

"wind farm that has been in the Yorkshire Dales for two decades is being torn down... "turned the area into an industrial graveyard"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2014
No mention of the costs to supply power when the wind stops at night.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
"This study confirms suspicions that decades of generous subsidies to the wind industry have failed to encourage the innovation needed to make the sector competitive." "Some investors will be aware of the decline in performance, but nevertheless continue to invest, suggesting that the subsidies are so generous as to compensate for the fall in output"


Henry Ford produced "tin Lizzie" for expedience/affordability at the time, not waiting until advanced autos like today. It's all about the feasibility/alternative possible given 'state of the art' at the time. We have moved a long way from 'Tin Lizzie' in less polluting, safer and more ubiquitous vehicles/engines, yes? :)

And Govts subsidized Nuclear etc until commercially viable/established, yes?

"It is all about the tax subsidies," writes Don Surber of the Charleston Daily Mail. "The blades churn until the money runs out." "the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America's so-called 'wind rush', the world's first major experiment in wind energy." "wind farm that has been in the Yorkshire Dales for two decades is being torn down... "turned the area into an industrial graveyard"
Exactly! The "first experiments" in such windfarms. :)

Note that they are DECADES OLD and no longer viable there or to repair (just as for OLD fossil power stations in the past); because of maintenance costs and comparative inefficiencies etc due to new tech etc. It was more economic and profitable to build a NEW replacement windfarm: see link...

http://www.tawhiri.us/

"The Pakini Nui Wind Farm is a 21 MW facility located near South Point, HI (Google Map). The new facility is located some 7 miles down South Point Road."


Mate, it's a little 'disingenuous' of you to post only biased/partial commentary/examples while ignoring the obvious factors/benefits I already mentioned which make all such 'expediently edited' news/objections somewhat irrelevant and maybe even one-eyed prejudicial opinion?

Anyhow, look at the full picture and longterm evolutionary/feasibility/costings etc 'trajectory' of all such massive projects/alternatives conception/implementation for the greater longer good, before sounding so pessimistic and limited in your 'analysis'.

Cheers and good luck to us all, wherever/whenever you live! :)

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
No mention of the costs to supply power when the wind stops at night.
Like I intimated to Ghost, the ongoing development of STORAGE systems will make solar/wind and other alternative power generation more 'steady supply' type when such come fully online. For example, only today on here at Phys.Org we have the latest on one such development...

http://phys.org/n...age.html

Why are you and others so keen to ignore the obvious 'transition trajectory' situation for costs/development etc which all great transitional endeavours/technologies have to face, and not just 'alternative energy' tech/implementation?

Get real and don't be so defeatist even before we have barely got going in any seriously and determined scientific/economically-commercial/political way! Good luck! :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 04, 2014
Govt did not subsidize Henry Ford.

"Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman once said, "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." Today, however, the hundreds of billions of dollars of government funding that supports the world's academic research ecosystem is distributed based almost exclusively on the opinions of senior experts (or 'peers'). These experts review proposals and seek to find ideas impervious to criticism. Unfortunately, a research idea that is immune to criticism during peer review will, by its very nature, be cautious and take minimal risks."
"Yet relying only on peer-review misses something about the nature of scientific innovation: some of the biggest discoveries are deemed crazy or impossible by experts at the time."
http://arstechnic...science/
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 04, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
Govt did not subsidize Henry Ford.
I never said they did. :) He was EXTENDING the MASS PRODUCTION methods first invented/implments by the early BRITISH 'Industrial Revolution' pioneers. And the IC Engine was already feasible and in use elsewhere. The point was that Ford used the contemporary 'state of the art' technologies instead of waiting for the longterm evolutionary advances to come....just as the first pioneering Wind Farm commercializers did. That was the point there. :)

As to subsidies, you avoided acknowledging the govt subsidies to early Nuclear Power commericalizers/implementers. That was the other point. :)

Thanks anyway for these opportunities to 'balance' your and Ghost's one-eyed and defeatist 'take' and 'commentaries' on the alternatives tech/costs/trajectories. I think you/everyone now 'gets' fuller picture/possibilities for longterm benefits...not least minimizing of fossil fuel imports/vulnerability/political/economic disruption etc? Good.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
never said they did.

It was implied.
Henry Ford just didn't use state of the art technologies, he innovated and advanced the state of the art.
the first pioneering Wind Farm commercializers did.

They needed govt subsidies.
Henry Ford did not.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2.
It was implied.
No, you inferred, conflating TWO separate issues.

One issue was implementation of what available/possible at the time, as I posted to Ghost...
Henry Ford produced "tin Lizzie" for expedience/affordability at the time, not waiting until advanced autos like today. It's all about the feasibility/alternative possible given 'state of the art' at the time...


Henry Ford just didn't use state of the art technologies, he innovated and advanced the state of the art.
Yes, just as Wind Farm Mill/Generator manufacturers/constructors did. They didn't wait for FUTURE improvements/developments, did they? Just like Ford didn't wait; like I said.

The other issue: Subsidies...
They [ early Nuclear Plants ] needed govt subsidies....Henry Ford did not.
Yes, govt subsidies are necessary/useful in some circumstances...and I never said Ford did, only that he used available/possible 'at the time'.

Two separate issues as my earlier post:)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
Two separate issues as my earlier post:)

It seems you are conflating subsidized industries with non-subsidized ones.
There should be no comparisons.
Yes, govt subsidies are necessary/useful in some circumstances.

How do you know?
As soon as the govt subsidizes, you can never know what would/could have happened without subsidy.
Data does exist showing what happened after subsidy and monopolies with city electric companies.
"Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. "
http://mises.org/daily/5266/
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
It seems you are conflating subsidized industries with non-subsidized ones.
It was NOT 'comparisons', it was addressing TWO separate aspects. Ghost complained about 'abandoned' wind farms etc, and I countered with NEW windfarms being built as replacements because OLD windfarms obsolete/inefficient due to NEW tech advances etc, just as old Fossil Fuel plants or Ford's 'Tin Lizzie' plant did.
There was never any 'comparison' intended between 'subsidized enterprises' issue and 'state-of-art implemetation at the times' issue which I addressed SEPARATELY for Ghost. :)

As soon as the govt subsidizes, you can never know what would/could have happened without subsidy.
That is where 'discretion' and 'best way forward' AT THE TIME must play a part in considerations.

Eg, proper PATENTS 'temporary rights monopoly' allowed Capitalism/Innovation to facilitate/accelerate/flourish.

Eg, Govts subsidized early space/tech efforts, etc.

It's seeking the balance, yes?
Aligo
Sep 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
Hi Aligo. :)
Wind energy is cheaper than coal only for http://awea.files...2013.png and just under the condition, their amount in grid will not be very large. Otherwise you would need some backup and recuperation of energy, which would finally make the wind energy comparable with fossil fuel energy technically, but economically noncompetitive. Wind plant energy is not of the same quality, like the gas plant energy: the gas plant can be started in fifteen minutes at full power. These subtleties the proponents of "renewables" routinely "forget" to consider, because their main motivation isn't fight with global warming, but simply governmental subsidizes, jobs and profit.

That's what the efforts to develop large scale/fast-response storage/feed-in-feed-out systems is all about, mate. No-one is saying that current non-backup wind energy is a stand-alone replacement. Only transition stop-gap/development-bed stage efforts while we move forward. Cheers. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
Govts subsidized early space/tech efforts, etc.

For the same reason the govt 'subsidized' the production of the Colt .45 automatic pistol.

The govt did NOT subsidize the Wright brothers, or Goddard.

"Goddard's initial study of rockets was undertaken at his own expense. "

How well has the govt control of space benefited its use?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 05, 2014
Hi insipid retard ;)
Henry Ford produced "tin Lizzie" for expedience/affordability at the time, not waiting until advanced autos like today. It's all about the feasibility/alternative possible given 'state of the art' at the time.
More baseless assumptions.
That you think you know what is wrong with this tech and that it is economically feasible to fix it (you don't - have you looked to see WHY they are failing? Of course not.)
That electric generators haven't been around for a century and aren't in fact a mature tech
That the reasons for their premature obsolescence are because they have only recently been used for this purpose
That improving them won't in fact be exorbitantly expensive
That the subsidies which enabled their initial installation would somehow magically reappear for repair and replacement

-Wind farm graveyards dot the landscape. Nobody's replacing them. Wonder why?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
Yes, just as Wind Farm Mill/Generator manufacturers/constructors did. They didn't wait for FUTURE improvements/developments, did they? Just like Ford didn't wait; like I said.
-See? You don't know the first thing about this tech. You don't know how it's designed, how it works, or why it's wearing out far faster than expected. And you don't really care to know because you havent bothered to find out.

You're GUESSING. Pretending. Play acting.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
For the same reason the govt 'subsidized' the production of the Colt .45 automatic pistol.
The reasons are various and diverse, but the 'subsidizing' is the point if the 'infant tech' is to be facilitated/expedited in development and implementation sooner rather than 'too late' because otherwise waiting until 'perfect' options become available in the future.

The govt did NOT subsidize the Wright brothers, or Goddard.
I never said they did. BUT hen the govts PATENTS system is used to protect intellectual property and encourage investment etc, and/or when govts issue CONTRACTS which no private entity can/will do, then it is all a form of 'subsidy' from PUBLIC PURSE.

"Goddard's initial study of rockets was undertaken at his own expense"[/qYes, "study", not full development/implementation on vast commercial scales.

How well has the govt control of space benefited its use?
Those with newest rocket/satellite tech seek govt clients/money.

Balance. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
-See? You don't know the first thing about this tech. You don't know how it's designed, how it works, or why it's wearing out far faster than expected. And you don't really care to know because you havent bothered to find out.
Why so obtuse, mate? The point was that the tech IS evolving, and hence old facilities/tech ARE replaced; just as for any other industry's plant/tech.

Which was the point of my reply to your original 'one-eyed gripe' regarding abandoned/rotting windfarms etc. Did you miss that reply/link? If so, here it is again...

http://www.tawhiri.us/

"The Pakini Nui Wind Farm is a 21 MW facility located near South Point, HI (Google Map). The new facility is located some 7 miles down South Point Road."

The point is stop-gap implementation of existing tech necessary while awaiting future advances, else nothing done. Improvements will occur which will make future windfarms (and other 'alternatives') ever more reliable/efficient/cost effective. Cheers. :)
Uncle Ira
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
You're GUESSING. Pretending. Play acting.


@ Otto-Skippy, you done it now Cher. He's probably going to come back and defend his dishonor on you and call you a MOD/troll/gangster now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
The reasons are various and diverse,

No.
Rockets were 'subsidized' to be use as a weapon.
The manned space program was developed as a weapon.
The private sector developed aviation. The govt ordered aircraft for specific warfare purposes just as the govt ordered trucks for military use. That is not 'subsidy'.
Let's say the govt decided it didn't like airplanes so they artificially raised the cost of fuel for airplanes and took plundered wealth to promote rigid airships. This is an equivalent subsidy for windmills, solar, etc.
Patents are not subsidies. Patents protect private property rights.

If the state had not monopolized the power industry, there would likely be all sorts of robust alternate forms of energy in use. Likely because all industries that the govt did not subsidize developed swiftly creating low cost products and services customers wanted to buy.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2014
Poor poor poor Uncle Ira BOT operating irrelevance, a perfect 'case study' of automated-loser-troll-syndrome. Hilarious if it wasn't such a 'sad case'.

PS: Hey Whydening Gyre, I'd be very interested to know what you would have voted for my above posts; and what you think of the poor, poor, Ira-BOT 'username' still automatically and insensibly 'downvoting' from a pre-programmed 'person list' irrespective of science/content posted? Cheers, Whyde. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
Rockets were 'subsidized' to be use as a weapon.
The manned space program was developed as a weapon.
Sure. But not the point.
The private sector developed aviation. The govt ordered aircraft for specific warfare purposes
And without Govt. Mail Contracts & other govt/military client/money, private aviation sector would not have been viable/evolved as easily/quickly. :)

And point/principle in THIS discussion was 'subsidy', not 'reason'. Are you treating 'Alternative Energy' as 'weapon'? No. So be sensible re 'windfarms/other alternatives'. :)

Patents are not subsidies.
As I said. But Govt system/taxpayers/society 'guarantee temporary monopoly' for that 'right/property' to make it 'profitable' and encourage development/innovation etc.

If the state had not monopolized...
When ruthless TYCOONS controlled Railways/Oil/Power monopolies etc without restraint, they unscrupulously 'sabotaged/bankrupted' competitors/innovations, slowing progress. Bad.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Sep 05, 2014
Poor poor poor Uncle Ira BOT operating irrelevance, a perfect 'case study' of automated-loser-troll-syndrome. Hilarious if it wasn't such a 'sad case'.


I get more better votes than you do so I see why you is so sad, that and the silly looking pointy cap I make you wear while you play Pretend-To-Be-The-Scientist-Skippy. Don't be so sad Cher.

PS: Hey Whydening Gyre, I'd be very interested to know what you would have voted for my above posts;


Begging for votes now Really-Skippy? How undignified of you Cher. I do not insensible downvote you. I down vote because I do not like you. Doesn't matter what you say, I still don't like you. Even if you say the thing I agree with, I don't believe you and still don't like you. I've tried to make the truce with you on 5 or 4 times and you always come back calling names, and telling lies.

You should learn to just ignore and live with it, because it is not going to change Cher. I vote like I want, and so does everybody else.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
When ruthless TYCOONS controlled Railways/Oil/Power monopolies

Monopolies were granted by the govt to promote the railroad. Railroad companies were given 640 acres of land for every mile of track.
Rockefeller had no monopoly on oil refining and he created a quality product at a lower cost than than his competitors.
What power monopoly? I showed that prior to the 'progressive' state, there was much competition for power.
without Govt. Mail Contracts & other govt/military client/money, private aviation sector would not have been viable/evolved as easily/quickly.

Based on what?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
Monopolies were granted by the govt to promote the railroad. Railroad companies were given 640 acres of land for every mile of track.
Another example of 'govt subsidy' to help establish/develop a nationally important 'service/product' at the time, yes? :)

Rockefeller had no monopoly on oil refining and he created a quality product at a lower cost than than his competitors.
Yes, and he had trouble distributing it because Railway Tycoon wouldn't let him access their network (or charged extortionist fees which would make the refined petroleum product unaffordable to the end consumer). Bad.

What power monopoly? I showed that prior to the 'progressive' state, there was much competition for power.
Did you not read about the fight for supremacy at all costs between Tesla and Edison? And town/city planners would grant Electricity contract to 'winner'? And again, it was PATENTS 'monopoly' that guaranteed profitability/success.

Based on what?
History.
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Hey, Folks, there is that poor poor Ira-BOT-operator 'case study', at it again. :)
I down vote because I do not like you. Doesn't matter what you say,...
Any remaining 'friends' of yours reading that (coming straight from 'insensible' idiot-BOT 'mouth') should now tell you that is not what a science discussion forum is about.

You have mistaken this site for some 'social media' sites, where "likes" and "dislikes" abound!

Irrelevant here, poor Ira-bot. :)

Even if you say the thing I agree with, I don't believe you and still don't like you. I've tried to make the truce with you on 5 or 4 times...
You kept using your BOT to downvote according to 'person/like', irrespective of science/content posted.

