Wind turbines used to absorb a power surplus?

You just end up with a more turbulent wind stream

Pointing things out doesn't work here. :-(

Pointing out utter nonsense doesn't work very well anywhere. There are people here who can learn from expert advice, but most of the advice offered here is anything but expert, and the lower the expertise the less likely they are to realise that they are offering bad advice.

The OP of this thread is remarkably inexpert, and entirely confident that he knows all he needs to.

The guy who posted that was probably being satirical, but there do seem to be people who believe that kind of nonsense - and a few of them post here. Skybuck Flying comes to mind.

Good stuff, but please be kind and don't confuse Sloman with numbers.

That's expensive, having 100% of grid load backup sitting around doing nothing most of the time. But it need not be "at every wind turbine."

Generating power the way we're doing it isn't a problem that needs to be solved. It is prudent to phase out or clean up the dirtiest coal plants, but India and China are not going to stop building coal plants, and Australia won't stop selling them the coal. Half the people in Africa don't have electricity yet, and they have lots of coal and NG too.

Natural gas is a great, reliable, clean, cheap power source, a gift to humanity.

For about a billion dollars.

And the breeze would cool us all off and stop global warming.

Yes, whacky ideas are a good path to good ideas.

Ricky is irony impaired. Some people are that way. Philomena Cunk makes literalness funny.

A little nonsense now and then Is treasured by the wisest men.

- Willy Wonka

Electrolyze water. Or churn masses of ice cream.

søndag den 19. marts 2023 kl. 16.39.55 UTC+1 skrev John Larkin:

this pretty much sums it up,

Darn. You had me excited there. I was going to run an extension cord from Australia to Maryland.

You mean compared to our current grid design that only has 50% backup? The US sees daily fluctuations of 50% of the grid generating capacity. That means half of the generating capacity is not running at any given time. Not a big change really, to making it 100%.

It just has one problem, which fortunately, renewable power can fix.

Larkin reminds me of a Beatles song.

Too bad he continues to demonstrate it.

We know some people who live in Inverness, who didn't have fast internet. A group of neighbors bought a cheap microwave link and piped in from a friend across Tomales Bay. It's astounding what a Gbit microwave link costs nowadays.

Sums up what, exactly?

We got this from our utility. They alerted us to a suspected water leak, which was real.

That graph is after the leak was fixed. They seem to read the meters often and have algorithms to flag unusual patterns.

Steam ships that used poor quality coal paid for it with greatly increased maintenance costs, and significantly reduced performance.

Happens here in the UK too occasionally. If you’re on the appropriate tariff you get paid for using power.

Tim

That driving a Tesla, turning up the AC, recycling, and complaining that politicians aren't saving the climate is going to make no difference there's a few billion people who want the same conveniences we have and couldn't care less about being green, they are too poor to care about that. The only way they are going green is if green is cheaper than the alternative

Brilliant and obviously right. And funny; wokesters are never funny.

But he doesn't mention Africa for some reason.

He does touch on one thing that I have observed: greeniewokesters seem to think that their carbon footprint affects their own climate, as if there were a giant plastic bubble over Berkeley.

And they want the dark-skinned poor people of the world to stay poor.