Yup.... That's cold.

[Ranjr]

Enjoy the electric bill....

Much of the electricity I use comes from the hydroelectric dam on the lake outside.  In 1964, when the government completed the job, you would have called it very expensive, subsidized electricity.  That's how foolish you sound blowing on about wind.

[onlinebiker]

Enjoy the electric bill....

Much of the electricity I use comes from the hydroelectric dam on the lake outside.  In 1964, when the government completed the job, you would have called it very expensive, subsidized electricity.  That's how foolish you sound blowing on about wind.

And you sound like a blithering idiot not seeing the big differences between hydro and wind.

Water head pressure doesn't suddenly stop. Wind does. Water does not get crosswinds that can destroy a dam.
Dam are dual purpose. They provide electricity AND drinking water. 

I have no qualms with hydro.

[Ranjr]

And you sound like a blithering idiot not seeing the big differences between hydro and wind.

Water head pressure doesn't suddenly stop. Wind does. Water does not get crosswinds that can destroy a dam.
Dam are dual purpose. They provide electricity AND drinking water. 

I have no qualms with hydro.

Good.  

They both use turbines.  An original use for wind was to pump water.  Lake levels drop with drought.  And the Okies fracking and the New Madrid fault do present structural concerns.  So the differences aren't what you wish them to be.  Another example of your beliefs creating facts, the same way theists think.

[onlinebiker]

And you sound like a blithering idiot not seeing the big differences between hydro and wind.

Water head pressure doesn't suddenly stop. Wind does. Water does not get crosswinds that can destroy a dam.
Dam are dual purpose. They provide electricity AND drinking water. 

I have no qualms with hydro.

Good.  

They both use turbines.  An original use for wind was to pump water.  Lake levels drop with drought.  And the Okies fracking and the New Madrid fault do present structural concerns.  So the differences aren't what you wish them to be.  Another example of your beliefs creating facts, the same way theists think.

Duh...

Hummingbirds and F15's both use wings - but it hardly makes them equivilant...

The two are very different.

A modern windmill uses a variable pitch blade similar to an aircraft prop made out of composite materials and are hundreds of feet long. 

Hydro turbines are fixed, rigid metal wheels more akin to a Savonious rotor and have projected lifespans many many times of a windmill blade.

How can you possibly say they are the same?

Plain ignorance?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You're the guy who 

1. Keeps calling a wind turbine a windmill (It's not milling anything so it's not a windmill)

2. Compared old wind power to modern wind turbines 

3. Cited a paper from an oil shill 

4.Spews outdated and demonstrably false opinions about wind power that i have cited rebuttals to.

And I'll point out many energy experts have compared winds current state to hydro's 4 decades ago and found it's doing better. So your vapid attempts at tearing Ranjr is embarrassing.

[Ranjr]

Good.  

They both use turbines.  An original use for wind was to pump water.  Lake levels drop with drought.  And the Okies fracking and the New Madrid fault do present structural concerns.  So the differences aren't what you wish them to be.  Another example of your beliefs creating facts, the same way theists think.

Duh...

Hummingbirds and F15's both use wings - but it hardly makes them equivilant...

The two are very different.

A modern windmill uses a variable pitch blade similar to an aircraft prop made out of composite materials and are hundreds of feet long. 

Hydro turbines are fixed, rigid metal wheels more akin to a Savonious rotor and have projected lifespans many many times of a windmill blade.

How can you possibly say they are the same?

Plain ignorance?

I said they aren't as different as you wish them to be, not the same, obviously.  That another theist approach you take, poking at straw men.  Both systems use natural forces to create spin which induces current.  In that way, they are the same.  The blades are different.  Wowie.

Of course, there are differences.  Dam systems like the one on the White River were developed for flood control.  The deltas and Grand Prairie are vital farmland.  When there is flooding downstream, plants can't generate.  Happens every year.  More and more it seems.  Same with low lake levels due to the need for water.  So both have different technical challenges and limitations.  One, you like because it is established and paid for.  The other, you don't like because it's new and developing.

I think we need to develop and implement as many sources as we can.  The more renewable, the better.  Call me an old school conservative, not the modern day kind who worships at the fossil fuel alter and parrots climate denial talking points.  The kind who thinks, waste not, want not, and don't put all your eggs in one basket.

---

You're the guy who 

1. Keeps calling a wind turbine a windmill (It's not milling anything so it's not a windmill)

2. Compared old wind power to modern wind turbines 

3. Cited a paper from an oil shill 

4.Spews outdated and demonstrably false opinions about wind power that i have cited rebuttals to.

And I'll point out many energy experts have compared winds current state to hydro's 4 decades ago and found it's doing better. So your vapid attempts at tearing Ranjr is embarrassing.

He won't learn but the few reading this might.  Or at least have a laugh.  The word blithering always makes me smile.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Duh...

Hummingbirds and F15's both use wings - but it hardly makes them equivilant...

The two are very different.

A modern windmill uses a variable pitch blade similar to an aircraft prop made out of composite materials and are hundreds of feet long. 

Hydro turbines are fixed, rigid metal wheels more akin to a Savonious rotor and have projected lifespans many many times of a windmill blade.

How can you possibly say they are the same?

Plain ignorance?

I said they aren't as different as you wish them to be, not the same, obviously.  That another theist approach you take, poking at straw men.  Both systems use natural forces to create spin which induces current.  In that way, they are the same.  The blades are different.  Wowie.

Of course, there are differences.  Dam systems like the one on the White River were developed for flood control.  The deltas and Grand Prairie are vital farmland.  When there is flooding downstream, plants can't generate.  Happens every year.  More and more it seems.  Same with low lake levels due to the need for water.  So both have different technical challenges and limitations.  One, you like because it is established and paid for.  The other, you don't like because it's new and developing.

I think we need to develop and implement as many sources as we can.  The more renewable, the better.  Call me an old school conservative, not the modern day kind who worships at the fossil fuel alter and parrots climate denial talking points.  The kind who thinks, waste not, want not, and don't put all your eggs in one basket.

---

You're the guy who 

1. Keeps calling a wind turbine a windmill (It's not milling anything so it's not a windmill)

2. Compared old wind power to modern wind turbines 

3. Cited a paper from an oil shill 

4.Spews outdated and demonstrably false opinions about wind power that i have cited rebuttals to.

And I'll point out many energy experts have compared winds current state to hydro's 4 decades ago and found it's doing better. So your vapid attempts at tearing Ranjr is embarrassing.

He won't learn but the few reading this might.  Or at least have a laugh.  The word blithering always makes me smile.

True it's not about convincing him. He's already drunk the fossil fuel industries Koolaid. But anyone who wants to be informed will see he's been refuted over and over.