# Oh No! 2009 record amounts of new US wind power **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 11, 2010, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702 "2010-04-11T05:01:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/121 "2010-04-12T05:17:57Z")
Coal and Nuclear can be turned up or down as demand requires and can be used 24/7. Solar is strictly a daytime operation, and Wind depends on whether it is blowing or not, where it is blowing, and how fast. Neither is able to meet steady-state demand and will absolutely have to be solidly backed with reliable Nuclear and Coal power stations. Morons like **levdrakon** can keep ignoring this or denying it, but it won’t change reality. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/122 "2010-04-12T05:24:27Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Wow, you made three posts in a row to tell everyone about how I don’t know nuthin’ bout no energy. > . > … > > Your OP contains false information. Rather than just admitting “OK, I meant to say X”, you have instead spent several posts slurring me and calling me a liar, and making direct, personal attacks on me on the Straight Dope Message Board. > > I think that is unfortunate. I think your misrepresentations are unfortunate. I never said that “you don’t know nuthin’ bout no energy” my charge was substantially more severe: you misrepresent the information out there. How’s that search for new nuke power going? Gonna post the location of the plant? Gonna admit that it is all more efficient? Gonna clairify? No. You know quite a bit about energy. My point about you is that you deliberately misrepresent what you know. Your posts on this are misleading and intentionally so. What I meant to say is rather clear, even though I am not an expert in the field. What your posts say is muddy as water and full of shit. And yes, these are verbal attacks against your personal integrity. I said what you pointed to as increases in nuclear generating capacity is increases in efficiency, you try to define it away rather than admit it. That is how concealing and dishonest you are. The fact is that _ **all** _ the increase from nuclear plants you point to is not from new reactions, but from other efficiency. That you cannot simply say, "most laypeople would agree with that interpretation, I didn’t because it is a term of art and we don’t use it that way and by the way you are right if you interpret it that way I would consider that an intellectually honest clarification. But I’ve watched you post a lot. And science and enlightening people isn’t what you do. Your goal is to prove that Una knows everything and is right about everything. Hey, 5,700 new wind turbines in the US, zero new reactors. My OP, read in context, is exactly that, and an indictment of dry labbing industry shills who don’t read for context and explanation. Understand that I am mocking apologists who can’t understand from the OP that I am praising 5,700 new wind turbines and mocking people who can’t point to the new reactors. Read what I’ve said in the context of the whole thread, don’t pick it apart with an Pimp Boy ACORN style re-editing. That is intellectually dishonest and that is what your entire posing on this subject consists of. You’re intellectually dishonest Una. There are no new nukes and all your squirming won’t create even one. And welcome to the Pit. You’be been called on your lying. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/123 "2010-04-12T05:31:26Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, and that’s saying something in this thread. How on Earth could using existing, proven technologies we have right now possibly lead to the collapse of civilization? That’s just code for cutting into corporate profits again. I’ve lived in Germany and despite what our naive Canadian friend seems to still believe, Germany is a world leader in modern standards of living.\ I have no doubt that the standard of living in Germany is just fine; what I’m saying is that US Americans aren’t going to lower their standard of living to reduce power consumption. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/124 "2010-04-12T05:35:11Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Coal and Nuclear can be turned up or down as demand requires and can be used 24/7. Solar is strictly a daytime operation, and Wind depends on whether it is blowing or not, where it is blowing, and how fast. Neither is able to meet steady-state demand and will absolutely have to be solidly backed with reliable Nuclear and Coal power stations. Morons like **levdrakon** can keep ignoring this or denying it, but it won’t change reality. Listen dipshit, I"m not ignoring anything. You on the other hand, moron that you are, seem to think we’re shutting off all our existing power plants tomorrow and have never heard of heat storage. I"m not wasting time talking to you, Brain Dead. ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/125 "2010-04-12T05:37:59Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > What I meant to say is rather clear, even though I am not an expert in the field. Yes, but what you meant to say and what you actually did say are two different things. Blaming Una for your misspeaking is rather mean. Irrespective of that, however, yay, new wind turbines! ---
