No, you can't check the forecast and know that the wind will be blowing on your turbine at 15km/h for 7 hours. Even when the wind is blowing, it isn't necessarily blowing on the turbine. When the sun shines, it shines down everywhere, at a predictable rate. When the wind blows, it can be along the ground, it can be higher altitude, it can be in gusts and spurts, it can be diverted by terrain, it can be influenced by changing surface temperatures. I can take a drive along highway 401 on my way to Windsor and see 5 windmills standing perfectly still while others right beside them are spinning slowly, and a few are spinning fast. There's no predictability with wind power. It's simply an issue of building as many windmills as you can and hoping you're catching enough wind each day to generate something. And once in a while (or more often than once in a while in Ontario's case) you generate too much at the wrong time, and you're PAYING other jurisdictions to take it or risk blowing the power grid. Just google "wind power unreliable" to find article after article about it.
Wind is extremely unreliable. Look at Britain when they had a two week spell with zero wind generation because of a country-wide lull in wind. At least solar you can bank on being there in advance. Check the weather forecast for the next few days, and you know roughly how much you can expect to be produced. And if it's in a region such as a desert where cloudy days are a rare occurrence, you can guarantee daily production for 350+ days of the year.
So when Canada's privy council consults with left wing leaders who tell them that the plan is to do away with fossil fuels and replace them with renewables, they naturally come to the conclusion that fossil fuels are going to disappear. What they DIDN'T do, however, was study the feasibility of replacing all of Canada's fossil fuel usage with renewables. It just won't work. Canada needs far more energy in the winter time than in the summer time, and the winter is when renewables are at their weakest. The days are short, the sun is weak, the rivers freeze, and the windmills ice up regularly. The only way Canada can replace all their fossil fuels is to go heavy with nuclear. But nuclear isn't renewable, and the environmentalists are pretty negative on nuclear energy so that likely isn't going to happen any time soon.
Horseshit. Slavery has been around since before the creation of writing. How are you going to assert that it enabled civilization to progress more than without it? There are plenty of places in the world today that still practice slavery, and none of them are advancing faster than the non-slavery countries of the world. Your comment should be modded down to Troll status, it's definitely not insightful.
How does the internet help the millions of poor people of SouthEast Asia who are slaves in sweat shops? They work 12+ hour days under strict supervision before they're shuffled back to their rooms where they're locked in. You think the internet is going to help them?
Shawn, get your head out of your ass. Most of these poor people we're talking about have no electricity. No electricity means no electronic devices capable of delivering the internet. Even if you could deliver internet to them despite this HUGE barrier, what exactly do you think they'll be able to do with any info gained? Are they suddenly going to be able to replace their wooden plow sticks with a metal forged plow? Build a tractor by weaving grass? Formulate some home grown fertilizer to increase crop yields? Do you think these people are hauling wagons full of produce down to a local market where they're getting ripped off by middlemen because they don't know what their stuff is worth and that's why they're poor? That's not what's happening. If they're lucky enough to grow more food than their family can actually consume, they probably trade the surplus with their neighbor for some goat cheese, a tool, or something else very basic. Maybe you should get a little bit educated on how the truly poor of the world are currently living before you chime in.
It was the war on dietary fat by the so-called expert dieticians and nutritionists. John Yudkin got it right in 1972, pinning the problem on sugar in our diet, but the establishment scientists believed it was dietary fat, and they fought to suppress and ridicule Yudkin while pushing their own theory. So food producers worked to cut fat from their offerings instead of sugars, and the obesity epidemic was born.
He has lots of money invested in wind and solar, and spends most of his time trolling the internet posting links to dubious websites with unsubstantiated claims about the marvels of renewables.
You can't use nuclear as a backup to wind and solar. Backup generation needs to be able to come online fast, which is why they use oil or gas for that purpose. Nuclear should be used for baseline generation. Turn it on and leave it on.
Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable. Stop spreading your propaganda. Cost of electricity in Ontario has quadrupled in the past decade due to expensive wind power deployments. We often have to import power at higher costs because the wind generation is unreliable. We also have to pay other jurisdictions to take our excess when the wind is blowing too hard and the demand isn't there. It's real world living proof that wind power as a form of reliable electricity is a complete farce. There's a reason windmills were abandoned centuries ago once more reliable power sources were available.
"Bad reasoning. First you're assuming that more heat build-up in the atmosphere will necessarily result in more water evaporation, or IOW an increase in the water cycle rate, which you could prove, but you haven't."