So you were BOTH lying AND still bot-arsing around. No deal, idiot-bot operator. :)

You should learn to just ignore and live with it,
Why tolerate 'poisonous cane toads' like you? Better for science to 'squash' you under weight of truth re your 'above admitted' agenda! :)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Any remaining 'friends' of yours reading that (coming straight from 'insensible' idiot-BOT 'mouth') should now tell you that is not what a science discussion forum is about.
1- freedom of speech
2- freedom of choice
3- freedom to act as he wishes as long as he doen't violate anyone else's rights

there is nothing wrong with him speaking his mind and saying that he downvotes you based upon personal dislike
it would be dishonest if he said otherwise
it would be dishonest if he made unsubstantiated claims without evidence and then tried to redirect the focus from this slight by trying to create a sensationalist "bot" army vote scandal or constantly bait for a flame war like you are doing above
if you don't like it, either ignore him or go away

why would anyone fault Ira for honesty?
he is not using a series of bots to downvote
he just doesn't like you
he said so

i don't blame him
I applaud his honesty

THANK YOU IRA
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)
Any remaining 'friends' of yours reading that (coming straight from 'insensible' idiot-BOT 'mouth') should now tell you that is not what a science discussion forum is about.
1- freedom of speech 2- freedom of choice 3- freedom to act as he wishes as long as he doen't violate anyone else's rights there is nothing wrong with him speaking his mind and saying that he downvotes you based upon personal dislike it would be dishonest if he said otherwise it would be dishonest if he made unsubstantiated claims without evidence and then tried to redirect the focus from this slight by trying to create a sensationalist "bot" army vote scandal or constantly bait for a flame war like you are doing above if you don't like it, either ignore him or go away why would anyone fault Ira for honesty? he is not using a series of bots to downvote he just doesn't like you he said so i don't blame him I applaud his honesty THANK YOU IRA
So the fact that he OBVIOUSLY 'automatically' BOT-votes down based on 'personal prejudice' LIST, which goes against ALL PROPER SCIENTIFIC METHOD/DISCUSSION ETHICS, doesn't bother you at all? No wonder you are so 'gullible and trusting' and so 'personally prejudiced/biased' in your 'research' and 'beliefs'. You and Ira give REAL and HONEST mainstream scientists a bad name if you pretend to be 'speaking for them' and 'upholding' the best of science/scientist 'ideals'. There are no friends/likes/dislikes in REAL SCIENCE, bud. Only 'pretend' scientists' and pretentious trolls/bot-operator idiots would condone such tactics and invoke 'free speech' etc to carry out such ANTI-SCIENCE-ETHICS travesties. Good luck with that 'image' and 'reputation' of your own choosing/making, mate. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy.

he admits he is not a scientist, he is here to learn
he does not violate this: https://en.wikipe...titution

whereas you continually violate those same ethics you proclaim above, refusing to give evidence and being prejudiced against the entire scientific community without evidence like here
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

IOW -your post is a troll/bait post

until you change your ways, you have no room to gripe or argue because you are a far larger troll and disruption than anyone you complain about

now get back on topic or go away to sidney
RealityCheck
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Hi Captain Stumpy. :)
he admits he is not a scientist, he is here to learn
he does not violate this: https://en.wikipe...titution

IOW -your post is a troll/bait post

until you change your ways, you have no room to gripe or argue because you are a far larger troll and disruption than anyone you complain about

now get back on topic or go away to sidney
Keep making the lame excuses and rationalizations, bud, for the inexcusable and the irrational. The Ira-BOT-idiot TROLL ADMITS to NOT being here to 'learn'....SPECIFICALLY to STALK and HARRASS and to vote based on his LIKES/DISLIKES based on PERSONAL prejudices, and IRRESPECTIVE of actual science/content posted, whether he agrees with it or not (as if he is in any position to judge either way!).

What else does it take to be placed under your nose, EVEN as Ira HIMSELF DID earlier, for YOU to realize you are condoning, excusing and making anti-science-ethics-enabling rationalizations for 'it'? Quit it. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
Keep making the lame excuses and rationalizations, bud, for the inexcusable and the irrational
you mean like this?
.since all 'peer reviewers' were also probably involved in the long line of built-in flawed assumptions etc
or continually saying
Since I withdrew from detailed scientific discourse
while posting 22 times in 12 hours with some posts well over the 1000 character mark?

no more responses till there is proof
good night, troll

RealityCheck
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
Hi Stumpy. :)
Keep making the lame excuses and rationalizations, bud, for the inexcusable and the irrational
you mean like this?
.since all 'peer reviewers' were also probably involved in the long line of built-in flawed assumptions etc
or continually saying
Since I withdrew from detailed scientific discourse
while posting 22 times in 12 hours with some posts well over the 1000 character mark?
You understand the difference between 'detailed' and 'general', don't you? That's what my recent comments/observations have been, 'general', not 'detailed' (for the reasons earlier stated). So how about dropping that disingenuous irrelevance, hey? :)

The flaws are SERIOUS and in-built, as I have been cautioning you.

BUT you won't listen; instead 'preferring' to condone/enable that Ira-BOT idiot troll's ADMITTED anti-science-ethics 'personal prejudice/likes/dislikes' automatic voting/trolling/harrassing/stalking activities here and elsewhere. Your choice, mate. :)
Eikka
1 / 5 (1) Sep 06, 2014

That's what the efforts to develop large scale/fast-response storage/feed-in-feed-out systems is all about, mate. No-one is saying that current non-backup wind energy is a stand-alone replacement. Only transition stop-gap/development-bed stage efforts while we move forward. Cheers. :)


Those systems add price on top of the price of wind power, which has to get significantly cheaper in order to become cost-competitive with other types.

Again, the cost of the thing represents the economic activity - i.e. resources spent by society - necessary to make it happen. If you spend twice as much money on it, you have to mine twice as much minerals, spend twice as much energy, time, labor, to achieve the work output to build and maintain the windmills in a systems perspective.

That means you're spending that much less resources on the general living standards - in other words, you get more poverty - especially when the subsidies are taxed mostly from those who can least afford it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2014
the fight for supremacy at all costs between Tesla and Edison

What fight?
Tesla lost because he was a very poor at business.

Rockefeller vertically integrated his kerosene business making favorable deals with rail to ship his high volume at lower cost. Rockefeller lowered the costs and 'standardized' the quality of kerosene for customers.
Rockefeller lost kerosene business with Edison's lamp but picked up business with kerosene waste, gasoline.

Had the US not monopolized the mail delivery, Federal Express could have been created in the 1920s.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Hi insipid retard ;)
The point is stop-gap implementation of existing tech necessary while awaiting future advances, else nothing done. Improvements will occur which will make future windfarms (and other 'alternatives') ever more reliable/efficient/cost effective. Cheers. :)
So where is your link which describes this process of pending improvements? And where is the link describing how wind power was rushed into use before it was 'mature', and the one which says that promising 30y lifespans was necessary for tech which would only last 12y? And the one which tells us investors and the public who paid for subsidies, were ok with this?

Oh and the one which describes what this new tech might be, and how it will be affordable?

You're still pumping bullshit unless you can provide refs to back up what you say.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Again, the cost of the thing represents the economic activity - i.e. resources spent by society - necessary to make it happen.
Costs for wind power do not include premature obsolescence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
" Wind turbines may catch on fire ten times more often than is publicly reported, putting nearby properties at risk and casting doubt on their green credentials, researchers have warned.

The renewable energy industry keeps no record of the number of turbine fires, meaning the true extent of the problem is unknown, a study backed by Imperial College London finds on Thursday. "
http://www.telegr...arn.html

If no data is collected, blowhards can claim there is no evidence wind turbines catch fire.
Aligo
Sep 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
I am a former Senior Engineer for PG&E. I do not understand the resistance to wind turbine generators (not "windmills").

Will the detractors please tell me their concerns?

BTW, the nuke folks need help at Fukushima.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Wind power is shutting down nuclear plants, including those already fully paid off, showing us the true costs of nuclear power. Photovoltaic power is now seriously threatening coal on cost.

The dirty-power game will soon be over.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2014
What happens to wind and solar when the wind stops blowing at night?
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
It always shines and blows somewhere. Where did you get the idea those would be the only sources for renewables?

When I was In Technical Services for Pacific Gas & Electric, we got our power from an integrated grid of disparate sources. You can learn how to do it, too.

In the 1980's when we needed more generation, we had no way to get it. So, we reduced the waste in the facilities of our customers, saving them about 20% with no cost to them. Then we integrated disparate inputs to our system. Our PG&E system was fed by wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, pumped storage, landfill gas, gas peaking boilers, supercritical gas boilers, solar thermal, photovoltaic, fuel cells of all kinds, some sources I forgot, and even the emergency generators in the facilities of our customers dispatched directly by us.

You will learn to do it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2014
Our PG&E system was fed by wind, hydro, nuclear, geothermal, pumped storage, landfill gas, gas peaking boilers, supercritical gas boilers, solar thermal, photovoltaic, fuel cells of all kinds, some sources I forgot, and even the emergency generators in the facilities of our customers dispatched directly by us.


Looks like a large capital expense, without significant govt subsidy.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
No fuel costs, no pollution.

What do you offer?
Aligo
Sep 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
No fuel costs, no pollution.

And no energy.
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
"Looks like a large capital expense, without significant govt subsidy."

Want to discuss nukes? I have some personal experience with the models which completely melted down at Fukushima.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
No fuel costs, no pollution.

And no energy.


I think you do not write from experience or knowledge. Look up the size of the PG&E system.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
"Looks like a large capital expense, without significant govt subsidy."

Want to discuss nukes? I have some personal experience with the models which completely melted down at Fukushima.

Address all the capital costs of having any idle power generating capacity. That must be rolled into the bill.
Aligo
Sep 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
"Looks like a large capital expense, without significant govt subsidy."

Want to discuss nukes? I have some personal experience with the models which completely melted down at Fukushima.

Address all the capital costs of having any idle power generating capacity. That must be rolled into the bill.


Are you aware that Dresden being closed still needs staffing and continuous cooling, even when shut down?? Yes, utilities understand all of your concerns, and have taken care of them. What is your real problem with renewables?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
No fuel costs, no pollution.

And no energy.


I think you do not write from experience or knowledge. Look up the size of the PG&E system.

Is this the same PGE that is still trying to clean up the groundwater in Hinkley?
http://www.sfgate...8046.php
gkam
3.2 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
Sooner or later, the irrelevant smears come out.

Let's discuss renewables, shall we?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
What is your real problem with renewables?

Nothing, as long as taxpayers aren't being plundered to subsidize.
And that applies to ALL power sources.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Sooner or later, the irrelevant smears come out.

Let's discuss renewables, shall we?

What's irrelavent? It's a cost of doing business.
How about the all the birds being fried by solar towers and chopped up by wind mills?
Let's not forget all the materials used to make solar cells and wind turbines.

"Ultra-green Denmark admits it has no idea what to with a worrisome mountain of old and broken wind turbine blades. The composite material can't be recycled."
"Denmark has 6,000 wind turbines serving a population of 5.3 million and when the wind conditions are just right wind produces around 19 percent of its electricity. Yet despite huge financial investment no conventional power plant has yet been shut down while Danish electricity costs to consumers are the highest in Europe,"
http://co2insanit...problem/
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
The purveyors of Filthy Fuels are losing. We cannot handle the gross amounts of pollutants and the cost of these anachronisms.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
"Summing up the lack of forward planning about wind turbines physicists and environmental activist, John Droz, jr, warns, "just because a power source is an alternative, or a renewable, does NOT automatically mean that it is better than any conventional or fossil fuel source."
http://co2insanit...problem/

This is what happens when central planners push a technology.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
I am not sure yet if the opponents of new technologies without fuel or waste-handling requirements understand their predicament: We do not need Filthy Fuels.

Despite all the cutting and pasting of disconnected information, they are losing to reality.

Does ryggesogn2 favor nuclear power? I would love to discuss that one.
gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
In the late 1970's we needed significantly more power in California. Clean Air laws made it impossible to use oil or coal. We developed the most distributed and diversified set of resources on Earth. This gave us not only new sources, but the quality and other characteristics of the sources gave us extreme flexibility in the choice of power continuously.

Those who oppose these developments are not power professionals, and do not understand how the integrated systems operate.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Typical.
Any new technology has costs and benefits.
Watermelons like gkam only look at the perceived benefits without taking into account any costs.

The US Navy has been operating nuclear reactors since the 1950s with crews living next to these reactors with few or no ill effects.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Given the fiasco of the power re-regulation in the late 90s in California, I'm not sure there are too many power experts in CA.
And the way CA has regulated water and how many are escaping CA, are you sure you want to use CA as a positive example?
gkam
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
I tested the safety components of the GE Mark I and II BWR's such as those in Fukushima. Those folks have no idea where the molten blobs of Corium reside, and only hope they do not continue their eating through the concrete pads of the foundation. They are now through many feet of concrete, and about ten inches from the Earth. If they hit the water table, it can be all over for most of North America.
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
The Ira-BOT-idiot TROLL ADMITS to NOT being here to 'learn'....


Another GREAT BIG LIE. I ask questions all the time. Good ones too.

SPECIFICALLY to STALK and HARRASS and to vote based on his LIKES/DISLIKES based on PERSONAL prejudices, and IRRESPECTIVE of actual science/content posted, whether he agrees with it or not .


Let me help you Cher. Even your "science/content" postum have your nasty tone of being the superior-Skippy who thinks the physorg should be thankful of gracing their pages. And all your postum repeat the same few "arguments" over and over, you repeat the same few things Skippy. I vote you down for that too.

What else does it take to be placed under your nose, EVEN as Ira HIMSELF DID earlier, for YOU to realize you are condoning, excusing and making anti-science-ethics-enabling rationalizations for 'it'?


What Cher? You think nobody here can read? How many times you got to repeat the same things?

Quit it.


Non Cher. Comprenez? Non.

gkam
3 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Given the fiasco of the power re-regulation in the late 90s in California, I'm not sure there are too many power experts in CA.
And the way CA has regulated water and how many are escaping CA, are you sure you want to use CA as a positive example?


Silly smear attempts are not welcome here. Your attempts to link our power production to the Bush Administration's Cheating of California in the "deregulation" displays either ignorance or disregard of facts.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
Why the rabid opposition to better technologies? I earned my opinion from experience as Senior Engineer in Technical Services for Pacific Gas & Electric, which was at the time, the largest power company on Earth, and by earning a Master of Science in Energy and the Environment. Perhaps ryggesogn2 could tell us the origination of their opposition. I think perhaps it is political.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
What happened to all the anti-wind folk? We were just getting started.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
What happened to all the anti-wind folk? We were just getting started.


Be patient Cher. They never stay away very long no.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
Why the rabid opposition to better technologies? ...Perhaps ryggesogn2 could tell us the origination of their opposition. I think perhaps it is political.
@gkam
WELCOME
You are not likely to get much of anything BUT political rhetoric from Rygg, which is why he is usually just downvoted.

would you mind putting some links up when you post in the future so that people like Ira and I who are learning can see some hard data/science data, supporting evidence etc explaining your position. It helps people learn and it also helps directly refute the crackpots like rygg

It also helps others re-post the info and continue on when you are not available to answer, or at other sites where you are not present.

Thanks
PEACE
gkam
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
"would you mind putting some links up when you post in the future "

I do not get many things I discuss from links, but from personal experience and education, but can do so next time. Take wind power: We could not get sufficient power in the afternoons for air conditioning in the late 1970's, with strict air quality laws. Instead of constructing fuel-burning and polluting power sources, we employed the wind turbines in Altamont Pass. These turbines are powered by the heat engine of the San Joaquin Valley as it heats up and ventilates. That turns the turbines exactly when we need them!

No fuel, no pollution, no transmission costs, no sweat. Do the anti-wind folk have any idea the value of that addition to the grid, or how much it would have cost to do it their way?
saposjoint
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
I like that. "Hi, insipid retard..." has a certain ring to it.

Nice!
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Hi Eikka. Leaving for Sydney this (sunny and bright) morning instead of last night, so have a couple hours to post some replies before I leave. :)
Those systems add price on top of the price of wind power, which has to get significantly cheaper in order to become cost-competitive with other types.
So do water dams storage, but they are viable. So are extra 'stand-by' power gen capacity for 'peak loads' in fossil/nuclear power stations.

