On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:32:04 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 12:37:33 AM UTC, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:24:15 PM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 11:16:08 PM UTC, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 5:52:38 PM UTC-5, Andre Jute wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 10:19:29 PM UTC, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:31:22 PM UTC-5, pH wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2022-11-21, Andre Jute <fiul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I've been saying this since I was a precocious teenager with a a column in the largest newspaper in the country, over 60 years ago. It's more than a decade since, since right here on RBT, I explained why environmentalism is the religion of genocidal maniacs whose brains, if they ever had any, have been eaten by moral syphilis. Paul Driessen does an excellent jon of listing so many cockamamie policies pushed by these mindless clowns that it reads like parody, something found on a library shelf next to Dean Swift's Gulliver's Travels.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > COP-27 Financiers and Merchants Of Death
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2022/11/21/cop-27-financiers-and-merchants-of-death-n2616185
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Enjoy!*
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andre Jute
> > > > > > > > *For the mental and morally stunted, that's sarcasm.
> > > > > > > Tried to open this and got a "link not found" message. Ah well.
> > > > > > > Thanks for the attempt to share info.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pureheart in Aptos, CA
> > > > > > All you missed was more right-wing disinformation. IOW, nothing new.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Really? Provide evidence to counter a single point Mr Driessen made.
> > > >
> > > > You see, stupid- if the policies of the renewable energy hadn't been delayed by dullard Luddites like you, those mines would ave been closed down already, and these towns would be saved.
> > > >
> > > Nah, all I see among your slow-juvie debating tricks and ad hominem is "if..maybe...otherwise..." conditionals, all based on the proven-false assumption that sustainable energy works. What makes you look especially stupid is that you're assuming that the sustainable energy fallacy is valid within an example where the German government, and other governments who once believed in that foolish dream, have already admitted they fucked up -- and started digging for coal again, and putting up nuclear power stations.
> > > >
> > > Unsigned because I don't like stupid jerk-offs, and Flunky is an especially stupid jerk-off.
> > > >
> > > PS And didn't you tell us you were some kind of tester (at 60! Jesus -- what sort of a management didn't fire you at 35 for failing to advance?) of electrical equipment? If that is right, you're also open to a charge of hypocrisy because any house-wiring electrician can tell you why sustainable power is technically a wet dream for stupid, obsessed people, so you can't even claim ignorance as an excuse unless at the same time you confess to incompetence.
> > > >
> > Green Energy outside of dams breeding hydraulic energy do not exist. This is nothing more than Flunky showing his ignorance again. The return energy from both the wind and solar farms almost never return their energy expended to build and install them. THERE ARE specific cases where they make sense but they are rare and only over very small areas. The pass from LA/Riverside to Pheonix has a fairly constant wind of the correct speed that allows a small profit to be made.
> >
> > Ignorant fools like Krygowski who pretends to have been a mechanical engineer but plainly couldn't design a car jack and Flunky can't even imagine the strain on the pilar of a 270 foot windmill in a 25 knot wind? These things can't even be stopped and they turn them off of the wind. So WHAT in the hell is the load on the pilar in a 45 or 50 knot wind that occurs several times a year in the Altamont Pass which is the California showcase of "green energy". I'd like to take you for a bike ride through this so-called Wind Farm and show you that more than HALF of these windmills are blocked from the wind by the surrounding hills.
> >
> > Solar cells are so inefficient that it is close to impossible to believe that there is EVER any manner in which they could EVER pay their own manufacturing costs. They are paying your electric bills to put solar cells on your roof - gee, they are really a good deal right? The Government actually pays for 90% of their cost and then pays PG&E if you are using solar cells and tell you that these things are paying your bills. Under NO atmosphere in direct sunlight they claim that the VERY best silicon cells make 47% efficiency. Most are chemical cells of less than 20% conversion efficiency.
> >
> > And remember, this is at 90 degrees sun to cell. This occurs only between about 1 hour before and 1 hour after high local noon. This doesn't even count the latitude changes of the seasonal sun.
> >
> > Freaks and fools that love to say they have answers when they don't are so common that they ought to be exposed.
> >
> > And now the leftists are so freaked out by the failure of wind and solar that they will lie about it. "Renewable Energy PG&E delivers some of the nation’s cleanest energy. Today, 33 percent of our delivered electricity comes from renewable sources, including solar, wind, geothermal, small hydroelectric and various forms of bioenergy."
> >
> > See - they include "small hydro-electric" without defining what that means. Geothermal is EXTREMELY rare but California has a couple of sites. Can you make energy that way? Sure, BUT IT IS ALSO MAKING CO2 since it is volcanic in origin. So how can you call that "renewable green energy"? Without a wind blowing the levels of CO2. Perhaps Flunky has a great explanation of what "bioenergy" is. The fact is that the TOTAL energy supplied by solar and wind in California is 2%. So why the lies?
> >
> I'd like to go for that ride through the valleys full of useless wind "electricity non-generators" <TM> with you, Tom. But I fear I'll hold you up with frequent stops for photographs for evidence.
> >
> Here these ugly towers, which indiscriminately kill birds, some of them like the redlegs chuffs already endangered, are a boondoggle for farmers, who put them on non-arable land without consideration of optimal siting for catching the wind. They are -- at least in West Cork where there is strong resistance to spoiling our beautiful (if expensive) scenery -- they're more for show of willingness by the government -- with EU money, of course -- than for generating electricity.
> >
> You may be interests in a discussion in Schiphol airport, in The Netherlands, between a large-scale electro-hydraulics engineer and me, where we both stood looking intensely at the fly engraved in the bowl of the urinal.
> Me: If you lay a hand on me, I'll maim you for life.
> Him: I'm not queer. I design electricity generating stations in bays with significant tidal rise and fall.
> Me: Aha! I'm currently into the aerodynamics of a large nostalgia-style car I'm designing for Panther.
> Him: See, if you direct the steam of urine directly on the fly, the bowl is shaped to direct the urine around under the lip.
> Me: No splashes on the floor? In a place like this, thousands of people passing through every day, that must be real money saved in cleaning over a year.
> Him: Definitely worth something. Brilliant design. Where are you going?
> Me: Australia.
> Him: Me too. Shall we sit together on the plane?
> Me: I'd like that.
> Later, on the plane, he told me: The problem with electricity from the tides is that the number of bays in which the geography and geology are suitable for a cost-effective scheme are fewer than you would imagine. But one day electricity from anything but nuclear and natural gas will be so expensive...
> That must be fifty years ago, and though electricity is probably now, temporarily, more expensive relative to c1970, it doesn't seem to me that we're anywhere near a time when bays that were then marginal for building such expensive plants (especially the ones with long feeder lines to the nearest city) will become viable.
> >
> Andre Jute
> The answer always was, and always will be, nuclear energy.
> >
The forces on these windmills is staggering for those that operate. So all of them have to be anchored either with HUGE surface areas of concrete or a buried anchor going down a hundred or so feel. The huge blocks of concrete bleed off immense amounts of CO2 - the very thing they are supposed to prevent.

This certainly doesn't bother me since I've shown the spectroscopy to everyone showing that CO2 has so small an effect on atmospheric heating that it is FAR more than offset by the huge increase in the greening of the planet caused by the additional CO2. Too bad that Flunky was born without a brain.