patrick.net

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething says

WookieMan says

I said it doesn't power 100% of the grid, but does work

That's the contradiction.

What? Wind power doesn't work??? I feel like you're losing it dude. It works as supplemental power. There's no contradiction at all. I get you're just trolling at this point or are a simple idiot. This is basic stuff.

stereotomy says

So exhaling onto a tree is good, but farting on it is bad, unless the fart is lit, which creates more CO2, which is good.

Yep, works for the lawn also. So, if the wife sees you out in the grass with Bic lighter and says, "What the hell are you doing?" just say she is ignorant and you are actually doing your part to win Lawn of the Month.

HeadSet says

stereotomy says

So exhaling onto a tree is good, but farting on it is bad, unless the fart is lit, which creates more CO2, which is good.

Yep, works for the lawn also. So, if the wife sees you out in the grass with Bic lighter and says, "What the hell are you doing?" just say she is ignorant and you are actually doing your part to win Lawn of the Month.

That works in the Northeast, but in TX there's a year-round burn ban - that probably includes farts.

WookieMan says

It works as supplemental power

Sure. You finally figured out the contradiction in what you were saying, then pretend you used the 'supplemental' qualification all along so you can try to spin the bullshit that it's my fault because I couldn't 'read' that.

Whereas in reality, you wrote what you wrote dude. Nothing less, nothing more.

The grid can't run on 'supplemental power' that is uncontrollably intermittent (planned intermittent or the occasional emergency down time is another story). Not w/o huge cost increases or decent reliability that an industrialized society needs. Or both.

So, it does not 'work' as you were saying.

stereotomy says

That works in the Northeast, but in TX there's a year-round burn ban - that probably includes farts.

With all that chili and refried beans? What a waste of a resource.

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething says

Noah was a Jew, remember?

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething says

Sure. You finally figured out the contradiction in what you were saying, then pretend you used the 'supplemental' qualification all along so you can try to spin the bullshit that it's my fault because I couldn't 'read' that.

Just because I don't live in a state with a shitty power grid does not mean I'm wrong. https://www.generatorsource.com/blog/October-2023-(1)/How-Does-Your-State-Rank-In-Power-Grid-Reliability.aspx

Wind works just fine in my state. At no point did I ever say it was 100% going to be wind based. If you live near the infrastructure and understand what you're looking at you'd know. I do. I see the windmills everyday and my neighbors are in the industry. I've been informed by people I know about our grid. We live in the middle of nowhere for IL where someone snaps a transmission pole it's out for 3 seconds.

It was one of the reasons on my checklist to not live in CA. Between fires and potential massive earthquakes along with extreme taxation and housing prices it looked like a miserable place to live besides weather. Gas prices, homelessness and traffic being other factors. I do my research. I did this for CO as well. IL as well for reasons to leave. Nothing was compelling to leave.

Wind is a great backup and support if part of another plant needs maintenance. And it supplements in warm summer weather when AC is on. I'm happy to have it and never have to worry about a fridge or freezer thawing out and $2k worth of food going to shit. Outside of Southeast, most CA people don't even need AC yet the grid is shit.

WookieMan says

"Wind is a great backup and support if part of another plant needs
maintenance."

Wind and solar are the most expensive power sources on the planet because they
require watt for watt backup turbines to keep supplying the grid with steady power.
Therefore, they are dirty, because they emit a lot of CO2 and the power they supply
is not free. Wind and solar are based on fraud.

WookieMan says

Just because I don't live in a state with a shitty power grid does not mean I'm wrong.

Yes it does.

The_Deplorable says

Wind and solar are the most expensive power sources on the planet because they
require watt for watt backup turbines to keep supplying the grid with steady power.
Therefore, they are dirty, because they emit a lot of CO2 and the power they supply
is not free. Wind and solar are based on fraud.

He won't listen. Because he would have to admit he fucked up.

OkDOGEisAmountingToSomething says

"He won't listen. Because he would have to admit he fucked up."

Heh... A wind farm without a backup turbine is an impossibility.
Take it to the bank.

The_Deplorable says

Heh... A wind farm without a backup turbine is an impossibility.
Take it to the bank.

It's possible. Just not reliably dispatchable power for the grid. Thus it won't 'work'.

This is the part Wookie doesn't get.

^
Was that not obvious? I can see what's in front of me. I can see water levels when I travel to the same place. I can hear when the tornado sirens go off and nothing happens. Don't even lose a branch. Been in a tropical storm and laughed. It was a joke of a storm compared to the midwest. It's all clickbait at this point.

We get Cat 1-2 winds every summer, microburst, derechos, F1-2 tornados Might lose a shingle, but it's nothing.

DeportLibtards says

They are completely rational since it's been proven that EVs are worse for the environment than ICE cars.

https://slaynews.com/news/ai-led-study-confirms-climate-change-narrative-hoax/

The AI-led and human-checked review found:

Human CO₂ (just 4% of the carbon cycle) sinks into oceans and forests in 3-4 years, not centuries like the IPCC claims.

Temperature leads CO₂, not the reverse – think 800-year ice core lags and 2020’s lockdown “no-blip” at Mauna Loa.
IPCC models exaggerate warming (0.5°C/decade vs. reality’s 0.13°C).
Solar activity and natural cycles steal the show.

“The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as [Michael E.] Mann, [Gavin A.] Schmidt, and [Zeke] Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny,” the paper concludes.

Been there!

Patrick says

Ah, yes Plymouth Rock. Home of the Johnny-come-lately colonists.