...If you spend twice as much money on it, you have to mine twice as much minerals, spend twice as much energy, time, labor...
The minerals/materials are reclaimable/recyclable, so once-only costs. Unlike fossil fuel costs which are recurring, escalating and scarce/dirty etc.

-especially when the subsidies are taxed mostly from those who can least afford it.
That is Political argument, and assumes electorates can never change that even when things become desperate and something HAS to be done to make it work, for everyone's benefit.:)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
Tesla lost...
Meanwhile all the 'business' skullguggery and unnecessary obfuscations over years made things more problematic than it should have been for the 'tech' itself to get a fair go on its own merits because of sabotage and lies.

Rockefeller vertically integrated his kerosene business making favorable deals with rail to ship his high volume at lower cost.
Yes. History. Meanwhile rail barons dictated terms to those whose own economic strength would threaten rail monopolies. They had to 'agree' on reasonable terms eventually.

Had the US not monopolized the mail delivery...
When isolated communities 'left hanging' by private enterprise because 'unprofitable, who ya gonna call? Govt. So why not make it fair and ubiquitous equitable 'nation building service' where everyone can afford mail services?Also don't forget those early Air Mail govt contracts which facilitated fledgling airlines.

Balance private/public participation in big issues. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 06, 2014
Hi Ghost. :) Oh dear, where to start...
So where is your link which describes this process of pending improvements?
Its up to you as researcher/commentator to keep up with cutting edge advances in all associated fields of science/tech developments. eg in computer control systems; parts prototyping/printing systems; materials/nanotech etc etc etc. Have some imagination and extrapolate the evolutionary trajectory'.

And where is the link describing how wind power was rushed into use before it was 'mature',
Any 'state of the art' implementation in a time of crisis is defacto 'rushed into use' even as 'new' developments are 'in the pipeline'.

and the one which says that promising 30y lifespans was necessary for tech which would only last 12y?
If newer tech/alternatives come into play, then 'obsolescence' inevitable and earnings shift to new income streams to compensate.

Again, new developments inevitable. History shows this. Don't pick and choose one-eyed bits.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)

Remember the Enron Scandal of corporate skullguggery and manipulation/fraud? Problems occur in both private/public domains, but when nation-building and equitable distribution of services/environmental benefits and other social benefits not directly taken into account by the 'bean counters' and one-eyed political mercenary lobbyists and shills, it pays to stop and take all things into account, and not just the superficial/immediate-profit aspects. Good luck to us all. :)
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Poor poor Ira-BOT-troll.
The Ira-BOT-idiot TROLL ADMITS to NOT being here to 'learn'....
Another GREAT BIG LIE. I ask questions all the time. Good ones too.
You just got through admitting to voting based on rating-bot-programmed 'likes/dislikes' based on person rather than science/content posted. What are you 'learning' here by doing that, that personal prejudice trumps objectivity when you and your mod-troll gang 'friends' are around?

And you tried to stalk and harass me at another site which immediately permabanned you as lying bot-sock-troll you are, so your agenda has nothing to do with learning or science.

And the forum has started to see what your are and why you are here...

Yet another BOT-operating sock-troll anti-science-ethics idiot pretending to be someone in any sort of position to judge the science/content. A self deluded internet idiot.

And when you answer to my "Quit it" posted to Stumpy, not to you, it betrays your mutual 'backroon connection'. Sad.
gkam
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Peripheral arguments aside, a kiloWatt-hour produced by wind power is one more not responsible for immense water use and the thermal pollution of three to four times the thermal value of the electrical output.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Enron Scandal of corporate skullguggery and manipulation/fraud?

Remember Ken Lay pushing for passage of Kyoto?
No fuel, no pollution, no transmission costs, no sweat

How much fuel and pollution to create, install and maintain?
How many birds and bats are dead?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
And when you answer to my "Quit it" posted to Stumpy, not to you, it betrays your mutual 'backroon connection'. Sad.
so quick to judge others while being just as deceitful, hateful, malicious, and unethical as you claim others to be...

Interesting that it is ok for you to pick on him, but it is not ok for him to defend himself
you hate him- we get it
now Get back on topic and stop trolling

I tested the safety components of the GE Mark I and II BWR's such as those in Fukushima.
@gkam
Any idea where I can dig up the locations of these in the US?
Just wondering where they may be located with regard to my current homes and future travels...
saw some mention of them at Wiki: https://en.wikipe..._of_BWRs

would like to know if there are more out there and where they are
if you have the info
THANKS

if not
I will continue my search
gkam
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
"How much fuel and pollution to create, install and maintain?"

Not nearly as much as fossil and nuclear plants. Got room for TVA's vast volumes of toxic coal sludge? How abut the nuclear waste which has yet to find a safe repository after 60 years of promises?

Do you really think you are the first one to consider all these aspects? Do you not understand the accountants do it much better than you can ever attempt?

And do you really want to discuss the operation and maintenance differences between the power systems?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
What went wrong with CA power RE-regulation had nothing to do with Bush.

"As of June 2000, these combined problems resulted in a serious challenge to California's
system.
Prices per megawatt hour in California, which were near $30 in April, rose significantly
to more than $100 by June 2000. By November, prices had increased to between $250 and $450.
The first five months of 2001 were characterized by soaring wholesale prices, energy
emergencies, and a small number of rolling blackouts.
The pain was severe. "
"During the 200
0

2001 period
there were two crises

an electrical supply crisis and a
financial crisis

creating a feedback loop that made matters worse. Inadequate supplies led
directly to high wholesale prices. But California created the financial crisis for itse
lf. With retail
price controls, high wholesale prices, and utilities that had already sold off most of their
generating assets, the utilities had to buy electricity from others. "
The California Electricity Crisis
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 06, 2014
gkam doesn't seem to understand what happened with the fiasco with CA RE-regulation.
http://web.stanfo...ture.pdf
gkam
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
Captain Stumpy, that is a good place to start. Go to GE Nuclear and get more information than your paranoia will let you absorb. The development history is interesting, especially they it admit most of the plant is to keep it from killing us.

Fukushima Diary is interesting, as is the more sensationalist ENENEWS.I have found no stretching of facts in any of those sites.

BTW, what do the #/# numbers mean by the star(s)? And what are the stars about?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
"The memos below are some examples of my principled opposition to Enron's rent-seeking activities relating to "sustainable" energy. If Enron had been more free-market-oriented, I believe that the company would be a going concern today. "
Enron's Kyoto memo:
http://www.politi...1297.pdf
Enron wind power memo to gov Bush:
http://www.politi...TC_1.jpg
gkam
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
You have no idea what I understand.

Nothing in California changed except the ownership of the power supplies. It was another part of the ENRON set of scams and swindles by the Bush Crime Family, after ENRON got to name two of the Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission..

What is your field and experience?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 06, 2014
"Deaths from PV solar-rooftop and IWT energy generation are about 16 and 4 times the deaths of nuclear energy generation, respectively, according to the World Health Organization. "
"Deaths/TWh/yr from coal, gas, oil, and nuclear-based generation are 24, 3, 19.2, and 0.052, respectively. "
http://theenergyc...r-causes

q]You have no idea what I understand.
Neither do you, it seems.
gkam
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Please do not play the cut-and-paste game. What is your experience and/or credentials to question our positions?
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :) Leaving for Sydney today (forecast bright & sunny all the way) instead of last night (chance of rain/mists last night, so played it safe). Anyhow, I m leaving in couple hours, so briefly....
Enron Scandal of corporate skullguggery and manipulation/fraud?
Remember Ken Lay pushing for passage of Kyoto?
It's up to reasonable people to ignore those sideplays and concentrate on reasonable wider perspective/situation. That was my point in countering your/others 'political/ideological/mercenary' insistence that only private industry can do it all/better by itself.

No fuel, no pollution, no transmission costs, no sweat
How many birds and bats are dead?
How many otherwise safe/arable lands/water resources for future humanity has been ruined by coal mine 'subsidence', water pollution etc? How many ecosystems/animals affected by habitat damage from vast expanses of mining/tailing/waste dams, and burst/leaking waste dams etc?

Seek balance.:)
gkam
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
This is just theater: The growth of wind and other alternative sources is existential fact, not position or opinion. . It exists, which is why I wonder what the deniers are all about.

What is it, . . . politics?
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Hi Stumpy. :)
And when you answer to my "Quit it" posted to Stumpy, not to you, it betrays your mutual 'backroon connection'. Sad.
so quick to judge others while being just as deceitful, hateful, malicious, and unethical as you claim others to be...Interesting that it is ok for you to pick on him, but it is not ok for him to defend himself
you hate him
Now you're into double-speak, Stumpy. :)

It is YOUR 'friend' Ira-BOT-operator who just admitted 'it' up/downvotes the person, based on personal prejudice 'likes/dislikes', irrespective of science/content!

It is 'it' that 'hates' people and automatically 'votes' accordingly via his BOT.

It is 'it' that trolled, stalked, harassed and threatened people here and elsewhere ("cut you where you stand or shoot you if you run", remember?).

Do you understand these 'inconvenient fact' about your chosen 'friend'?

I'm merely calling attention to 'its' admitted anti-science agenda.

It's YOU condone/enable that trolling-bot creep.:)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
BTW, what do the #/# numbers mean by the star(s)? And what are the stars about?
@gkam
The stars next to the names are for rating their post- on a 1-5 star basis, 5 being best.
You cannot rate your own posts
The #/# is what your post ranking is: You can go to your own profile and see a certain number of previous posts and who ranked them (although not how they ranked it- but after some experience you will see how people usually rank)
here is YOUR profile page: https://sciencex....er/gkam/

if you click on ALL after the recently commented in blue, you will go here
https://sciencex....er/gkam/?v=act

Your average rank right now is 4
DQM doesn't like you, others do
DQM is a vote troll or sock puppet of someone else. it doesn't comment because it doesn't want the rating (one way to see who is a troll and who is a little more reliable)

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 06, 2014
if you click on ALL after the recently commented in blue, you will go here
https://sciencex....m/?v=act
@gkam
you can copy/paste the above link to the browser to go there or go to the TOP of the page where it says your profile name, then get the menu... click on profile
It will take you to the public profile
at the bottom is a spot that says "Profile Personal Page" and a link... click it
Then go to the "ALL" link in blue and it will take you to the rankings

the rankings can be used at the end of an article to weed out the troll comments so you will not see low ranked posts
Some trolls don't always get votes

and as you can see, people like the above uber-troll RC can flood a site with pointless crap while thinking he is accomplishing something
he is defensive when you point out his inadequacies & takes NO personal responsibility, nor does he offer any evidence for his conjecture

I would suggest avoiding conversing with him
unless you want stupidity
see above for proof
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
I'm merely calling attention to 'its' admitted anti-science agenda.


Another GREAT BIG LIE Skippy. I never admitted that. I am not anti-science. I'm anti-Really-Skippy because there is not nothing scientific about him. You are not the scientist-type-Skippy.

You just pretend to be the science-Skippy because you think is fun if you can trick peoples into thinking you know something about something. The reason nobody is fooled is because of the same way somebody as science ignorant as I am is not fooled.

You never go into the deep parts with "science talk".You pick out a science sounding thing and say it over and over and over without answering the problems people are finding in your silliness. Look at this thread here, over and over with ryggi-tard-Skippy and Otto-Skippy, you just keep repeating the same words, like they can not read. A real scientist-Skippy don't need to do that.

I got to P.S. you because I'm running short on letters for this one,

e
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (8) Sep 06, 2014
P.S. for you Really-Skippy.

As I was saying to you. Scientist-Skippys don't always go around telling people to be careful but not telling what you think they should be looking for.

Scientist-Skippys don't claim to have gone to Universal Physics science school that don't have a name and taught them self from scratch everything that nobody but you knows. How silly does that one sound?

Scientist-Skippys don't come around claiming to have gone to the science school to study the computer programing and the psycho-ology and the econimicals and the mathematicals without being able to get a single person to sign on to his crankpot theorizing.

Scientist-Skippys don't come to the physorg to write a gazillion posts about the end-of-the-science-world that he is only here to defend and save the world from silly unimportant peoples like ol Ira. Scientist-Skippys got bigger things on their minds.

And don't like you calling me names.A scientist-Skippy could figure all that out. Now do better.
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 06, 2014
Poor poor Ira-Stumpy. You both desperately and hypocritically conspiring by PM, trolling and lying and innuendoing and anti-science BOT-voting with your 'personality cult' approach to 'doing science/discourse' all across the site, based on person not actual science/content, and you accuse others of trolling and not being truthful etc?

And the Ira-BOT-nit still doesn't realize that I don't lie about anything, especially not about my mainstream science Uni studies and then further independent studies. Poor sod believes it can have any relevance at all in any science site, except to bot-troll-sock-idiot-drool all over the forum floor because he doesn't understand any of it but deludes himself that his personal likes/dislikes 'voting' has any use whatsoever to science discourse.

Poor poor dumbass-duo. Sad but hilarious 'dumb-and-dumber-act'.

What a hoot! You've just made my day, 'hysterically-funny-reading' wise. I'll be laughing all the way to Sydney. LOL See y'all in few days! :)
Uncle Ira
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 06, 2014
See y'all in few days! :)


Is this another GREAT BIG LIE? You only say this about 12 or 11 times for the last two days. Do you think anybody cares? Well why you think that?

Do your lying diligence better when get back home from Sydney's house.

Oh yeah, when you get back will you do the "doing the diligence thing about the troll/moderator/bot/mafia/gangsters destroying the science by chasing you all over the world again"? I really like that one, it's the one where you discovered I'm an international criminal trying to steal peoples interweb stuffs and carry it back to the swamp.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (7) Sep 07, 2014
Hi insipid retard. ;)
Its up to you as researcher/commentator to keep up with cutting edge advances in all associated fields of science/tech developments. eg in computer control systems; parts prototyping/printing systems; materials/nanotech etc etc etc
No, if you make a claim it's up to you to provide refs to back it up. For instance where's your source for the idea that solar was instituted at a time of crisis? It doesn't exist.
Have some imagination and extrapolate the evolutionary trajectory'
Ah. So you admit that your notions about wind power come from your imagination. And aren't you the guy who also imagines papers about some cosmological expansion fantasy of yours? Do you do this a lot? Are you typically palpating erogenous zones while you are theorizing?

Justify what you say or quit spunking here please.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2014
Hi Forum. :) Back after few days in Sydney for Fathers' Day, as I said...
See y'all in few days! :)
So poor poor Ira-BOT-Nit shiting on forum floor again when 'it' posted...
Is this another GREAT BIG LIE? You only say this about 12 or 11 times for the last two days.


Note well the Ira-BOT-lame attempt at 'humor' by the BOT-Nit...
Do your lying diligence better when get back home from Sydney's house.


And 'its' use of my apt 'descriptors' of 'it' and 'its 'friends' failures to do proper due diligence before downvoting/accusing others, believing 'sources'; dismissing proven facts about mod-troll gangs/tactics etc...
"...about the troll/moderator/bot/mafia/gangsters destroying the science by chasing you all over the world again"?
...is delicious irony; as this Ira-BOT-sock-troll permabanned from sciforums when stalking/lying about me there!
...I'm an international criminal trying to steal peoples interweb stuffs...
Poor criminal loony Ira-BOT busted! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
if you make a claim it's up to you to provide refs.
What 'claim'? I merely commented' that you may need to get up to speed about possible/likely advances. You're on a SCIENCE NEWS site, where 'it's all there', current/archived. Read up! I'm not here to 'spoon-feed' obvious argumentative/lazy trolls like you are increasingly coming across as. Have you told others in the past to "Study up on the subject matter before opening your mouth"? If so, then take your own advice.
...solar was instituted at a time of crisis?
What do you call long emerging situation re GW, pollution, unsustainability etc etc?
So you admit that your notions about wind power come from your imagination.
Insights and advances involve imagination. Get some; and read up re science/tech advance 'trajectories'.

aren't you the guy who also imagines papers about some cosmological expansion fantasy of yours?
No. I'm the guy who cautioned AGAINST 'believing' BBang fantasies. Got it?
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
Poor criminal loony Ira-BOT busted! :)


What you miss me Cher? Seems like I'm the first thing on your mind when you get back.

