The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power
rodmartin.org
The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power
#2By using "global market" as the denominator, the author obfuscates the localities in countries where it adds a significant contribution.
Re: The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power
#3once you hit 50% market share, it's never going to double again. if you're doing something new, it's always going to start at 0% penetration and look irrelevant. most people can hold that apparent paradox in their heads at the same time and still have a useful discussion.
Re: The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power
#4What a fraud of an article. Comparing the wind energy, which is mostly used just for electricity, with oil wood and gas. Is like comparing the percentage of people using a boat daily with those using a car. It just isn't the correct metric.
Re: The Utter Complete Total Fraud of Wind Power
#5By using "global market" as the denominator, the author obfuscates the localities in countries where it adds a significant contribution.
Also by lumping people burning cow dung in with electrical generation.
(Hey, I'm burning calories typing now, can we lump in "eating" and make wind appear even smaller?)
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Nearly 6% of electricity in the US is from wind. Over a third of some state's electricity is from wind. But since when was popularity ever an argument? (Linux is better than Windows in my experience. Market share schmarket share.)
But there are some valid points in the article.
Wind turbines are resource intensive to build. (But again, he misleads by saying "it takes this much coal" but without specifying how long they turbines last.. he seems to pretend it's a yearly thing and soon the entire face of the earth would be covered in wind turbine to keep up). I'm sure there is some depreciation schedule that would almost certainly show you get more energy out of wind turbines than you put in with less pollution total per unit of energy produced. If this isn't the case, ya, stop wind turbine usage but probably it is the case.
I also agree with his final analysis. Nuclear is I think the way forward. But sadly because the arguments he presents are pretty weak.