Wind power--Wyoming blows

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

States with most green energy

 

The great plains states get between 1/3 and 1/2 of their electricity from those crazy liberal wind farms that dont work or something.     And growing.    And so are the high paying jobs that maintain them.    The only unnerving thing about is the fact that its another example of Democrat policy that benefits red states more than blue.  Almost seems unfair doesn't it?

 

Percent of electricity coming from Wind:

--------------------------------------------------

Iowa   57%

S Dakota 54%

N Dakota 34% 

Kansas 46%

Nebraska 26%

Texas 23%

Colorado 27%

Oklahoma 41%

Minnesota 21%

 


But...but...but...stupid Tom prattles endlessly about how it costs $40 trillion a week to maintain one wind turbine...and Boiler babbles about "boilerplate," or something...and Millerscum says that wind turbines are liars.

 

How can you use crummy ol' reality to argue against the erudite statements of these learned conservatives?

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

But...but...but...stupid Tom prattles endlessly about how it costs $40 trillion a week to maintain one wind turbine...and Boiler babbles about "boilerplate," or something...and Millerscum says that wind turbines are liars.

 

How can you use crummy ol' reality to argue against the erudite statements of these learned conservatives?


Kevin, would you please explain why EVERY Liberal writer uses solar and wind farm nameplate capacity to calculate homes powered?  

I didn't use name plate in my domestic example.  I used percent of electric grid which includes all sources of power including fossil fuels.    

boilerman, can you explain to me  how states can get half their power from wind when the wind doesn't always blow...and can have their electric costs be sitting at or below the national average?   Because you are on record saying that isn't possible .   And yet data says otherwise.    This is no longer speculation about the future.    

wind energy works at a competitive price and creates high paying jobs....and doesn't create greenhouse gases that destroy our coasts and threaten our fresh water supply

PJ, some countries and states get much of their power from wind and solar, but only if they have geographically near coal, solar, hydro, or nuclear plants in adjacent states or countries.


Originally posted by: Boilerman

Kevin, would you please explain why EVERY Liberal writer uses solar and wind farm nameplate capacity to calculate homes powered?  


Kevin has been baffled by the word "nameplate" since I first brought it up 8 years ago.

Originally posted by: Boilerman

PJ, some countries and states get much of their power from wind and solar, but only if they have geographically near coal, solar, hydro, or nuclear plants in adjacent states or countries.


So then whats the problem?    

 

You put hydro power by Niagara Falls and the Hoover Damn.  You put solar power in the southwest.  You put wind in the great plains and on ocean coasts.   Why would any sane person be against that if its cost effective, non-polluting, and creates domestic jobs?     

Originally posted by: Boilerman

Kevin, would you please explain why EVERY Liberal writer uses solar and wind farm nameplate capacity to calculate homes powered?  


Can you explain why there are purple giraffes on the moon?

Originally posted by: Boilerman

PJ, some countries and states get much of their power from wind and solar, but only if they have geographically near coal, solar, hydro, or nuclear plants in adjacent states or countries.


Boiler, the energy expert, doesn't know about those thingies called transmission lines.

Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

So then whats the problem?    

 

You put hydro power by Niagara Falls and the Hoover Damn.  You put solar power in the southwest.  You put wind in the great plains and on ocean coasts.   Why would any sane person be against that if its cost effective, non-polluting, and creates domestic jobs?     


The reason why some people are against sustainable energy--even to the point of gross, idiotic illogic, like Boiler and stupid Tom--is the idiological mandates of their conservative masters, who are in turn slaves of the fossil fuel industry,

 

They fear that they will become obsolete, and will no longer be vacuuming the wallets of ordinary Americans. I mean, really, guys. How much money have you put in their pockets over the years? Naturally, they want to keep you in thrall. But why should you want to go along with that?

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Can you explain why there are purple giraffes on the moon?


Still baffled by at simple concept.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now