Just need to comment and tell you you're wrong. The entire AGW theory as presented by the IPCC is that increased temperatures from CO2 causes increased evaporation, which in turn causes even more heat to be trapped. CO2 on it's own isn't capable of producing the predicted temperature increases the IPCC has repeatedly warned will occur. It NEEDS more water evaporation, otherwise we're only looking at an increase of less than 2 degrees from a doubling of CO2. In order to double CO2 in the atmosphere, we need to completely burn all known oil reserves.
Maybe you don't understand how bankruptcies work. Trump didn't declare bankruptcy personally. Every project/endeavor/venture he runs is it's own company. So of the many successful projects he's launched, 4 have failed. Incidentally, all 4 of those were from his Trump Entertainment Resorts. Following the second bankruptcy, he reduced his share of the company from 56% to 27%, meaning he was no longer a controlling interest in the company. So, in summary, Trump has had a single project fail multiple times, and several of those failures occurred when he wasn't even the controlling owner.
As for what Trump owns, you clearly need to do your research. His real estate holdings alone are worth $3.5Billion.
All of the air pollution, water pollution, fracking, deforestation, and general environmental impact we've had on the world has been the result of processes that ultimately lead to a dramatically improved quality of life for us. Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.
Really? Got any citations to back that claim up? The NOAA doesn't agree with your assessment....
https://weather.com/news/clima...
I would also like to point out that the 1998 El Nino peaked in summer, so comparing the two isn't very relevant.
What a pile of BS that article you linked to is. Saddam Hussein indicated in 1975 that the purchase of the reactor from France was "the first Arab attempt at nuclear arming" source
Make sure you read the full article. It's quite enlightening, especially the part about how Saddam determined Iraq needed an insider at the IAEA in order to find out how it operated, what it knew, and how best to keep their program hidden from them.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you can't check the forecast and know that the wind will be blowing on your turbine at 15km/h for 7 hours. Even when the wind is blowing, it isn't necessarily blowing on the turbine. When the sun shines, it shines down everywhere, at a predictable rate. When the wind blows, it can be along the ground, it can be higher altitude, it can be in gusts and spurts, it can be diverted by terrain, it can be influenced by changing surface temperatures. I can take a drive along highway 401 on my way to Windsor and see 5 windmills standing perfectly still while others right beside them are spinning slowly, and a few are spinning fast. There's no predictability with wind power. It's simply an issue of building as many windmills as you can and hoping you're catching enough wind each day to generate something. And once in a while (or more often than once in a while in Ontario's case) you generate too much at the wrong time, and you're PAYING other jurisdictions to take it or risk blowing the power grid. Just google "wind power unreliable" to find article after article about it.
Wind is extremely unreliable. Look at Britain when they had a two week spell with zero wind generation because of a country-wide lull in wind. At least solar you can bank on being there in advance. Check the weather forecast for the next few days, and you know roughly how much you can expect to be produced. And if it's in a region such as a desert where cloudy days are a rare occurrence, you can guarantee daily production for 350+ days of the year.
Use some of that surplus copper to build new transmission lines
So when Canada's privy council consults with left wing leaders who tell them that the plan is to do away with fossil fuels and replace them with renewables, they naturally come to the conclusion that fossil fuels are going to disappear. What they DIDN'T do, however, was study the feasibility of replacing all of Canada's fossil fuel usage with renewables. It just won't work. Canada needs far more energy in the winter time than in the summer time, and the winter is when renewables are at their weakest. The days are short, the sun is weak, the rivers freeze, and the windmills ice up regularly. The only way Canada can replace all their fossil fuels is to go heavy with nuclear. But nuclear isn't renewable, and the environmentalists are pretty negative on nuclear energy so that likely isn't going to happen any time soon.
Horseshit. Slavery has been around since before the creation of writing. How are you going to assert that it enabled civilization to progress more than without it? There are plenty of places in the world today that still practice slavery, and none of them are advancing faster than the non-slavery countries of the world. Your comment should be modded down to Troll status, it's definitely not insightful.
My experience agrees with you. It's management that gets the pay, while the actual gruntwork of producing code gets squat.
How does the internet help the millions of poor people of SouthEast Asia who are slaves in sweat shops? They work 12+ hour days under strict supervision before they're shuffled back to their rooms where they're locked in. You think the internet is going to help them?