What happen boug, Sydney kick you out after just the two days? Well two days minus the driving times, boy you not last so long with her, eh Cher? How much driving to get there? About 12 or 10 hours or the 18 hours maybe? It must have at least that long or it would not be so special that you need to tell us 12 time for two days you are going, What p'tit boug, she only let you stay for a couple of hours before she pambanned you too like the scifi place?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2014
Poor poor criminal loony Ira-BOT-Nit. :)
What you miss me Cher? Seems like I'm the first thing on your mind when you get back.
'Your' post was first in line, dumbo-BOT.

What happen boug, Sydney kick you out after just the two days?...boy you not last so long with her, eh Cher?
Human posters (that rules 'you' out, BOT-nit) who have been paying attention over the years, know well that I am allergic to Pollution/chemicals in City air, hence live away from Sydney, and keep my visits there as short as possible. Went Sunday, returned Wednesday. Drive time 2 1/2 hours, but I also allergic to traffic exhaust/tyre-dust pollution on busy highways/roads, there and back.

Did you miss me, you poor lonely, criminally mindless, sock-BOT-operator? Sounds like it; or you would not have asked all about my trip to Sydney, hey?

Poor Ira-BOT-Nit, doomed to live vicariously through us human posters.

Poor non-human BOT-nit 'it' got permabanned AS a BOT-sock-troll from sciforums. Nasty! :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
@ Well okayeei Really-Skippy. Apology accepted again. I'm sorry to hear you got to live away from Sydney because of the smelly air and pollution. That stuffs makes me mad too. That's why I am always giving the BP-Skippys such a hard time whenever I can, they have really dirtied up southern Louisiana that I grew up in. Two and another half hour is not so very bad to drive, maybe she will come to where you stay sometimes. Anyway glad you come back okay and apology accepted so we can get off to a better start this time.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2014
Poor Ira_BOT.
@ Well okayeei Really-Skippy. Apology accepted again.
Your /operator still hasn't quite programmed 'you' for the proper way an apology from 'you' to me should be phrased, has he? But if your operator meant to 'say' he apologizes to me, then of course the apology will be accepted...IFF he disconnects his BOT and apologizes to everyone here for him being such a tool. Anything short of that will demonstrate 'your' apology above is NOT genuine, hence just more Ira-BOT-lying shiting on forum floor.

I'm sorry to hear you got to live away from Sydney because of the smelly air and pollution.
What is 'sympathy' from Ira-BOT-operator worth? The same as 'apology' from same. Nil.

Get real, BOT-operator, and rid yourself and the forum of that mindlessly infantile BOT-fetish which is currently dooming you to Internet Stupidity Activity Syndrome. That idiocy-BOT-personna has taken over whatever human mind/character you had to start with. Not good.

Drop the BOT now. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
Okayeei, sorry about the misunderstanding. But I still don't know what you are so worked up about.

Drop the BOT now. :)


I ask you before what the BOT is and what it has to do with ol Ira. Really-Skippy, sometimes people say things here I don't understand, so until you explain what the BOT stuffs you keep talking about are I can not do nothing about that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2014
@Poor Sad Case Study of BOT-fetish replacement for actual human character/life of your own.
I ask you before what the BOT is and what it has to do with ol Ira. Really-Skippy, sometimes people say things here I don't understand, so until you explain what the BOT stuffs you keep talking about are I can not do nothing about that.

If you're that unrelentingly, intentionally criminally stupid troll type in real life, then there's no hope for you ever 'understanding' the science/tech subtleties and complexities being discussed here or any other advanced theoretical/cosmological etc science/tech site.

Which is too bad; but a present reality which 'you' and all your 'friends' must face; especially in the face of all the evidence so far from your posts/behavior which indicate your 'no hoper' status is REAL and irremedial...at least for as long as you persist using a BOT-voting system which downvotes from a programmed LIST of "People Ira Hates", as you admitted earlier.

Wise up. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 09, 2014
I will tell you one that is true. It sure is hard to get you answer an easy question. And another one thing. I'm trying here to get along with you but I'm having more trouble than that understanding just what you are saying.

Wise up. :)


Mrs-Ira-Skippette says that to me a lot too. But I usually can tell what she is talking about when I ask.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2014
Drop the dishonesty, BOT-operator.
I will tell you one that is true.
No, you lie all the time. About people, and about being 'here to learn' etc. You've admitted 'hating' people and trolling/sabotaging/downvoting according to your 'hate list'. You've made it clear you're a nasty little thug and would-be bully here/elsewhere; threatening "I'll cut you where you stand or shoot you if you run" to people who will not put up with your mindless bully-bot crap. You cannot understand anything subtle/complex, yet delude yourself/your 'friends' that your spoiling/lying/sabotaging is 'ok'.

It sure is hard to get you answer an easy question.
I told everyone that I had withdrawn from detailed discussion. Too hard for you?
I'm trying here to get along with you...
Lie. Not genuine. You keep lying, sabotaging and 'hate list' BOT-downvoting etc.

Mrs-Ira-Skippette says that to me a lot too
But you neither listen nor understand her, or me, or you'd have stopped your crap by now.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2014
threatening "I'll cut you where you stand or shoot you if you run" to people who will not put up with your mindless bully-bot crap


Cher that is just a saying. It's a line out of some old blues song. You hear it all the time down here and not even those couyon Texans take him serious no. What you think? I'm going to come across the whole country to hunt you up for some special attention? You should relax better podna, life is not so bad.

I told everyone that I had withdrawn from detailed discussion. Too hard for you?


That is not the question I asked, I asked about the BOT name I do not understand.

I'm trying here to get along with you.
Lie. Not genuine. You keep lying, sabotaging and 'hate list' BOT-downvoting etc.


Does this mean you taking back the apology again and want to call off the truce another time? I wish you would make up the mind on that. Running short of letter spaces I' have to P.S. for you about Mrs-Ira-Skippy..
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2014
The P.S. for you Really-Skipppy

Mrs-Ira-Skippette says that to me a lot too
But you neither listen nor understand her, or me, or you'd have stopped your crap by now.


You missed the other part of that Cher, I said I can understand her when she says that and I ask her what she means. But you mistake one thing, I sure do listen to her, you would not want to be there if I didn't, I would not want to be there either. That's how we stayed married for 16 or 15 year now, I listen really good to her me.

Oh yeah, you mistake one another thing Cher, maybe sooner or maybe later you are going to run out chances to make the apology and have me take him and then you take him back again. You should stop that and make the peace with me so we can talk about the science when you quit withdrawing from the science discussing and want to talk about something besides ol Ira.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2014
No fuel, no pollution, no transmission costs, no sweat

How much fuel and pollution to create, install and maintain?
How many birds and bats are dead?
Why would you ever care about birds, bats or ecology ryggie? Doesn't that go against property rights? In libertarian ideology, why should executives think about wildlife unless it generates profit?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2014
@Ira-BOT.
...threatening "I'll cut you where you stand or shoot you if you run" to people who will not put up with your mindless bully-bot crap
Cher that is just a saying. It's a line out of some old blues song.
That you would even think to use it here, no matter the source, shows your mentality is UNscientific and thuggish. All of a piece with your UNscientific "hate list" of people you lie about, stalk, harass, sabotage and downvote irrespective of science/content posted. Troll.
I asked about the BOT name I do not understand.
You are either very stupid or lying and pretending you don't know what a 'bot' is. Where's your 'friend'; why hasn't he explained it to you if you are that stupid? BOT.
I'm trying here to get along with you.
Lie. Not genuine. You keep lying, sabotaging and 'hate list' BOT-downvoting etc.
Does this mean you taking back the apology again...
You apologize to me and the forum first, then we'll talk 'truce'.

Poor "Mrs" Ira.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2014
All right already I will do that if it helps you settle down and cool off some.

@ Really-Skippy, I am sorry I said the mean things and hurt your honor. And I am sorry you got so mad with me.

@ The forum first, or second I suppose. I am sorry I made Really-Skippy so mad that he takes out on all you guys. It was me he was mad at so I guess it's my fault he acts the way it does. Don't blame him, blame ol Ira.

Poor "Mrs" Ira.


Yeah, she hears that a lot, mostly when I try to do the shopping for something, but other times sometimes too.

Oh yeah I almost forget. I guess this means you are not going to tell me about the BOT thing right? Are you going to put it in your book?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2014
Hi insipid lying retard ;)
What 'claim'?
The following is full of claims;
The point is stop-gap implementation of existing tech necessary while awaiting future advances, else nothing done. Improvements will occur which will make future windfarms (and other 'alternatives') ever more reliable/efficient/cost effective
You want to see them again?

That you think you know what is wrong with this tech and that it is economically feasible to fix it (you don't
That electric generators haven't been around for a century and aren't in fact a mature tech
That the reasons for their premature obsolescence are because they have only recently been used for this purpose
That improving them won't in fact be exorbitantly expensive
That the subsidies which enabled their initial installation would somehow magically reappear for repair and replacement

-Look at the thread. 5% unsubstantiated bullshit from you and 95% whining about justified abuse.

Poor baby.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
I made GENERAL observations, supported by history/experience:
- about ANY new/evolving science/tech implementation/development TRAJECTORY;
- of NEW developments in ALL fields of EVOLVING techniques, materials, applications, construction etc inevitably improve 'across the board';
- re implementation involving choice: EITHER 'always await' newer & newer 'state-of-art'...OR...'implement something now' as interim/stop-gap 'seed' solutions/start-up-industry to facilitate/expedite further development, whatever 'state of art'. Else one 'always waiting', 'never implementing'!

Recent: http://phys.org/n...ple.html
http://phys.org/n...ids.html
http://phys.org/n...ene.html
http://phys.org/n...age.html
http://phys.org/n...ncy.html

Connect-the-dots for yourself, mate. Cheers! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 10, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@Really-Skippy, I am sorry I said the mean things and hurt your honor
So you now understand that downvoting people automatically from "Ira's Hate List" irrespective of what science/content people posted is a SERIOUSLY WRONG thing to do on a SCIENCE discourse site?

Anyhow I note you haven't 'rated' last few posts. Good. Keep it that way unless you actually scientifically read/understand properly what is being said. Thanks.

@The forum, I am sorry I made Really-Skippy so mad that he takes out on all you guys. It was me he was mad at so I guess it's my fault he acts the way it does.
I didn't take anything out on anybody that they didn't directly deserve by their own actions. If you/others were unfairly 'tarring with same brush', it is wrong. Don't do it.

Oh yeah I almost forget. I guess this means you are not going to tell me about the BOT thing right?
When it 'suited' your erstwhile sabotage/pretense agenda, you 'googled'. Do that; or ask your 'friend'. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2014
When it 'suited' your erstwhile sabotage/pretense agenda, you 'googled'. Do that; or ask your 'friend'. :)


Well you don't have to be all prickly about it, I was only asking. I did google him and got all kinds of stuffs I did not understand which one you was thinking of when you were talking to me.

Yeah, I been laying off the bad karma votes because I know you don't like them. Even though I still think I should be able to vote anyway I want. Now I'm going to ask the favor from you too. Will you please stop with the name calling of me and the telling me I'm stupid and crazy and a criminal? I have a good job that is honest work.

Oh yeah I almost forget, if it's not to much trouble, would you also quit telling me and other peoples to stop talking or being friendly with each other. That one really bugs me baucoup Cher.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
When it 'suited' your erstwhile sabotage/pretense agenda, you 'googled'. Do that; or ask your 'friend'. :)
Well you don't have to be all prickly about it, I was only asking. I did google him and got all kinds of stuffs I did not understand which one you was thinking of when you were talking to me.
Who's "prickly about it"? I suggested you tried to find out by googling and asking your 'friend'. Surely your previously 'helpful' interlocutor 'friend' will explain it to you if you don't understand the assortment of 'bot' programs infesting the Internet/sites.

Yeah, I been laying off the bad karma votes because I know you don't like them. Even though I still think I should be able to vote anyway I want. Now I'm going to ask the favor from you too. Will you please stop with the name calling of me and the telling me I'm stupid and crazy and a criminal? I have a good job that is honest work. Oh yeah I almost forget, if it's not to much trouble, would you also quit telling me and other peoples to stop talking or being friendly with each other. That one really bugs me baucoup Cher.
And your behavior has irked/betrayed everything every right thinking TRUE scientist everywhere stands/works for. Apparently you STILL do not understand. It is the PRINCIPLE of the thing regarding what is right and proper in a SCIENCE DISCOURSE site/context, and what is NOT right and proper. Nothing personal on my part. Just objective observations on YOUR and 'friends' unscientific/unobjective personality trolling antics to date. Get it?

In my book, anyone INTENTIONALLY and MALICIOUSLY engaging in SABOTAGING science discourse for their own trolling/malignant PERSONAL HATES/DISLIKES agendas is ipso facto a REAL criminal and enemy of BOTH science AND the humanity who depends on the scientific method and free unthreatened/unsabotaged discussion for its very FUTURE advances/survival. Your 'ahates' and 'likes' or 'dislikes' re personal excuses for 'rating the person any way you like' is NOT fair nor reasonable in this SCIENCE context. Save it for your 'social media' personality-cult 'malicious peronal gossip' site postings.

It was YOU and your ;friend' who, after I had stopped posting, continued to make disparaging personal allusions/lies about me. Blame yourselves for forcing me to return and 'return fire' in kind so as to counter your continuing unfair agneda having nothing at all to do withadvancing science or free and unthreatened science discourse.

Now do you understand the enormity of what you have been doing against all science and humanity ethics of reason and fair play? I trust you now do.

Anyhow, I again will stop posting to/about YOU and your 'friend' IFF you both keep me out of your lies and innuendoes from now on. And IFF you and your gang of 'friends' stop abusing/perverting the 'ratings page/system for your own petty personal prejudices and malicious agendas ahving nothing to do with the science.

Keep it fair and keep it clean and relevant to what is being posted by others regarding the science/logics content ONLY, and you shouldn't hear a peep out of me about you or your friends' past anti-science-ethics activities. Understand now and forever more, that it's YOU and your 'friends' that have been the problem; and that you have to change as I have suggested so that you ARE then 'part of the science conversation' without all that personality-cult cap getting in the way. Ok?

Good luck and 'read you round', Ira, everyone. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2014
Hooyeei Really-Skippy that was the long speech there. You make it sound like I crashed through the front door at a meeting of the international profession-scientist-Skippys naked and singing do da do da do oh do da day.

This is just the informalized place for people kick back and chit and chat and enjoy talking about the articles the physorg puts up for us to read and talk about.I am now starting to understand why you been getting so mad with me and calling names.

You was maybe hoping to run into a real scientist-Skippy here and get him to look over your book and give you some pointers and ol Ira was having the fun with you and that was making the real scientists stay away.Is that almost right?

Well don't worry Cher, this is just the commenting place for anybody to comment, the real scientist-Skippys don't come here to do the real science stuffs. If they come at all it's just to see what the physorg has that they maybe missed at work.

I have to P.S. you Cher, wait.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2014
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Where I was at huh? Oh yeah about the real scientist-Skippys.

See they don't come to read the comment parts except for fun and giggles. So you didn't have to get so mad with me because you did not miss one because of me. It's not that kind of place here. For telling them about your book you maybe should go to the professional scientist-Skippy places on the interweb. This just for the amateurs like me and some other peoples who read the articles and chit and chat.

So now you see you did not need to get so mad with me because you misunderstand what kind of place this is? Not for the real professional science stuffs, just for having fun and stuff.