**Author:** ![Trepa\_Mayfield](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@Trepa\_Mayfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trepa_Mayfield)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/126 "2010-04-12T05:39:02Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Listen dipshit, I"m not ignoring anything. You on the other hand, moron that you are, seem to think we’re shutting off all our existing power plants tomorrow and have never heard of heat storage. I"m not wasting time talking to you, Brain Dead. And what, primarily, do these power plants run on? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/127 "2010-04-12T05:46:42Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > First - let me get this out of the way to start with - you’re a retard. > > Secondly - the nuke plants probably do have better lawyers (but who knows, some environmentalists are fairly well funded), but the legal system moves slowly. When you have a multi-billion dollar project held up for years due to challenge after challenge, the final price on the construction skyrockets even if you win every single one of them. The goal of the retard movement is to essentially cause enough delay as to make it unprofitable, even if they never actually win anything. > > Really, dipshit? How much of our grid under ideal circumstances do you think will be made up of renewables in the next 10 or 20 years? Do you think that number approaches anywhere near 100%? If not, what’s going to take up the slack? > > It should tell you that they fear obstructionism. Loan guarantees don’t actually do anything unless the project gets delayed or cancelled or otherwise interfered with - if the project is allowed to be constructed on schedule, the guarantees never actually come into use. > > People don’t want to tie up billions in capital on a project which will almost certainly be delayed by this bullshit. It’s too risky. It doesn’t mean it would be a bad investment in an environment where this obstructionism doesn’t exist, but it’s disengenuous as all fuck for you to be the reason that it’s hard to get capital for a nuke build, and then scream “SEE NUCLEAR SUCKS NO ONE WANTS TO FUND IT!” > > I also find it funny that you guys are playing the “fat cats are just worried about their profits, they don’t care about the environment!” card and then the “we can’t use the environmentally friendly solution! What about the costs!” card. > > No one here is pissed off that wind is doing well, dipshit. I’m sure everyone in this thread is pro solar and pro wind. But here’s the difference: Some of us live in the real world and think about the issue, and some of us think you can solve huge real world problems by going UHHH WIND AND SOLAR GOOD. > > Nuclear is not really competing with solar or wind. They can work well together. We will not have 100% of our power coming from solar/wind - both because it would take up ungodly amounts of resources to produce, and cover hundreds of thousands or millions of square miles, and because a cloudy day would take us back to the fucking stoneage. So for what wind and solar can do - at best, maybe 20 or 25% of the power, everyone is all for that. > > And here’s where people living in the real world come in. Even if we’re generous and say that wind and solar can handle 20% of the load in the near future, THAT STILL MEANS THAT 4/5THS OF OUR ENERGY HAS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. How you can manage to just ignore this little fact is staggering, it must take a tiny little brain or at least a total lack of critical thinking. We need an always-on, always-producing power source to handle 80%+ of the load. And our options for that are coal and nuclear. > > So the discussion is not nuclear vs wind/solar, it’s nuclear vs coal. You anti-nuke retards are always implicitly arguing for coal, but dressing it up illogically as arguing for solar/wind. And it’s fucking stupid. Nuclear power is the single most environmentally friendly decision we could’ve made in the last 50 years, and the environmentalists vehemently oppose it due to ignorance. Do you have any idea what coal does to the environment? It dumps particulates and ash and huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. It burns random impurities in the coal and dumps it into the atmosphere - stuff like little bits of cobalt and uranium. Yes - coal plants actually dump more radioactivity into the environment than nuke plants do. The process of mining coal is ugly and damaging to the environment. And even though coal dumps most of its pollution DIRECTLY INTO THE AIR WE BREATHE, it also leaves behind lots of stuff we have to dump into a landfill somewhere that’s really nasty stuff. By being anti-nuclear, you are doing more harm to the environment than almost anything else humans do to it. > > It’s actually sort of ironic - this debate SHOULD be the old stodgy billionaire tycoons wearing monocles lighting their cigars with hundred dollar bills saying “HAHA WE