Shawn, get your head out of your ass. Most of these poor people we're talking about have no electricity. No electricity means no electronic devices capable of delivering the internet. Even if you could deliver internet to them despite this HUGE barrier, what exactly do you think they'll be able to do with any info gained? Are they suddenly going to be able to replace their wooden plow sticks with a metal forged plow? Build a tractor by weaving grass? Formulate some home grown fertilizer to increase crop yields? Do you think these people are hauling wagons full of produce down to a local market where they're getting ripped off by middlemen because they don't know what their stuff is worth and that's why they're poor? That's not what's happening. If they're lucky enough to grow more food than their family can actually consume, they probably trade the surplus with their neighbor for some goat cheese, a tool, or something else very basic. Maybe you should get a little bit educated on how the truly poor of the world are currently living before you chime in.
Because I like listening to the DJ's of my local rock station, that's why. They're interesting and funny and talk about local events and stuff.
It was the war on dietary fat by the so-called expert dieticians and nutritionists. John Yudkin got it right in 1972, pinning the problem on sugar in our diet, but the establishment scientists believed it was dietary fat, and they fought to suppress and ridicule Yudkin while pushing their own theory. So food producers worked to cut fat from their offerings instead of sugars, and the obesity epidemic was born.
He has lots of money invested in wind and solar, and spends most of his time trolling the internet posting links to dubious websites with unsubstantiated claims about the marvels of renewables.
No it's not more expensive. You're spreading misinformation.
You can't use nuclear as a backup to wind and solar. Backup generation needs to be able to come online fast, which is why they use oil or gas for that purpose. Nuclear should be used for baseline generation. Turn it on and leave it on.
Wind and solar are expensive and unreliable. Stop spreading your propaganda. Cost of electricity in Ontario has quadrupled in the past decade due to expensive wind power deployments. We often have to import power at higher costs because the wind generation is unreliable. We also have to pay other jurisdictions to take our excess when the wind is blowing too hard and the demand isn't there. It's real world living proof that wind power as a form of reliable electricity is a complete farce. There's a reason windmills were abandoned centuries ago once more reliable power sources were available.
"Bad reasoning. First you're assuming that more heat build-up in the atmosphere will necessarily result in more water evaporation, or IOW an increase in the water cycle rate, which you could prove, but you haven't." Just need to comment and tell you you're wrong. The entire AGW theory as presented by the IPCC is that increased temperatures from CO2 causes increased evaporation, which in turn causes even more heat to be trapped. CO2 on it's own isn't capable of producing the predicted temperature increases the IPCC has repeatedly warned will occur. It NEEDS more water evaporation, otherwise we're only looking at an increase of less than 2 degrees from a doubling of CO2. In order to double CO2 in the atmosphere, we need to completely burn all known oil reserves.
Maybe you don't understand how bankruptcies work. Trump didn't declare bankruptcy personally. Every project/endeavor/venture he runs is it's own company. So of the many successful projects he's launched, 4 have failed. Incidentally, all 4 of those were from his Trump Entertainment Resorts. Following the second bankruptcy, he reduced his share of the company from 56% to 27%, meaning he was no longer a controlling interest in the company. So, in summary, Trump has had a single project fail multiple times, and several of those failures occurred when he wasn't even the controlling owner.
As for what Trump owns, you clearly need to do your research. His real estate holdings alone are worth $3.5Billion.
Trump claims $10B, Forbes claims $4.5B. You claim $100M. I'm guessing Forbes is much closer than you are.
And then turn around and make all their drivers female?
So what's wrong with a sister of Scarlet Johansson?
All of the air pollution, water pollution, fracking, deforestation, and general environmental impact we've had on the world has been the result of processes that ultimately lead to a dramatically improved quality of life for us. Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad.
Where are you getting your data from? If it's not from the UAH satellite temperature record, it's not accurate.
LMAO allow me to draw your attention to a map produced by NASA:
http://scijinks.jpl.nasa.gov/r...
see the red glow over North America labelled "Warmer Winter"?
You can read the full article here: http://scijinks.jpl.nasa.gov/e...
Really? Got any citations to back that claim up? The NOAA doesn't agree with your assessment.... https://weather.com/news/clima... I would also like to point out that the 1998 El Nino peaked in summer, so comparing the two isn't very relevant.
This winter was during an El Nino. Not likely to happen next year.
What a pile of BS that article you linked to is. Saddam Hussein indicated in 1975 that the purchase of the reactor from France was "the first Arab attempt at nuclear arming" source
Make sure you read the full article. It's quite enlightening, especially the part about how Saddam determined Iraq needed an insider at the IAEA in order to find out how it operated, what it knew, and how best to keep their program hidden from them.