I got the aft watch today so I got to get ready to relieve the assistant engineer. I am glad we got to get that straightened out and you didn't need to get so mad with me and get everybody in the bad moods like you didn't mean to do.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Hooyeei Really-Skippy that was the long speech there. You make it sound like I crashed through the front door at a meeting of the international profession-scientist-Skippys naked and singing do da do da do oh do da day. This is just the informalized place for people kick back and chit and chat and enjoy talking about the articles the physorg puts up for us to read and talk about.I am now starting to understand why you been getting so mad with me and calling names. You was maybe hoping to run into a real scientist-Skippy here and get him to look over your book and give you some pointers and ol Ira was having the fun with you and that was making the real scientists stay away.Is that almost right? Well don't worry Cher, this is just the commenting place for anybody to comment, the real scientist-Skippys don't come here to do the real science stuffs. If they come at all it's just to see what the physorg has that they maybe missed at work. ...Where I was at huh? Oh yeah about the real scientist-Skippys. See they don't come to read the comment parts except for fun and giggles. So you didn't have to get so mad with me because you did not miss one because of me. It's not that kind of place here. For telling them about your book you maybe should go to the professional scientist-Skippy places on the interweb. This just for the amateurs like me and some other peoples who read the articles and chit and chat. So now you see you did not need to get so mad with me because you misunderstand what kind of place this is? Not for the real professional science stuffs, just for having fun and stuff. I got the aft watch today so I got to get ready to relieve the assistant engineer. I am glad we got to get that straightened out and you didn't need to get so mad with me and get everybody in the bad moods like you didn't mean to do.
See, it is that sort of irrelevant and assumptive dismissing of "what this site is for" that got you into the wrong habits/behaviours here ON A SCIENCE news/discussion site.

If the comments/discussions are relevant and insightful, then it doesn't matter where those are conducted. Tha is the beauty of open and fearless polite discourse. It can prompt further insights for professionals and amateurs alike. That is the point of scientific discourse/venues in general, irrespective of 'who' individually frequents it or not.

Your prejudging that no professional physicist will come here to discuss/read seriously; or that no real science insights can occur during these discussions, is just prejudice on your part. And it is that sort of prejudice that makes the site situation become a sort of 'self fulfilling prophecy', by dint of believing that no real science insights can occur here.

You are wrong. Not only are these sites the very type that provides NEW and 'left-field takes' on existing 'gaps' in the professional orthodoxy models/theories which are still being tested/explored because of incompleteness to date, they are increasingly important to 'review' all the errors that have been allowed to 'pass peer review' precisely because no-one was discussing it openly and objectively as in such sites as these.

So please disabuse yourself of that prejudicial impression of what the site's potential/purpose is or is not. It is ALL 'grist for the mill', both for thr professionals and the amateurs in the relevant fields; whether they take advantage of it is their own individual decision, not a function/reflection as such of the site's potential/purpose/content/discussuons etc.

I for one have been over the years 'soundboarding' my own occasional clues/hints flowing from my own complete ToE; and also making observations on others' takes on various aspects which are of interest to me. I have since WITHDRAWN from doing any real eep detailed discussion of the physics aspects which may risk being plagiarized if continued. Hence I leave it to y'all to keep discussing your own perspectives on whatever passes the desk here at phys.org news/discussion site.

Ok? Good luck and good thinking, Ira, everyone! :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2014
See, it is that sort of irrelevant and assumptive dismissing of "what this site is for" that got you into the wrong habits/behaviours here ON A SCIENCE news/discussion site.


I think you still a little confused about the physorg comment places. Maybe I could not explain as good as somebody else can.

You are wrong.


That would not be the great discovery that. It happens from time to time.

I for one have been over the years 'soundboarding' my own occasional clues/hints flowing from my own complete ToE; and also making observations on others' takes on various aspects which are of interest to me.


I know, you say that before a lot. But I think you don't realize it looks to us peoples that you are trying to be bossy and the leader of everything on the physorg and that rubs a lot of peoples wrong. Maybe you don't know that is how it looks so maybe you could try to pick out your words more careful like when you aren't discussing the science stuffs any more.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Sep 11, 2014
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Now that we are on good terms and being nice to each other can I ask you a question about you telling me how to do something? It's not about your science that you aren't discussing anymore so you don't have worry about keeping it the secret.

Can you explain to me how I can write the longer comment without running out of letter spaces at the end? So I don't have to P.S. somebody when I got more to say?

I have the H&P laptop I use while I'm working and hook up to the netzero-Skippys. And at home I sometimes use the Mrs-Ira-Skippette's Dell on the desk top when she is not using it. Is writing more something I can do on one of those without having to P.S. somebody? Maybe I don't have the right kind of computer me.

After that maybe you can tell me how to put the linkup thing on a comment postum.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2014
Hi insipid lying retard ;)
I made GENERAL observations, supported by history/experience:
- about ANY new/evolving science/tech implementation/development TRAJECTORY
-More bullshit. Your comments were specifically about wind farms.
Why so obtuse, mate? The point was that the tech IS evolving, and hence old facilities/tech ARE replaced; just as for any other industry's plant/tech... Why so obtuse, mate? The point was that the tech IS evolving, and hence old facilities/tech ARE replaced; just as for any other industry's plant/tech.

Which was the point of my reply to your original 'one-eyed gripe' regarding abandoned/rotting windfarms etc
-you insipid, lying retard. ;)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2014
Hi Ghost. :) It's you limits his focus to windfarms. I specifically addressed your 'abandoned/rotting' windfarms issue, pointing out that obsolete/inefficient farm was merely replaced/relocated locally..

http://www.tawhiri.us/

..then stressed overall science/tech development/implementation 'trajectory' applies 'across the board' to ALL evolving/transitional industries/alternatives, not just windfarms.

This general aspect stressed in my posts, eg:
..look at the full picture and longterm evolutionary/feasibility/costings etc 'trajectory' of all such massive projects/alternatives conception/implementation..
...ongoing development of STORAGE systems will make solar/wind/other alternative power generation more 'steady supply'..
..point is stop-gap implementation of existing tech...Improvements...make future windfarms (and other 'alternatives') ever more reliable/efficient/cost effective.
See stress on "other alternatives/industries", not just windfarms? Cheers all. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2014
Hi insipid lying retard ;)
not just windfarms
You mean 'not windfarms' dont you, as you provided no info that they were not in fact mature tech nor that they were rushed into service before they were ready.
ongoing development of STORAGE systems
-which has nothing to to with the premature degradation and failure of turbines, which was my point which you responded to.

Its simple. Provide refs which show that turbine tech was instituted before it was ready due to some 'time of crisis'. Or quit lying through your teeth.

One other thing
that obsolete/inefficient farm was merely replaced/relocated locally..
One example is not a trend. I provided statistics on windfarms abandoned to rot in place and NOT replaced because subsidies had dried up and there was no incentive to do so.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 11, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
You mean 'not windfarms' dont you, as you provided no info that they were not in fact mature tech nor that they were rushed into service before they were ready.
What does "before they were ready" mean? I never said that. I said all implementations of tech in ANY industry must (by definition of 'contemporary state of the art') be 'always some way behind' evolutionary/revolutionary advances in the pipeline, on the drawing board. Period.

I linked that one 'counter' to support general observation about any industry/alternative having 'choices in built' to any decision to implement/abandon/replace etc.

Any one instance of 'faulty' design, materials, construction etc is instance specific occurrence, as for ANY industry.

Did you read linked examples earlier of related developments in materials, motors and political/economic decisions etc? That is what I was pointing out generally, for future developments/situations in any transitional/alternative industry/tech. Ok?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 11, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Can you explain to me how I can write the longer comment without running out of letter spaces at the end?
Sorry no can do mate; phys.org would have my guts for garters if I spread that around (they fear site-sabotaging types might flood the pages).

After that maybe you can tell me how to put the linkup thing on a comment postum.
First, display the webpage which contains the info you wish to convey; then highlight the WHOLE URL string (the "http://....character string at the top of the 'window' displaying the page); then 'copy' to your browsers "edit" function. Then when you want to place the link (the 'copied' character string) in the phys.org 'reply box', place cursor therein, go to "edit" function again, click "paste".

But I think you don't realize it looks to us peoples...
Trolls, stalkers/saboteurs/bullies opinions don't matter. I counter such; and (used to) make objective observations on interesting science/tech aspects, help others discuss. Cheers!
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2014
@ Really-Skippy, since we come to the understanding maybe I can help you out with the Otto-Skippy. So I will try okayeei?

I think what the Otto-Skippy is asking is how you come to think about your opinion not based on just one example. Like he wants to know if your opinion is only for a one time thing or a couple time things or is something that has more better examples on a lot of times things to make it a good opinion?

I think the Otto-Skippy is thinking you just making the opinion up off the top of your head without a good reason more than you thought it up. He does not know you like I do now, and if I didn't know you like I do now it does look sort of like you are doing that even though you are not doing it.

Some peoples like Otto-Skippy and me need more of the explaining than just the repeating the same one over and over. You keep answering the first question he asked after he moved on to other different questions.

Maybe this will clear up the air, eh Cher?
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2014
Sorry no can do mate; phys.org would have my guts for garters if I spread that around (they fear site-sabotaging types might flood the pages).


I don't know the guts for garters thing, but I think it means they give you the special permission and you don't want them to take it back. Is that right? Close?

But I think you don't realize it looks to us peoples...
Trolls, stalkers/saboteurs/bullies opinions don't matter. I counter such;


Well podna, it sure looks to us like it matters too much. I mean this is just physorg comment place, it's not like anything really big is getting done around here.

and (used to) make objective observations on interesting science/tech aspects, help others discuss. Cheers!


Yeah, it was that helping others to discuss that was really bugging the most peoples. I mean it is nice of you to help, but after they explain they need or want your help you should let it go at that. I am glad you stop that. Everybody else is too.
Uncle Ira
4 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2014
P.S. for you Really-Skippy. Thanks for the directions with the linkum thing. It looks like something I can do. If it give me any troubles I will get the Mrs-Ira-Skippette or the Little-Ira-Skippy to help me follow the directions to make them work.

If I can get it to go, I will post up for you some funny coonass stuffs about the people I grow up with and you can see more what we are like and not criminals or BOT things or whatever, us Cajuns are pretty good people but I might think so only because that is what I am.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 12, 2014
What does "before they were ready" mean?
It means
The point is stop-gap implementation of existing tech necessary while awaiting future advances
-you asshole.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 12, 2014
"Germany's flagship Bard 1 offshore wind farm has been described as "a faulty total system" as technical problems continue to plague the project, casting major doubts on the feasibility of large scale offshore projects.

The wind farm was officially turned on in August last year but was shut down again almost immediately due to technical difficulties that have still not been resolved – and now lawyers are getting involved."
http://www.breitb...l-Faults
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
What does "before they were ready" mean?
It means
The point is stop-gap implementation of existing tech necessary while awaiting future advances
Context is important. I pointed out implementation of 'state of the art' in ANY industry involves making decisions on what can be done NOW rather than waiting for LATER improvements.

So you're conflating that GENERAL point/observation CONTEXT with SPECIFIC CONTEXT of particular project.

Eg, ryggesogn2 just linked a particular project/implementation involving faulty offshore CONVERTER STATIONS, NOT the rest of the Windmills or turbines or other elements:

http://www.breitb...l-Faults

The difficulty facing engineers is how to get the electricity generated back to shore. So far, every attempt to turn on the turbines has resulted in overloaded and "gently smouldering" offshore converter stations


ok now? :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2014
This is so rich. 'Liberal' NIMBYS opposing wind mills using the same tactics 'liberals' use to oppose oil refineries and nuclear power plants.

"The Cape Wind project has been fiercely opposed by Cape and Island residents who say the massive wind towers will destroy views, do other environmental damage, and increase electricity costs for Massachusetts residents. Opponents have filed several legal challenges over the years — some are still pending — but Cape Wind has largely prevailed and moved forward."
http://www.boston...ory.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 13, 2014
Hi lying idiot retard ;)
So you're conflating that GENERAL point/observation CONTEXT with SPECIFIC CONTEXT of particular project.
We were talking about premature turbine failure and nothing else.

"The result of over a millennium of windmill development and modern engineering... The first electricity-generating wind turbine was a battery charging machine installed in July 1887 by Scottish academic James Blyth... In Denmark by 1900, there were about 2500 windmills for mechanical loads such as pumps and mills, producing an estimated combined peak power of about 30 MW... By the 1930s, wind generators for electricity were common on farms... In the autumn of 1941, the first megawatt-class wind turbine was synchronized to a utility grid in Vermont..." Etc

Generators, gearboxes, bearings, rotors, etc are all old tech and in use in other machinery all over the world. The only way to make turbines more DURABLE is to make them more EXPENSIVE. Which is why they are being abandoned.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (1) Sep 13, 2014
This is so rich. 'Liberal' NIMBYS
NIMBYS? You mean libertarians?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2014
Kennedy's are libertarians?

"In Massachusetts, the formidable opponents of Cape Wind, a proposed offshore wind farm in Nantucket Sound, include members of the Kennedy family, whose compound looks out over the body of water. In Berkeley last year, the objections of store owners and residents forced the city to shelve plans for a full bus rapid transit system (B.R.T.), a form of green mass transit in which lanes that formerly served cars are blocked off and usurped by high-capacity buses that resemble above-ground subways. "

"But policymakers in the United States have been repeatedly frustrated by constituents who profess to worry about the climate and count themselves as environmentalists, but prove unwilling to adjust their lifestyles or change their behavior in any significant way. "

http://www.nytime...amp;_r=0
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :) You've hit the right spot with your point this time! Just like any self-interested dishonest types, these "objectors to windmills" in your links are just hijacking the 'Green/Environmental' perspective and misapplying them to their own false arguments. If they really stopped and thought about their responsibility to future generations and present social evolution away from dirty/dangerous energy systems, they would not ABUSE the REAL sincere "Green/Environmental" arguments in such dishonest way for their own 'expedient' selfish agendas which make a mockery of the green/environmental concerns held by genuine selfless people around the world; for example, even Aussie Farmers are coming to realize what's best for everyone now and in the long term:

http://www.abc.ne.../5741126

Nore that it is the existing Coal Fired Generation/Mineral Lobby (losing profits) behind anti-wind/other lies/push.

Good point. Ta!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2014
the green/environmental concerns held by genuine selfless people around the world;

Self-less?
BS!
If they were 'self-less' they would not hire govt agents to force others to be as 'self-less' as they think everyone should be.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
We were talking about premature turbine failure...
I stressed general implementation/development 'trajectory' regardless of industry/particular installation while tech advances.

Many aspects improved since 1887, 1900, 1930s and 1941 examples of 'state of art' you mention. Note that they didn't 'wait' for future advances!

Coming improvements in materials/manufacturing will allow even 'designer' materials (graphene, silicene and others) for improved durability, generation, distribution, storage etc.

The only way to make turbines more DURABLE is to make them more EXPENSIVE. Which is why they are being abandoned.
They're alive and well here...

http://www.abc.ne.../5741126

...only Coal Fired Generating/Mineral/Selfish Lobbies want them gone.

Turbines one-off cost + Free wind 'fuel'--vs--Fossil Plants one-off costs + recurring/escalating fossil fuel + environmental/health/AGW costs.

Your choice? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
the green/environmental concerns held by genuine selfless people around the world;

Self-less?
BS!
If they were 'self-less' they would not hire govt agents to force others to be as 'self-less' as they think everyone should be.

I was alluding to REAL genuine selfless and forward looking people, such as these...

http://www.abc.ne.../5741126

...and NOT to mercenary/selfish types like you linked about who mouth expedient slogans for whatever they are involved in for reasons OTHER than helping humanity survive into the future.

Beware and discern TRUE from FALSE 'environmentalists' and other politically/mercenarily/egoistically motivated types and their propaganda which discredits/betrays all humanity and selflessness ethics.