WILL BURN CHEAP COAL AND YOUR CHILDREN WILL INHALE OUR ASH HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHA” and the environmentalists should be the ones saying “NO! We can use the power of the atom to save the planet!” … and in reality, the opposite is going on. Quite bizarre. You say retard as though it is a bad thing. As I mentioned earlier, I was a long term investor in PG&E which opened the last new nuke plant I am aware of, Diablo Canyon. Yes, there were hippie protesters in front and lawsuits. But there was one huge blunder after another in the creation of Diablo Canyon, including building it on a fault line and covering it up. The hippies uncovered that in their lawsuits. Would have been nice to have known that before investing billions. Then there was the episode where they had the piping plans upside down and had almost finished the piping and had to start over. Then there were the thousands of bad welds. All that and the plant still goes off line. Why don’t they have to have huge batteries? Because electricity can be transported over power lines. Some coal, nuke or hydro plants are always working (Enron outages excluded). Same with wind. The wind blows almost all the time in some places, like near where I live. But even when it doesn’t, it’s always blowing somewhere. Same with solar. The sun is always shining somewhere. I’m all for a pilot pebble bed reactor in the US. But I’m not for any further traditional nuclear piles. Way to many opportunities for screw ups. Pebble beds, even when they screw up, as it did in Germany, has a limited amount of damage they can do. That needs to be confirmed and improved upon if and when confirmed. How much do I predict in future gains you ask? Well, that would be speculative, but I would guess that a half percentage point in the next few years every year is reasonable. By 2020 at least 33% of California energy will be from renewable like wind and solar. [http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html](http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html) Nor do I agree with that coal is more trouble than nuclear. Coal mining and burning, more strictly regulated than it is will be cheaper in the long run than the costs of shut down nuclear sites that will have their closing costs dumped onto the public dole by bankrupt subsidiaries set up to own nuke plants and go out of business just for the purpose of dumping future liabilities. Where is all that waste going to go? It ain’t going to the multi-billion dollar Yucca Mountain, which might was well be a papers archive at this point. The spent nuclear fuel is going to stay in the cooling pools where it is now and they will continue to fill up. They will cease to be outright dangerous in a few years, but lingering levels will require costs for oversight for centuries to come. Having invested in nuclear, I can tell you that I won’t be repeating it and I resent the US government taking on tens of billions in loan guarantees with no debate or vote. At least the Wall Street bailout was an economic emergency. At least health care was voted on. This nuke guarantee? Shoved down our throats. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/128 "2010-04-12T05:52:39Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > Yes, but what you meant to say and what you actually did say are two different things. Blaming Una for your misspeaking is rather mean. > > Irrespective of that, however, yay, new wind turbines! I’ll admit being mean to Una, but anyone reading the context of the thread can have no doubt what I meant. And Una wasn’t nickpicking, she was misleading. She made a broad statement, linked to a table and did not explain and qualify what the table actually meant in the context of the discussion. She does that shit frequently and does it under the color of acting as an expert. If she had only been nitpicking, she would have explained what exactly could and could not have been drawn from that table. She is capable of doing that. But she did the opposite. I suppose that it might be due to her being a shill for the coal industry. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/129 "2010-04-12T06:03:28Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Listen dipshit, I"m not ignoring anything. You on the other hand, moron that you are, seem to think we’re shutting off all our existing power plants tomorrow and have never heard of heat storage. I"m not wasting time talking to you, Brain Dead. I don’t know why _anyone_ is talking to _you_. You’re clearly a howling moron. There’s no reason to provide you with cites or logical argument or anything else, because you’re clearly mentally challenged and the depth of your failure to critically analyze is on par with white supremacists and the Phelps gang. Your ideas demonstrate a profound lack of understanding of how energy production works, and belief in some magic pie-in-the-sky technology that would work if we all just wished _reeeaaaaaaalllll_ hard. I think you are an imbecile who is scared to death of **teh radiashunz!!!