Energy

There's no evidence that any particular storm or group of them is a result of global warming.

50 gigawatts of wind generating capacity (i.e. turbogererator output power at 100% capacity) yields at a maximum and under very favorable local wind conditions, about 15-16 gigawatts of actual output (a capacity factor in the vicinity of 30% which is typical of only the most efficient wind turbine installations - most are a good deal lower) . The equivalent capacity factor of coal plants is above 90%. Therefore 50 GW of coal plant capacity will deliver about 45GW of delivered power, while 50 GW of wind generating capacity will deliver only ~ 15 GW.

As a result the cited wind generating capacity is really equal to the output of about 12 standard coal-fired plants.

Moreover the capital cost of the wind installation you cited would exceed that of 45 coal fired plants , and delivered cost of the power so generated would be more than twice the cost of the same amount of power generated by coal plants..

However, you are merely talking to yourself in your private altersnate universe, so why should I bother?



This is typical of the very deceptive claims of renewable energy shills.

Every electron has enough energy to fuel this planet,

You haven't offered a solution either. Wind and solar power are so much more expensive than conventional sources that their mandated use (on a time scale consistent with those offered by AGW zealots) would cause mass starvation and political havoc.

There have been no facts yet established thast suggest that natural gas extraction will "ruin our water supply". Quite the contrary, the facts suggest the impacts are minimal and easily prevented. You are chasing prejudices and illusions here.

I have no idea what you mean by the following;

Quote:

Every electron has enough energy to fuel this planet,

The fact is the energies associated with changes in electron & ionic reactions, whether through chemical or incident radiation (as in solar cells) are well known and hardly sufficient in any individual case to "fuel this planet". However a somewhat related physical phenomenon, the energy within unstable nuclides of abundant elements, is millions of times greater than any reactions involving mere electrons.

That is the real source of manageable safe mass energy production for the planet without any adverse effects on our atmosphere.

I am just paraphrasing Einstein when he said:

There is enough energy locked up in a grain of sand to boil 10 000 000 kettles and the energy equivalent of the average adult is about 7 x 1018 (7 000 000 000 000 000 000) joules of potential energy, enough to explode with the force of thirty hydrogen bombs!

You must likewise not understand that statement either.

18 thousand people were killed in the offshore earthquake and tusnami that struck Japan. No one was killed by the Fukushima reactor damage that followed. At most about four workers were exposed to radiation above the level at which anyincreased incidence of long term disease is indicated by clinical data.

Nuclear powerplants emit zero GHG and they deliver energy at a cost that is competitive with coal or natural gas. The engineering problem of waste storage is well-understood and easily managed. France has produced more than 70% of its electricval energy with this technoilogy for over thirty years (thery're at 80% now), and done so without any ill effects. We have produced about 20% of our electrical power with nuclear energy for over thirty years, also with no ill effects. (Three Mile Island killed no one and the Public Health Service finds zero increased incidence of disease in the area since the accident.)

The research you are advocating is both poorly defined (physicists have yet to even detect "dark energy" - its existence is merely inferred by some gaps in our our cosmological theories - no one has ever found direct evidence or measures of it. There is no possibility that such research could deliver even the beginnings of a solution on the time scale indicated by the unproven theories of AGW zealots.

The carbon taxes in Europe haven't been measurably effective in either reducing emissions or fostoring research or innovation there. On what basis do you recite the illusory claims of others that defy actual experience.

You are merely casting about with your preconceived ideas, and ignoring reality. If you wish to be taken seriously by knowledgable people you will have to do much better than that.