Thanks again for your links on that.

Good luck to us all. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 13, 2014
'Self-less'?

" provided an additional passive income"
{He is being paid to be 'self-less'.}
"he current RET would require a further $22 billion in cross-subsidies."
{This means the state is forcing people to be 'self-less'}

http://www.abc.ne.../5741126
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :) Make up your mind, mate. You tout the benefits of CAPITALISM when it suites you, but deny the same benefits when it suits the reasonable steps taken to Green Future? That is the beauty of the Green Revolution and the Green Alternative Energy path/choice, it's a WIN WIN situation, both in health, cost and economic terms in the longterm.

That the farmer is being paid some money for the use of his lands does not invalidate his selflessness, because he could have chosen to offer it up to fossil fuel mining/fracking etc. Just because it makes sense as well as doing good, it doen't make him any less of farsighted farmer who would rather encourage and possibly profit from CLEAN Energy projects, and so encourage that industry to GROW more quickly; than to just use his lands as he always did WITHOUT the Windfarm 'spoiling the view' as some would call it (which might affect the SALE price if future potential buyers were not prepared to have windfarm on the property. Cheers. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
That the farmer is being paid some money for the use of his lands does not invalidate his selflessness,


Sure it does. He is making no personal sacrifice to Gaia.

Self-less means one in NOT acting in one's personal self interest. The farmer is acting in his self-interest.
The state is forcing others to act in the state's self-interest.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 14, 2014
Hi insipid pinhead ;)
I stressed general implementation/development 'trajectory' regardless of industry/particular installation while tech advances.
Sorry it doesn't apply. Generators, gearboxes, bearings, rotors, etc are all old tech and in use in other machinery all over the world. The only way to make turbines more DURABLE is to make them more EXPENSIVE. Which is why they are being abandoned.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
"Historically, wind turbine gearbox failures have plagued the industry. Yet an effective oil analysis program will increase the reliability and availability of your machinery, while minimizing maintenance costs associated with oil change-outs, labor, repairs and downtime. Practical action steps are presented here to improve reliability."
http://www.testoi...2013.pdf
"Gearboxes in wind turbines have not been achieving their expected design
life; however, they commonly meet and exceed the design criteria specified in current standards in the gear, bearing, and wind turbine industry as well as third-party certification criteria. The failures are widespread across manufacturers and turbine sizes, and
the majority of these failures are not due to manufacturing issues."
http://www.nrel.g...8190.pdf

Those gears boxes are massive. How much energy is needed to fabricate one windmill?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
That the farmer is being paid some money for the use of his lands does not invalidate his selflessness,
Sure it does. He is making no personal sacrifice to Gaia.
Did you miss what I pointed out about the SALE value of his property being affected adversely by the fact that any future sale 'market' would be highly limited to those who would accept windfarm on the prospective purchase property, hence reducing 'competition' for the property, hence reflecting on any future prospective sale price?

He is making up for such possible 'loss on sale' by getting some income from windfarm operators to 'offset' some of that possible loss.

See? Situation 'neutral' as to gain/loss for farmer, BUT win-win 'gain' for planet/population overall because better/cleaner environment/economy, local jobs, contributing to 'critical mass' for clean energy industry/distribution/storage etc.

Thanks for links re LUBRICANT improvements made possible by evolving tech. Cheers. :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (6) Sep 14, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Sorry it doesn't apply. Generators, gearboxes, bearings, rotors, etc are all old tech and in use in other machinery all over the world.
You keep fixating on the past, not the present/future trajectory/possibilities I pointed out for you; in materials, design, construction, control (even in LUBRICATION and maintenance aspects/tech as ryggesogn2 just linked to) and all sorts of other RELATED tech advances like sintering, printing of more exotic/lighter materials for gears/structures etc. The 'geometries' of gears and wheels etc may be 'the same', but the materials etc are improving the hardness/durability and comparative/relative costs of production/transport/maintenance etc.

The only way to make turbines more DURABLE is to make them more EXPENSIVE.
One off costs good compared to potential efficiency improvements/returns/benefits etc. Don't forget the 'effective' recurring cost advantage due to escalating/scarcer fossil fuel prices/sources over LONGER TERM. :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
He is making up for such possible 'loss on sale' by getting some income from windfarm operators to 'offset' some of that possible loss.


It's an easement, right and any new owner would receive the same income.

But it's NOT self-less.

fixating on the past,

The papers I referenced are recent. Even the US govt states that gearboxes are under achieving and they don't know why.
Without the assistance of plunder, wind turbines would not be economically viable.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
He is making up for such possible 'loss on sale' by getting some income from windfarm operators to 'offset' some of that possible loss.
It's an easement, right and any new owner would receive the same income.
Of course, that was always understood. You miss the actual point again:

If prospective buyer 'market' for the land don't want windfarm 'spoiling the view' or whatever, then 'competition' between buyers will lessen because less potential buyers, and so lower prospective price offered.

But it's NOT self-less.
The farmer is taking trouble to help local jobs, global environment, despite not really making huge profit overall (see above).

The papers I referenced are recent
You cross-confuse. I was talking to Ghost about his attitude, not your links. :)

Without the assistance of plunder, wind turbines would not be economically viable.
So the early/continuing subsidies/damage of fossil etc systems don't figure/any better? :)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 14, 2014
If prospective buyer 'market' for the land don't want windfarm 'spoiling the view'


Big if.
It's a FARM. A farmer will buy the land for farming, not the view. I suspect the view in WA is not all that great .

The farmer is taking trouble to help local jobs

What trouble? He is getting paid.
How big is the farm?
What is the crop?

There was NO govt subsidy for oil when the oil industry began.
Govt was very limited and did little but got in the way of those like Rockefeller who created a robust, high quality, low cost refining process for his customers.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 14, 2014
"All the wind-lease payments that Dean Retherfordhas negotiated are based on gross revenue per turbine. Each 1.5- or 3-MW turbine earns an annual royalty payment of $5,000 and $8,000, he says. The wind companies pay property taxes on the commercial facility, but not on the leased land."

https://www.wind-...y-lease/
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
If prospective buyer 'market' for the land don't want windfarm 'spoiling the view'
Big if. It's a FARM. A farmer will buy the land for farming, not the view.
IT's land. The use may change. A developer may want real estate only for homes/town. Windfarm would have to be moved/demolished. That would cost big. All sorts of buyers 'market' for the land would be affected by all sorts of considerations/possible costs, hence adversely affected sale/development/resale options, hence potential price adversely impacted.

What trouble? He is getting paid
He could have been apathetic and done nothing, and not have to deal with local objectors/complications re future sale/uses etc.

There was NO govt subsidy for oil when the oil industry began
It's about generating/fuel system polluting/damaging, longterm fossil fuel cost/damage, irrespective oil/coal.

See the wider/longer/cleaner view; all sorts of 'opportunity costs' comparisons involved.

Good luck, all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2014
Hi insipid guesser ;)
You keep fixating on the past, not the present/future trajectory/possibilities I pointed out for you; in materials, design, construction, control (even in LUBRICATION and maintenance aspects/tech as ryggesogn2 just linked to) and all sorts of other RELATED tech advances like sintering, printing of more exotic/lighter materials for gears/structures etc. The 'geometries' of gears and wheels etc may be 'the same', but the materials etc are improving the hardness/durability and comparative/relative costs of production/transport/maintenance etc.
Not 'true'. You're 'guessing/fabricating/bullshitting'. All those improvements raise the cost substantially and are 'unaffordable'.

Please provide evidence that any of these improvements are actually being implemented or kindly 'STFU'.

Toodles ;)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Sep 16, 2014
He could have been apathetic and done nothing, and not have to deal with local objectors/complications re future sale/uses etc.


You don't know what kind of farm.

And he is not self-less.

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 16, 2014
Hi Ghost. :) In your book, being 'polite/courteous' is being 'insipid'? Interesting 'take' on 'science discourse'! Says a 'lot' about your 'personality cult agenda', doesn't it, that you take that 'attitude' to 'polite & courteous' interlocutor? Note: I used 'plenty' of those funny little 'inverted commas' just to make your 'sarcasm' more 'jolly' for you. :)

Improvements in all sorts of tech have occurred over the last century. I even linked to imminent/future advances in pipeline/research. Eg, haven't you kept up to date with your reading in phys.org? New cheaper/simpler etc electric motors/generators; new efficient carbon nanotube manufacturing for cheap fibers/cabling; 'split' nanotubes layers for de-icing surfaces; and so on.

Some advances end up LESS EXPENSIVE if all benefits taken into account. History shows this, from...

Traction Engines to Multipurpose GPS-guided Combine Harvesters;
Henry Ford's Tin Lizzy to less polluting/more fuel-efficient modern cars, etc.

Pessimist! :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 16, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
He could have been apathetic and done nothing, and not have to deal with local objectors/complications re future sale/uses etc
You don't know what kind of farm
Yes I do, it says so in the article...

http://www.abc.ne.../5741126
Mr Garratt, who manages cattle and crops on his 2,000 acre property, said the turbines — part of the Alinta Walkaway Wind Farm — provided an additional passive income, as well as a sense of purpose.

"No-one in their right mind could put up an argument and say that wind turbines aren't of benefit," he said.

"They're not producing C02."
Note "cattle and crops".

Note also such 'income' is passive/beneficial to planet (in that he needs to exploit his land LESS than otherwise; less erosion/water/chemicals etc in environment; and LESS CO2 from wind energy etc.

Also trouble taken to do something rather than just add to AGW...voila'...selfless type.

Hence WIN-WIN! :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2014
Since when is sickeningly insipid being polite/courteous? It's fatuous.
Improvements in all sorts of tech have occurred over the last century. I even linked to imminent/future advances in pipeline/research. Eg, haven't you kept up to date with your reading in phys.org? New cheaper/simpler etc electric motors/generators; new efficient carbon nanotube manufacturing for cheap fibers/cabling; 'split' nanotubes layers for de-icing surfaces; and so on
Youre still guessing retard. You have given no indication that these apply to turbine design. And you either have looked and found out that this is true and are too full of yourself to admit it, or you are too lazy to look.

And what is polite/courteous/decent/honest/forthcoming about that?
Traction Engines to Multipurpose GPS-guided Combine Harvesters;
Henry Ford's Tin Lizzy to less polluting/more fuel-efficient modern cars, etc.
-which are all more expensive alternatives. Lose/lose loser.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 17, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Since when is sickeningly insipid being polite/courteous? It's fatuous.
You seem too emotionally/politically blinkered to know what's what anymore. Take it easy, mate. :)

You have given no indication that these apply to turbine design.
All sorts of cross-discipline advances affect many fields of development, including turbines and peripheral aspects. Your narrow blinkered biases/denial says much about your 'take' on things.

Traction Engines to Multipurpose GPS-guided Combine Harvesters;
Henry Ford's Tin Lizzy to less polluting/more fuel-efficient modern cars, etc.
-which are all more expensive alternatives.
Not true. One multipurpose modern harvester-thresher-cleaner-sorter-packer machine can do the work in a fraction of the time over vast areas; saving money, labor, time, and minimize crop losses from slow harvesting vulnerable to bad weather, pests, diseases, weeds.

Look at ALL opportunity costs/benefits. Be less emotional/blinkered etc. :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2014
Hi oily drippy saccharine retard ;)

You seem to enjoy getting people annoyed. Is that why you use the smileyface so often?

Your harvesters are not wind turbines now are they? Still no evidence whatsoever to back up your empty claims.

PROVIDE evidence that wind turbine is going to make them last longer for the same or less money or

STFU

;)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Hi oily drippy saccharine retard ;)
You seem to enjoy getting people annoyed. Is that why you use the smileyface so often?
My oh my, if a 'smiley' enrages you to the point of unreason, what on earth makes you think you are in any fit state of mind to objectively and dispassionately consider all, and not just some 'selective', aspects/costs/benefits involved? Take it easy, mate. :)

Your harvesters are not wind turbines now are they? Still no evidence whatsoever to back up your empty claims. PROVIDE evidence that wind turbine is going to make them last longer for the same or less money or STFU;)
What claims? I made GENERAL observations re 'developmental trajectory' of ANY sci-tech over past, present and imminent/longer term. Period.

My examples were only illustrations FOR that general observation, nothing more. It is you keeps narrowly fixating on one thing while missing my general point.

And I see you can't deny my examples support that general point. Ta:)
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 17, 2014
Hi idiot liar ;)
What claims? I made GENERAL observations re 'developmental trajectory' of ANY sci-tech
We've been through this already. Your comments were specifically about wind farms.
The point was that the tech IS evolving, and hence old facilities/tech ARE replaced; just as for any other industry's plant/tech...

Which was the point of my reply to your original 'one-eyed gripe' regarding abandoned/rotting windfarms etc

-you insipid, lying retard.

Ta ;)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 17, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Your comments were specifically about wind farms.
Here, from my very first post in this thread:
...if the intervention encourages/accelerates the ECONOMIES OF SCALE necessary for any 'alternatives' products/infrastructure
Note the "any 'alternatives'", not just wind? And from my second post:
...from traditional fossil fuel systems to alternatives across-the-board which will be better/cheaper and more LOCALLY/GLOBALLY reliable/available (as better STORAGE systems also developed/implemented)
Note the "alternatives across-the-board"? It is you trying to limit it to 'just windfarms'. I was speaking 'alternative tech/energy systems' generally. Like you just quoted me in your reply:
... just as for any other industry's plant/tech...Which was the point of my reply to your original 'one-eyed gripe' regarding abandoned/rotting windfarms etc
-you insipid, lying retard.
Note the "just as for any other industry"?

Emotion blinding you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 18, 2014
Hi idiot liar ;)
It is you trying to limit it to 'just windfarms'
Because thats what my comment was about. It had nothing to do with yours.
Here, from my very first post in this thread
Yah you started lying early on. And you cant stop.

Ta Ta ;)
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 18, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Because thats what my comment was about.
And I countered one of your specific referenced 'abandoned windfarms' examples by linking to where the 'abandoned windfarm' was merely replaced and relocated just down the road, as per the link I provided: http://www.tawhiri.us/ I went on to observe general developmental/implementation 'trajectory' for all industries, both 'traditional' and 'alternatives' (not just for windfarms). I gave examples of such; and also linked recent physorg news items. I even pointed out that specific projects in any industry are obviously subject to cowboys, conmen and other specific problems which may result in poor implementation etc (eg, that offshore windfarm where offshore 'converter stations' what failed, not the windturbines themselves or peripherals): http://www.breitb...l-Faults You disregard it all and still fixate narrowly. Not good.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 19, 2014
hi sweetums :P
And I countered one of your specific referenced 'abandoned windfarms' examples
No as I recall I gave statistics in premature degradation, failure, and abandonment. You countered with one example which still demonstrated that these farms become derelict eyesores because there is no incentive to demolish them.

You then offered a general sentiment that the tech 'ought' to improve because other unrelated tech has done so, without providing any evidence that wind farm tech can in fact improve or that it would be cost effective if it ever did.

And your opinions are worthless without the info to back them up now aren't they?

Ciao kiss kiss ;)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
Your 'recollection' seems as 'conveniently selective' as your 'research/arguments' in this area. :)

Your original thrust was that wind power was being abandoned because it was uneconomical, and you linked to 'abandoned windfarms' to support that thrust. I GENERALLY pointed out that many reasons, in many industries and not just wind industry/alternatives industry, particular plant/sites are abandoned for reasons to do with the economics of new/replacement plants/sites which are more efficient/profitable for may reasons to do with new tech and or new owners/customers and repair and maintenance compared to total relocation/replacement etc. I linked one of your own 'abandoned windfarms' to make that GENERAL point, since that windfarm was replaced and relocated just down the road for sound economic/new tech reasons...just as in any industry, including old fossil fuel power plants, coal mines and etc. So your fixation on just windfarms was thus demonstrated to be 'one-eyed'. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2014
@ Hey Really-Skippy, where you at Cher? You aren't making the many postums like you used to do. Is that because you working on your book? Or because you are busy on the other forum again?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Hey Really-Skippy, where you at Cher? You aren't making the many postums like you used to do. Is that because you working on your book? Or because you are busy on the other forum again?
Busy on many fronts: life, family, health, work/ToE reality-maths-Axioms finalizing etc. Not active at all on any forums except this one; and only rarely when something piques my interest. And you? How are you doing. Better, I trust? Good luck and good thinking to you, Ira.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2014
Busy on many fronts: life, family, health, work/ToE reality-maths-Axioms finalizing etc. Not active at all on any forums except this one; and only rarely when something piques my interest.