** because that’s what you heard from Mary Ann Moistpanties that one time where you were trying to score and she basically ignored you completely to spew her own uneducated bullshit, but you totally like touched her thigh by accident and now you equate nuclear power with boner killing. I’m sure you have all kinds of other stupid beliefs about EM fields and cancer or vegetarianism being the actual diet of natural man or microwaves destroying the nutrition in foods. Go put on your little tinfoil hat and hop on your fucking hippie/hipster fixie and ride down to the organic coop and buy some organic weed that you smoke with your organic buddies and talk about how it all just, like, totally makes sense if you think about it. Unless you’re the even worse specimen of some aging dipshit with a ponytail and a fascination with shitty 60’s political folk music tripe, who has managed to get through life like the average resident of an Alabama trailer park, in that you’ve scrupulously avoided learning any sort of science or critical thinking because it’s much easier to digest the pap doled out by other lackwits. Your posts make me question my dedication to a free society. I think you should be forcibly detained from spewing your vacuous mouthjizm into the internet and society at large. It is my greatest nightmare that you breed, or even worse, have already done so, and are filling the world with little fuckface soldiers of misinformation. You, sir, are a walking, talking example of failure to comprehend. Please stop foisting your goddamn incompetence upon everyone else, because as sad as it is, knee-jerk reactionism like yours is a powerful force for converting other goatblowers like yourself who are too intellectually lazy and incompetent to do the research, and someone foolishly decided that mouthbreathers like you should be allowed to vote and speak, so that your excessive fuckfacery can continue to do as much damage to society as any other unthinking religious zealot with a pet cause. **ETA:** **SecondStone** , that goes for you too, I’ve seen nothing out of you in this thread that isn’t wrong, stupid, and wishful thinking. ---
**Author:** ![EddyTeddyFreddy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eddyteddyfreddy/32/18796_2.png) [@EddyTeddyFreddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EddyTeddyFreddy)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/130 "2010-04-12T06:06:18Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Ah, I remember well the demand-side management boom of the late 90’s. It was great - “people will switch electric providers on a daily, nay, hourly basis! Everyone will schedule their laundry at 3:00am to save a few cents! Every man, woman, child, and farm animal will be able to participate in a vibrant energy exchange, with individual households trading energy allowances.” They made DSM look like the average American was going to be going home and playing electric _Farmville_. Heh. No kidding. At least some of the proponents of DSM seemed to regard it as damn near magical, and to take a far more sanguine view of people’s willingness to play mini-utility than the facts suggested. The current DPU seems to be more hard-headed about it; they have a policy agenda to pursue under the statute but in the hearings whose transcripts I’ve proofread they’re holding the companies’ feet to the fire not just to create plans for savings programs but to produce _measurable_ savings, with a robust measurement system that can collect reliable and useful data. At this point I could wander off into measure persistence, free ridership, lost base revenue, and on and on, but I read enough of that stuff for a living as it is. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/131 "2010-04-12T06:06:22Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > I don’t know why _anyone_ is talking to _you_. Did your mommy write that for you? ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/132 "2010-04-12T06:09:21Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > Did your mommy write that for you? Yeah, thanks for demonstrating yet again how intellectual and clever you are. It would _almost_ be an excuse if you were actually 8 years old like your posts seem to proclaim, but frankly, most 8 year olds are above your level. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/133 "2010-04-12T06:17:23Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Nor do I agree with that coal is more trouble than nuclear. Coal mining and burning, more strictly regulated than it is will be cheaper in the long run than the costs of shut down nuclear sites that will have their closing costs dumped onto the public dole by bankrupt subsidiaries set up to own nuke plants and go out of business just for the purpose of dumping future liabilities. With more and more concerns about global warming and carbon outputs, coal is going to be less and less relied on. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/134 "2010-04-12T06:37:05Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > With more and more concerns about global warming and carbon outputs, coal is going to be less and less relied on. I agree that it should be, but I don’t see that view being taken on in the US and China. The Solano Wind Farm near my home [Solano (USA) - Wind farms - Online access - The Wind Power](http://www.thewindpower.net/wind-farm-2787-solano-vestas-nd.php) has grown to several hundred turbines. [Solano County Business News: Wind farm provides clean energy](http://solanocountybusinessnews.blogspot.com/2009/02/wind-farm-provides-clean-energy.html) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/135 "2010-04-12T06:48:00Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, and that’s saying something in this thread. How on Earth could using existing, proven technologies we have right now possibly lead to the collapse of civilization? That’s just code for cutting into corporate profits again. No it’s “code” for the fact that there just isn’t enough renewable energy “using existing, proven technologies” for your fantasy to work, even by your own numbers. Corporations are besides the point. If you try to run a civilization on less energy than it needs, it’ll fall apart. No different than if you decided only half the population needed to eat. Not that I think you care, as long as you got to indulge your malice and impose energy ideological purity on the rest of us I’m sure you’d be happy to drag the world down. What would you care if millions starved because you demanded impossibilities? > [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > With more and more concerns about global warming and carbon outputs, coal is going to be less and less relied on. Unless the antinuclear people continue to get their way; given the choice between no power and coal power, most people will go for coal. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > How much do I predict in future gains you ask? Well, that would be speculative, but I would guess that a half percentage point in the next few years every year is reasonable. By 2020 at least 33% of California energy will be from renewable like wind and solar. [http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html](http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html) Not a chance; commanding that it be done doesn’t make it any more possible. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Nor do I agree with that coal is more trouble than nuclear. Coal mining and burning, more strictly regulated than it is will be cheaper in the long run than the costs of shut down nuclear sites that will have their closing costs dumped onto the public dole by bankrupt subsidiaries set up to own nuke plants and go out of business just for the purpose of dumping future liabilities. Where is all that waste going to go? It ain’t going to the multi-billion dollar Yucca Mountain, which might was well be a papers archive at this point. The spent nuclear fuel is going to stay in the cooling pools where it is now and they will continue to fill up. They will cease to be outright dangerous in a few years, but lingering levels will require costs for oversight for centuries to come. Yet another set of artificial problems that exists only because of you anti-nuke fanatics, and which you then cite as supposed problems with nuclear instead of problems with you. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/136 "2010-04-12T07:14:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No it’s “code” for the fact that there just isn’t enough renewable energy “using existing, proven technologies” for your fantasy to work, even by your own numbers. Corporations are besides the point. If you try to run a civilization on less energy than it needs, it’ll fall apart. No different than if you decided only half the population needed to eat. > > Not that I think you care, as long as you got to indulge your malice and impose energy ideological purity on the rest of us I’m sure you’d be happy to drag the world down. What would you care if millions starved because you demanded impossibilities? I have no idea what you’re talking about anymore. If you ever bother to read links and on the off chance you read the one that says “Governor Schwarzenegger issues Executive Order requiring 33 percent renewables by 2020,” then you might not think it’s so strange, instead of bringing about the extinction of mankind or something. Well, run along now and call the Gov, and tell him you have a better plan. Your plan involves 100% clean, cheap nuclear energy by 2020. Please tape the call. I want to hear him laughing. ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/137 "2010-04-12T13:01:20Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > I think your misrepresentations are unfortunate… > > Your posts on this are misleading and intentionally so. What I meant to say is rather clear, even though I am not an expert in the field. What your posts say is muddy as water and full of shit. > … > You’re intellectually dishonest Una. There are no new nukes and all your squirming won’t create even one. > > And welcome to the Pit. You’be been called on your lying. “What you meant to say” is clear, eh? And we should automatically infer that what you wrote isn’t what you meant. Gotcha. In this thread you’ve moved from idiotic, to laughable, to detestable. The only person whose prevarications have been reliably proven so far in this thread has been you, and you’re no better than a troll. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/138 "2010-04-12T13:12:17Z")
> [@pedescribe](#): > > By 2020, you say that, according to the **most optomistic** reports, wind & solar will provide 27% of 2010’s output. Since the number of people in Germany will probably grow in 10 years, we can bump that down to 25%. Just for the record, Germany’s population has been pretty stable at around 80 million for the last 15 or so years, and has actually been on a slight downward trend since 2005. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/139 "2010-04-12T14:57:26Z")