Okayeei. I understand most of those things, me too. But again with the toes thing. That one I don't understand. You the only one on the physorg that talks about your toes. What's up with that? I look up the Axioms thing on my own so that one I understand though I would use a regular word for the same thing.

And you? How are you doing.


I'm right as rain and I'm doing just fine and dandy, like I always do.

Better, I trust?


Better than what? Everything been good with me for as long as I can remember. Last bad time I have was back in 05 after Katrina.

Good luck and good thinking to you, Ira.


I don't believe in lucks, good or bad, but thanks anyway.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
I don't believe in lucks, good or bad, but thanks anyway
So if a meteorite were to come through the roof while you were stretched out in bed, and it 'took out' your big toe, you wouldn't call that bad luck for you/your big toe? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
I don't believe in lucks, good or bad, but thanks anyway
So if a meteorite were to come through the roof while you were stretched out in bed, and it 'took out' your big toe, you wouldn't call that bad luck for you/your big toe? :)


Non Cher, my toe was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I had been paying the right kind of attention to the meteor I would have put my toe some other place. I saw a meteor flying across the sky a few weeks back, was it luck that I saw it? Or just happened to be looking that way. I don't think either meteor cares one way or the other way about my toes or me seeing him.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 19, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
If I had been paying the right kind of attention to the meteor I would have put my toe some other place. I saw a meteor flying across the sky a few weeks back, was it luck that I saw it? Or just happened to be looking that way. I don't think either meteor cares one way or the other way about my toes or me seeing him.
Interesting how you could 'pay attention' to an incoming meteorite while you slept in your bed. Is that a Vodoo thing you are into? :)

Non Cher, my toe was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Wasn't your big toe on the right foot in the right order from big-to-little-piggy-makes-five? Where else would it be when you stretched out asleep in bed? Astral Traveling 'big toe', as well as Vodoo? :)

And if you're lucky enough to be looking the right way then you'll see good/bad things that you would otherwise have missed. That's life.

This was great fun, but I have to go out now. Catch you and your big toe 'paying attention' stories later, Ira. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 19, 2014
Interesting how you could 'pay attention' to an incoming meteorite while you slept in your bed
try actually reading what you wrote, rc/ir- you said
while you were stretched out in bed
not sleeping... you are ADDING that after the fact! and Ira said
my toe was in the wrong place at the wrong time. If I had been paying the right kind of attention to the meteor I would have put my toe some other place
which is not only perfectly logical, but a very good answer

this is how reality works. there is no magical force called luck... you MAKE your luck. by planning, study, intelligence, etc... Ira makes his luck at work by being prepared and by knowing his job (Engineering on a marine boat)

GOOD ANSWER IRA... he will be harassing us a lot now because he got perma-banned again.... 6 more times!!!! http://www.scifor...list.php

8 total perma-bans on one site... is that a record?

Paying attention is what some people do, I suggest you try it, rc
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy .

Are all those Internet-Experimenting-Skippys the same as the Really-Skippy? Looks like that experiment did not work out to well for him no. I can see why he didn't want to mention it to me when I asked. Maybe he should have asked a real scientist-Skippy for some help this time out.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
@ Captain-Skippy
Are all those Internet-Experimenting-Skippys the same as the Really-Skippy?
@Ira
Yes, they are... note in the last column it describes
Sockpuppet of banned member RealityCheck and all his other aliases..
he tried to set up a sock puppet for the site and got caught... so he is calling it an "experiment" to save face

liars/spammers/trolls/flame and bait is wrong, moderated and he got deleted for it

sad thing is: he was given a SECOND CHANCE (although that was fought against by MANY people on the forum)
a LOT OF PEOPLE (not just mods) who are posters fought against having him there again due to his flame/bait/troll tactics

Now he is perma-banned again
and for the same stuff he does HERE

I try to ignore him for the most part

Keep the faith and keep plugging, Ira... good call on the astrophysics book (Shapley- other thread http://phys.org/n...rge.html )
I will be adding that to my x-mas book list (THANKS)

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2014
CaptainS, what is wrong with you? You still prefer to dissemble rather than get the facts?

Ira and I were just joking together.

And 'luck' is the same as 'chance'. Obviously luck/chance are real probabilistic aspects of life and death, and everything in between.

One can control 'life events' only so far and so well, and the rest is the result of chance/luck, and other people/events.

History shows this, even your own history. It's not all just down to 'your choices', or people wouldn't still be buying lottery tickets despite the odds against winning!

And do stop hysterically lying about my Internet Experiments. They're 'sockpuppets' in name only, not intent. I am well known for my Internet Experiments over many years to expose mod-troll abuses. I must use different names FOR the experiments, else they wouldn't BE experiments, would they? I never 'hide' my identity from the mods, who can easily check who it is; and I always say who it was afterwards.

Stop peddling your lies, CapS.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
"The wind industry is necessarily one of the most corrupt enterprises on earth because it depends for its entire existence on government favours, backhanders, dishonest environmental impact assessments and on regulators turning a blind eye to the known health problems caused by wind turbine noise. Without crony capitalism, the wind industry simply would not exist."
http://www.breitb...rruption
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (5) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Are all those Internet-Experimenting-Skippys the same as the Really-Skippy? Looks like that experiment did not work out to well for him no. I can see why he didn't want to mention it to me when I asked.

Actually Ira, the experiment was successful. I had already been perma-banned by the mod-troll abuses, so I only wished to highlight the POLL (on another member) was already RIGGED; since many who would have voted one way were being banned ahead of time, leaving mostly the crooked mod-troll gang members to outnumber other voters.

My experiment trapped mod-troll gang into making desperate false accusations of ME voting as sockpuppets!

BUT I pointed out that newly registered usernames CANNOT VOTE, the system doesn't allow it! Liars.

Lying sods even tried to characterize my TOTAL THREE or so Forum FYI posts (and ONLY in that POLL thread) as "spamming the site"!

PROVEN lying sciforums mod-troll losers. Just like our very own Captain Stumpy!

Poor lying sods. :-(
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2. :)
"The wind industry is necessarily one of the most corrupt enterprises on earth because it depends for its entire existence on government favours, backhanders, dishonest environmental impact assessments and on regulators turning a blind eye to the known health problems caused by wind turbine noise. Without crony capitalism, the wind industry simply would not exist."
http://www.breitb...rruption
And of course, nuclear plants and fossil fueled plants, and their mining sites for uranium/coal fuels, were no problem at all, and 'squeaky clean', hey? Why fixate on wind farm? No choices perfect, but unliike fossil/nuclear, wind energy at least has global/greater positive offsets to any local/limited damage they may involve?

As for 'kickbacks, crony capitalism etc', just look at history of nuclear/fossil plants/mines 'approvals/subsidies'. Can you say "Fracking"!

Balance.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
@ Really-Skippy. Cher you should try to relax more and not take everything so seriously, especially your self.You will live longer and better if you could learn to smile and laugh a little more.

Most of the time you seem like you think this is some place like the collider machine place or the satellite listening and computing place or the meeting of professional-scientist-Skippys when they have conventions. The physorg comment place is not those things. If it was they wouldn't let any couyon and crankpot with a computer make all the silly comments they do

Like I tried to explain on another other section, this is just a place where peoples come to blow off steam and relax and have fun. The real professional-scientist-Skippys don't come here to do the serious science stuffs, they mostly just come to laugh at peoples like you and me who try to talk about things we have not been to school for but they have. It's all in fun, try to relax and enjoy all the enjoyable things in the world.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Ira. :) See, that is where you make a serious miscalculation about what Internet sites like these are for. They are for everyone who is interested in science and tech news items that not only may eventually affect them personally/globally, but also may trigger insights which may not have been triggered in any other way/venue. That is the purpose of the old 'coffe shop discussion' culture which in the olden days was the usual way to do discussion in a free and open and non-directed and 'brainstorming' fashion. You would be surprised how many professional scientists have got their own 'a-haa!' moment while reading/participating in such discussion venues as these in the past.

Your incorrect assumptions above, that limit what and who may or may not participate/benefit from these discussions here, speaks only for yourself, not for all those casual readers, professionals and amateurs and just interested laypersons who may visit and take note of what interesting 'takes' may arise. G'luck.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
PS: Ira, maybe you should give that advice of 'relax and have a sense of humor' etc to your friend CapS, hey? His hysteria, lies and just plain malice aforethought as 'investigator' is a telltale sign that he is not well or balanced, let alone have a sense of humor. Good luck with telling him that little truth about himself. Duck! :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
Maybe you would feel not so frustrated and overwound at a regular forum where they have rules for peoples to go by. This place is open to any couyon with a computer to say any crankpot thing they feel like saying. Since it's open to everybody you have to expect for everybody to act like they do. At least here you don't have to worry about a troll/mod/gang/mafia/bully trying to shut you down. That's why this place is BIG FUN, they let anybody and everybody in.

PS: Ira, maybe you should give that advice of 'relax and have a sense of humor' etc to your friend CapS, hey? His hysteria, lies and just plain malice aforethought as 'investigator' is a telltale sign that he is not well or balanced, let alone have a sense of humor. Good luck with telling him that little truth about himself. Duck! :)


He always seems relaxed with me. The talking around in circles that the crankpots do gets him teechy sometimes, but that is because they try to bamboozle him with the double talking.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Maybe you would feel not so frustrated and overwound at a regular forum where they have rules for peoples to go by. This place is open to any couyon with a computer to say any crankpot thing they feel like saying. Since it's open to everybody you have to expect for everybody to act like they do. At least here you don't have to worry about a troll/mod/gang/mafia/bully trying to shut you down. That's why this place is BIG FUN, they let anybody and everybody in.

He [Captain Stumpy] always seems relaxed with me. The talking around in circles that the crankpots do gets him teechy sometimes, but that is because they try to bamboozle him with the double talking.
Yeah, they let you and Captain Stumpy do your "Schtick". Funny, entertaining, sure; but hardly what science discourse should be. Yes, poor Captain S's hysteria and lying 'episodes', while self-deluding that he is fit to be professing himself either scientist or investigator, is all too un-funny and sad to see. :(
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
Yeah, they let you and Captain Stumpy do your "Schtick". Funny, entertaining, sure; but hardly what science discourse should be.


Hey, I'm pretty tame Cher. I mean you have to admit, I don't use the bad words on people like some do. I am always in the good mood and jolly. For that totally 100% serious science discourse gar-ron-teed you got to go some place else. Take a look around? What you think you going to get from the couyons who hang out here? Cher, you got to take them as they come because there ain't no bruiser at the door to pick and choose who comes in. That's life, do the best you can do with it.

Yes, poor Captain S's hysteria and lying 'episodes', while self-deluding that he is fit to be professing himself either scientist or investigator, is all too un-funny and sad to see. :(


I have not seen the lie he has posted. Most times he postums links to back up what he says. And he always gives one if you ask. Down here, a man can't do better than that.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
Yes, poor Captain S's hysteria and lying 'episodes', while self-deluding that he is fit to be professing himself either scientist or investigator, is all too un-funny and sad to see. :(
I have not seen the lie he has posted. Most times he postums links to back up what he says.
Ira, you obviously haven't been paying attention. Or there is a slight possibility that your reading bias lets you gloss over what your friend lies about while pretending to be 'an investigator'...despite the obvious lack of dispassionate detachment and rigorous attention to ALL the facts rather than those half-truth distortions he pretends to offer as 'investigative results'.

It may be 'fun' for you/others to watch poor CapS in his self-delusions and hysterical episodes, but it's no fun for any serious minded person not into trolling and baiting on sites like these for their own 'entertainment' instead of science discourse which is what readers want, despite what some mod-trolls want.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
As for 'kickbacks, crony capitalism etc', just look at history of nuclear/fossil plants/mines 'approvals/subsidies'. Can you say "Fracking"!

Balance.


What balance?

For the watermelons, ends justify the means.

Get off your high horse about 'self-sacrifice' if you support corruption and deception.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
Ira, you obviously haven't been paying attention..


I pay better attention than most Skippys around here like.

but it's no fun for any serious minded person not into trolling and baiting on sites like these for their own 'entertainment' instead of science discourse which is what readers want,


If he bugs you so much Cher, why not just Skippy-skip over his postums? It's not like they are coming through you computer in stereo with the 3kW subwoofer shaking things around. That's what I do, hop over most of the couyons.

Cher, I mean this well intended me, you can't run the show unless you control the door, peoples are what they are.

The physorg has the open door policy it seems. You are the one always complaining about the troll/mod/bot/gang/mafia, they don't have that here, I don't think they do. So that means it is your job to just ignore the peoples who bug you and carry on with those that don't.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi ryggesogn2
As for 'kickbacks, crony capitalism etc', just look at history of nuclear/fossil plants/mines 'approvals/subsidies'. Can you say "Fracking"!

Balance.


What balance?

For the watermelons, ends justify the means.

Get off your high horse about 'self-sacrifice' if you support corruption and deception.

Who supports such?... not me, mate! The point was that it happens in all sorts of industries, not just wind energy industry. Did you get that point?

Then I already pointed out that cowboys, crooks and incompetent/political decisions/implementations have always been the bugbear of any big/speculative projects.

These things must be minimized, no matter what industry....by proper and assiduous political/social reforms and legal redress where egregious corruption occurs, again, irrespective of who or what.

That is being reasonable and balanced in tackling ALL corruption, not just that corruption which you don't like while ignoring other corruption. Ok? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
I pay better attention than most Skippys around here like.
That self-assessment not supported by the FULL record so far, mate. :)

If he bugs you so much Cher, why not just Skippy-skip over his postums?
It's the principle of the thing. Nothing personal at all. Should Caps or anyone else get away with impunity making his half-truth and distorted versions of anyone or anything, just because he is trolling the internet? No. Hence the duty of everyone to counter such. Else what price Science, Humanity and Legal Rights ethics?

... complaining about the troll/mod/bot/gang/mafia, they don't have that here,...
They used to be very active and blatant. Not anymore, since I took them on and proved/exposed them and their colluding-gang-based tactics/sabotage etc, via Internet Experiments.

If they are no longer as bad as they were, you may thank me now; for taking the 'flak', trouble and time to do my duty as Global/Internet citizen/scientist, for the greater good. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
It's the principle of the thing. Hence the duty of everyone to counter such. Else what price Science, Humanity and Legal Rights ethics?


What if the tables get turned on you and everybody does their duty to point out your shortcomings you have too? Then they are troll/bot/mod/mafia/gangs, right?

They used to be very active and blatant. Not anymore, since I took them on and proved/exposed them and their colluding-gang-based tactics/sabotage etc, via Internet Experiments.


Judging by Captain-Skippy's link, the experiment was a failure. You even did him over six times and couldn't get him to work. They look as active as they ever was.

If they are no longer as bad as they were, you may thank me now; for taking the 'flak', trouble and time to do my duty as Global/Internet citizen/scientist, for the greater good


Okayeei, thanks now. Even thought it didn't work. You are here, and they are still there, and so is the Captain-Skippy, here and there I mean.

RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
What if the tables get turned on you and everybody does their duty to point out your shortcomings you have too? Then they are troll/bot/mod/mafia/gangs, right?
No. I've essentially withdrawn from detailed science discussions across the net, so any 'complaints' would be from trolls trying to continue their 'fun' at expense of proper discourse between others here.