Does anyone here think I need to waste my time on Second Stone when all he’s really got left are personal attacks and what appears to be rage? > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > …my charge was substantially more severe: you misrepresent the information out there. > > … > > My point about you is that you deliberately misrepresent what you know. > > … > > Your posts on this are misleading and intentionally so. > > … > > What your posts say is muddy as water and full of shit. > > … > > And yes, these are verbal attacks against your personal integrity. > > … > > But I’ve watched you post a lot. And science and enlightening people isn’t what you do. Your goal is to prove that Una knows everything and is right about everything. > > … > > …an indictment of dry labbing industry shills who don’t read for context and explanation. > > … > > Understand that I am mocking apologists who can’t understand from the OP that I am praising 5,700 new wind turbines and mocking people who can’t point to the new reactors. Read what I’ve said in the context of the whole thread, don’t pick it apart with an Pimp Boy ACORN style re-editing. That is intellectually dishonest and that is what your entire posing on this subject consists of. > > You’re intellectually dishonest Una. There are no new nukes and all your squirming won’t create even one. > > And welcome to the Pit. You’be been called on your lying. However, for the sake of everyone else in this thread who are trying to have a decent discussion, I feel I must yet again correct misinformation in his post. > [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > How’s that search for new nuke power going? Gonna post the location of the plant? Gonna admit that it is all more efficient? > > … > > I said what you pointed to as increases in nuclear generating capacity is increases in efficiency… > > The fact is that _ **all** _ the increase from nuclear plants you point to is not from new reactions, but from other efficiency. He’s made another factual error here: the new nuclear generation (those “new Watts” he refuses to admit exist) does not solely come from more efficient generation, it comes in a large part, possibly a majority part, from increases in the net capacity factor of the units. Here is another link (obviously one I forged just to make him look like a fool), which demonstrates the new nuclear generation due to higher net capacity factors over the timetable he himself laid out in his misleading OP. [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9\_5.pdf](http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec9_5.pdf) Net capacity factor is defined as the ratio of: ## actual net generation, kW/hour maximum net power, kW \* 8760 hours When this number increases it means in the NSR world you may have created new generation (it depends upon where you start from and what your permit says…) In the NSR world this means you could be facing serious legal issues, and all your claims that it is not “new” generation won’t carry much weight in court. In the nuclear world, this new generation can have different non-NSR impacts, such as with respect to cooling water draw and heated cooling water discharge. The folks who have river-source nuclear plants know what “new” generation is, as they have limits they must face. Ignoring capacity factor and focusing on efficiency is the result of ignorance, not _necessarily_ stupidity. Given his alleged backing of wind power I would have thought that the concept of net capacity factor (a very critical concern about wind generation) would be known to him before he would make a claim about it **all** (note the bolded word) being due to efficiency increases. I find that unfortunate as well. Now I don’t expect him to admit he’s wrong; rather I expect him to claim I twisted his words, was supposed to read his mind, didn’t read for intent, it’s all lies from Una the Great Satan in clouds of sulfur, etc. And he’ll continue to make false claims that I said there were new nuclear “plants”, as well as personal attacks and slurs. But I won’t know that, because I’m Bored Now. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702/140 "2010-04-12T15:00:12Z")
To summarize, he said there’s no new nuclear power, and you pointed out that existing facilities have been improved/refitted to produce more. Right? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oh-no-2009-record-amounts-of-new-us-wind-power/535702.md?page=8)