Judging by Captain-Skippy's link, the experiment was a failure.
A link without FULL context/explanation is worthless. Caps is a master at such half-truth and clueless linking by now. Be careful.

Again, I had basically withdrawn anyway, so my challenges/experiments were solely aimed at further proving/exposing mod-troll antics, not to 'save myself from bans'. Successful experiments in every way, despite mod-troll lies/attempts to prevent victims voices being heard!

You are here, and they are still there, and so is the Captain-Skippy, here and there I mean.
That should tell you something. Yes? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
You are here, and they are still there, and so is the Captain-Skippy, here and there I mean.
That should tell you something. Yes? :)


Well, it sort of tells me that your experimenting didn't do much good. Because nothing seems to have changed I mean. You DID say you caused them to get better some, but it looks like them doing better is them doing what they always did.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 20, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
You are here, and they are still there, and so is the Captain-Skippy, here and there I mean.
That should tell you something. Yes? :)


Well, it sort of tells me that your experimenting didn't do much good. Because nothing seems to have changed I mean. You DID say you caused them to get better some, but it looks like them doing better is them doing what they always did.
You forget to consider the effect on the wider internet reading audience who have now become keenly aware of their proven/exposed mod-troll anti-science-ethics ego-tripping and abuses of power, Ira.

Not only has ability of said mod-troll gangs to abuse power been significantly impacted, they now 'on the way out', as more and more internet readers become aware of what they have been doing for so long, so blatantly.

Until now. Now they forced to make silly excuses/rationalizations at every turn, when once they were blatantly unaccountable! The mod-troll gang MO is increasingly kaput!
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 20, 2014
Okayeei, if you say so Cher, if so you say.

I am not the scientist-Skippy. I don't even play like I might be one when I come here no. But I just can't figure that experimenting stuff you did or how it worked. What did the experimenting do? Were all six of them the same as the other five of them? Or were they different experiments to find out different stuffs?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2014
Hi Ira. :) They were all part of that one experiment for the purpose of exposing the RIGGED POLL tactic being used by the mod-troll gang to 'justify' their banning of some other member.

The reason for the InternetExperiment#1---#5 was because the crooked mods tried to prevent the posted FYI information for the forum to consider from being seen, so they banned immediately each try at posting under the InternetExperiment username attempts. Some got through, some didn't, some didn't even get 'activated' due to glitch in the Sciforums system (apparently some hackers were messing up their system while I was trying to get through). I wasn't the only person affected, the other members also noted many failed attempts to log on etc.

But I got some info through, enough for the job!

Successful exposure/proof of mod-troll gang 'rigging' and 'lying' and 'abusing power' etc, as usual....only now it is getting more and more difficult for them to pretend they are not mod-troll gang.

Gotta go. Bye.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (3) Sep 21, 2014
But I got some info through, enough for the job!

Successful exposure/proof of mod-troll gang 'rigging' and 'lying' and 'abusing power' etc, as usual....only now it is getting more and more difficult for them to pretend they are not mod-troll gang.

Gotta go. Bye.


If so you say Cher. But to all objective diligence doing observationists (ol Ira is picking up the scientist-Skippy lingo, hey?) it looks like the only thing your experiment did was show that the different moderators were on to you and kept the door shut on you. That's all I can find from the experiments. But hey everybody needs the hobby to play with, eh? If it is the fun for you, glad to hear it made you happy.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 21, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
But I got some info through, enough for the job! Successful exposure/proof of mod-troll gang 'rigging' and 'lying' and 'abusing power' etc, as usual....only now it is getting very difficult for them to pretend they are not mod-troll gang
If so you say Cher. But to all objective diligence doing observationists (ol Ira is picking up the scientist-Skippy lingo, hey?) it looks like the only thing your experiment did was show that the different moderators were on to you and kept the door shut on you
Your 'due diligence' missed that those anti-science mod-troll gangs have been sabotaging for over a decade. If you don't know the full story, you can't get a sense of the 'before and after' situation. They are not as untouchable/unaccountable now as before, so my proof/exposure experiments succeeded!

I'd already made clear I was withdrawing from detailed science discussions on the net anyway, so banning by those mod-trolls is silly on their part!

Gotta go. Bye for now.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2014
I'd already made clear I was withdrawing from detailed science discussions on the net anyway, so banning by those mod-trolls is silly on their part!.


If so you say that. It would have been even sillier if they banned you because you stayed away.

It looks to somebody who does not know like they banned you for breaking your promise about withdrawing. Thanks for clearing that up for me so I know that is not why they did that to you.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
I'd already made clear I was withdrawing from detailed science discussions on the net anyway, so banning by those mod-trolls is silly on their part!.


...It would have been even sillier if they banned you because you stayed away.

...Thanks for clearing that up for me so I know that is not why they did that to you.

"Appearances" are what trolls and lazy commentators fall back on whene ignorant of all the facts but still insist on making opinions and claims which they have no proper basis for making. That seems to be the *method* that *some* 'modern' scientists use, rather than scrupulously keeping to the scientific method and all that entails: fairminded and proper attention to what others have placed in evidence before you, instead of kneejerking from ignorance or from personal troll/fun agendas of one's own. This is science news/discussion site. As supposedly was sciforums. The mod-troll gang there think otherwise, and sabotage open discussion. Not good.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2014
@ Really-Skippy that does not make any sense for me no.

How you going to put up any evidence for anything or exposing anything if they slam the door in your face before you can write one word? Six times they did.

Now, I've always told you truth, I'm not the science-smart-Skippy like a lot of the peoples here. But to my simple mind all your experiment shows is they was on their toes and caught you at the door.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy that does not make any sense for me no.

How you going to put up any evidence for anything or exposing anything if they slam the door in your face before you can write one word? Six times they did.

Now, I've always told you truth, I'm not the science-smart-Skippy like a lot of the peoples here. But to my simple mind all your experiment shows is they was on their toes and caught you at the door.

Been there, done that, Ira. That's WHY the mod-troll twerps banned me. How difficult is that to comprehend from the whole history of our exchanges? Really Ira, if you really want to learn objectively, speak and comprehend "like them real scientist-Skippies do". You must drop your Uncle-Ira act and really do the hard yards listening, instead of putting Uncle Ira 'spin' on everything you read/hear. Your "fun" is no substitute for "lernin". Choose one or t'other, "Uncle Ira". Good luck with this & your other future internet choices! Bye for now, Ira. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2014
@ Really-Skippy I'm happy enough with the way I am. I got the better family than I probably deserve. I got the good honest job that won't make me rich from but makes me feel good to do it real good. My home ain't so big and grand but it is mine own and mostly paid for. So if it is all the same to you I will stay with being the Ira-Skippy. I am not ashamed to be me no.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
@ Really-Skippy I'm happy enough with the way I am. I got the better family than I probably deserve. I got the good honest job that won't make me rich from but makes me feel good to do it real good. My home ain't so big and grand but it is mine own and mostly paid for. So if it is all the same to you I will stay with being the Ira-Skippy. I am not ashamed to be me no.

You misunderstand. I meant drop your 'internet act', not your situation in personal life. Your 'act' is trapping your into a 'character role' which is not conducive to progress in either scientific objectivity or personal development from troll/fun agenda to wider/evolving science/knowledge agenda. Each of us every one has to choose between personal agendas and science discourse/advancement on its own terms, not our personal circumstances and personal 'likes/dislikes'. Choose, just like the rest of us have to do, Ira. Good luck with your choice. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2014
I don't have any idea of what all that was about. Choose what me? I told you that if it's all the same to you I like being Ira-Skippy. I am not ashamed or embarrassed for being what I am. That's what I choose Cher. I'm happier being me than I would be being you, what's wrong with that?
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :)
I don't have any idea of what all that was about. Choose what me? I told you that if it's all the same to you I like being Ira-Skippy. I am not ashamed or embarrassed for being what I am. That's what I choose Cher. I'm happier being me than I would be being you, what's wrong with that?
You missed my point again, Never mind. Be what you want to be; but know too that if you want to learn and be 'more sciency' as you have profess to want to be, then you must choose between your present 'internet act' character and your professed desire to learn and be more scientific. Your personal life/agendas may be as you want them to be, but your future learning/science agenda seems at odds with what you can achieve while continuing your Uncle Ira 'act'. You are Uncle ira in 'real life'? No sweat. However, what your 'act' is 'on the net'?....well that doesn't bode well for achieving your stated goal of learning and being more scientific doing so. Cheers anyway, Ira. Bye. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (2) Sep 22, 2014
I learn what is fun to learn Cher. I don't need to know everything. I don't even want to try to make peoples thing I know more than what I know. I learn plenty of things here, and get ideas here about other places to learn more things. It's not a job, it's just the hobby. I don't want to be like you, I want to be like me. If you don't like me, then just Skippy-skip over my postums and keep going, I won't be more happy or not more happy whatever you decide to do.

There may be things you can teach me about, but what to do with my life ain't never going to be one of them. You are not smart enough to tell me a better way to be me, I am already happy, you are the one who seems like he is at the war with the world all the time with everybody.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2014
Hi Ira. :) You misunderstand me. I have no personal likes/dislikes about people or ideas. I thought you understood that by now, now that you know me and what I have been stating was my agenda of free and open and unbiased science and humanity discourse. I have no personal animosity or grudges. Life's too short, and anyhow I have never been the type to harbor personal rancor. Any speaking up against mod-troll gang behavior is a duty of all true and just scientists/humanists. Nothing personal. Just a duty objectively discharged from my end for the greater good. No more, no less than that.

As for your impression that I "want to tell" you how to live your life etc, you misunderstood me there as well. I was observing, for your benefit more than anything, that your professed desire to learn and be more scientific can be better/faster achieved if you drop your 'character role', and just interact without 'personal agendas' which prevent you from learning and having fun even MORE. Peace. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 24, 2014
had to post this
If so you say Cher. But to all objective diligence doing observationists (ol Ira is picking up the scientist-Skippy lingo, hey?) it looks like the only thing your experiment did was show that the different moderators were on to you and kept the door shut on you
@Uncle Ira
Absolutely CORRECT
they were doing EXACTLY what the people expect from them: THEIR JOBS
keep the trolls/flamers/baiting idiots/non-science morons out of the site
make sure they don't come back

please also note that even the SCIENCE guys get DINGED for flaming or posting NON science off topic stuff -even I have been dinged

also note that the people talking SCIENCE with links/proof also are still there! that is WHY he was banned... whiny flame wars and baiting with off topic stuff like mod/troll/gang crap

Last 40 posts he has given only ONE with ANY science in it... see his posts yourself!

YOu have SHARP eyes, Ira
Good MAN

Use THIS against him too!
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2014
Hi sweetums ;)
Your 'recollection' seems as 'conveniently selective' as your 'research/arguments' in this area. :)

Your original thrust was that wind power was being abandoned because it was uneconomical, and you linked to 'abandoned windfarms' to support that thrust
Why do you lie? Do you think that because you are out of smacking range that you can get away with it?

I originally posted info on premature failure:
That reduction in performance leads the study team to believe that it will be uneconomic to operate windfarms for more than 12 to 15 years — at odds with industry predictions of a 20- to 25-year lifespan.
-And you countered with
Don't forget that all new systems have lead-in and evolution stages
-which just isnt true. And you gave no evidence that it IS true for wind farms, or that if it were it wouldnt cost more money.

Stop the lies. Back what you say or STFU.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (4) Sep 25, 2014
Hi Ghost. :)
I originally posted info on premature failure:
That reduction in performance leads the study team to believe that it will be uneconomic to operate windfarms for more than 12 to 15 years — at odds with industry predictions of a 20- to 25-year lifespan.
-And you countered with
Don't forget that all new systems have lead-in and evolution stages
-which just isnt true.
What's not true? That all developing industries/tech have"lead-in and evolution stages"? Can you support your claim that that isn't true? And did you catch where I also pointed out that specific installations/projects have specific problems which may cause that premature failure, in some cases having nothing to do with the turbines themselves? :)
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2014
Hi CapS. :)
@Uncle Ira Absolutely CORRECT they were doing EXACTLY what the people expect from them: THEIR JOBS keep the trolls/flamers/baiting idiots/non-science morons out of the site make sure they don't come back please also note that even the SCIENCE guys get DINGED for flaming or posting NON science off topic stuff -even I have been dinged also note that the people talking SCIENCE with links/proof also are still there! that is WHY he was banned... whiny flame wars and baiting with off topic stuff like mod/troll/gang crap Last 40 posts he has given only ONE with ANY science in it... see his posts yourself!
The fact that I had notified everyone more than once before (including you), that I had essentially withdrawn from further detailed discussion of science matters, doesn't tell you WHY my posts of late there were to challenge and expose the mod-troll abuses which were AGAIN proven via experiment? And the fact that Ira was speaking of my latest round of experiments using the "InternetExperiment" names necessary to get my posts through the DISHONEST mod-trolls trying to CENSOR the facts from being presented in that POLL thread?

And the fact that these same mod-trolls were responsible for my ban by their abuse of rules and process, doesn't even appear on your list of likely reasons why I got banned, and that 'the job' of those crooked mods was to ban those who challenged their abuses?

Wow, you fail to report the OBVIOUS, while presenting your Caps Hysterical Lying Versions, and you have the silly self-delusional temerity to call yourself "an investigator"? Wow...just...wow! :)

YOu have SHARP eyes, Ira Good MAN
A sharp MIND and HONEST character would be better. Try it yourself sometime, CapS. :)

Use THIS against him too! http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
So you still 'organizing' your 'gang tactics', CapS 'ringleader'?

Oh, and that link was about medical cons, not physics cons....you know, like that BICEP2 physic con which you and your troll gangs were swallowing hook-line-and-sinker until I pointed out that it was flawed so much that it even 'bent the needle' on the BS-o-meter!

But since you are no srt of calm and unbiased "observer", you wouldn't have 'tasted the difference' between that BICEP2 proven BS and your own gangs' proven BS.

Another suggestion for you and you colluding troll gangmembers: Take a break. Get some honest character and some impartial mind before carrying on like that and so further demonstrating your woeful personal hysterical agenda having nothing at all to do with objective science, only your egos. Good luck, Caps. :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 25, 2014
at insipid retard non-reality check aka undefined
I thought I told you that I was retiring from discourse with you regarding serious scientific issues... you should read more and try to comprehend what I am saying, as you can see, from above, that I only deal with FACTS, like the FACT that you are perma-banned from sciforums from being a troll/flamer/baiter/idiot non-science posting spammer
the forum here notes that you are already the insipid pathetic troll that others (including myself) have claimed you to be, so you can't argue that point.

Thanks for playing , insipid :-)
I will be retiring while working on my all new ToE so that I am not hacked and plagiarized by crackpots like you who don't know any physics and talk whiny stuff on pop-sci sites.

https://www.googl...1632a850

good luck insipid! try harder! do better.
RealityCheck
1 / 5 (3) Sep 25, 2014
You're losing it, CapS. Step back from that gun, mate; it's not worth it.

And what's with that google maps link, CapS?

You stalking someone?

Can't be me, cos I don't live anywhere near there (as your friend Dr_Toad will tell you).

What's your story, anyway, CapS? Are you alright out there in the wilderness? Hearing voices? Shooting at shadows of your own creation?

Take it easy and chill, mate. Leave the guns and the wilderness and get some good old normal company for a change. Go on, it may save you and your nearest and dearest from the looming tragedy which the rising self-delusion and hysteria in your posts indicates cannot be too far away if you keep doing what you are doing. And mate, the guns are not the answer. I don't want to read about you and your family in the news about the latest family tragedy involving guns and unstable character. Get some help and drop those guns from your 'solutions kit', ok? They only create more tragedies. Get some proper help, CapS. Really. :)