Trump Urges Starmer to Abandon Wind Power in Favor of North Sea Oil

[bubblegum]

He does not like them spoiling the view from his golf course that's all.

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, Paul Henry said:

Trump definitely is an "I" man:

Infantile,Illiterate,Ignorant,Inpious,Inpolotic,Indecent,Incapable,Inpolite,Inpetuous,Inplausable,Insane,

Imbacilic,Inept,Idiotic,Inproper and Inpeached.I could continue but cant of a positive word stating with I

 

incredible? 

[Yagoda]

The Global Warming is a Socialist hoax to gain power. Folks who beleive we can change climate trends with our present technology are deluded fools or grifters.

[The Cyclist]

21 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

The Global Warming is a Socialist hoax to gain power. Folks who beleive we can change climate trends with our present technology are deluded fools or grifters.

 

6 Glacial and Inter-Glacial periods over Millennia, shows how how deluded and foolish they are.

[WDSmart]

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I can accept the carbon footprint of a wind turbine is larger than the carbon it saves.

 

I would like to see a credible link that verifies your assertion with respect to solar panels.

 

I asked AI how many joules it took to manufacture a solar panel, and how many joules it then generated in its lifetime.

 

"While it takes a significant amount of energy to manufacture a solar panel (around 6.84×109 J for a single panel), the energy it generates over its lifetime is considerably higher (approximately 5.91×1010 J for a single 400W panel over 25 years in a moderate sun location).

This means that a solar panel typically generates many times more energy than was used to create it, leading to a positive "energy payback time" (the time it takes for a solar panel to generate the amount of energy that went into its production), which is generally a few years."

I can't give you a link to a verification of my assertion that ALL technology, including solar panels, costs more energy to produce, operate, maintain, and dispose of than they ever produce. The verification is in my recent book, but I'm not allowed to enter a link to it or even its title on these forums. In this book, I did use solar systems as my example.

What I believe is the problem with the AI response to your question is that you only asked about the energy "generated" by a solar panel. Without getting into clarifications of the use of the word "generate," I'll only say that you would also have to include the manufacture, operation, maintenance, and disposal of all the related technologies associated with the solar panels and required for their use. Examples of these are their mounting brackets, all the wiring used to transfer the harvested electricity to where it will be used, batteries, if they are part of the system, inverters, if AC electricity is required, etc,, the list goes on and on. When you add the energy expended (and all the pollution created) to manufacture and use all these various parts, the total usable electricity produced is less than that.

[bamnutsak]

trumps rants about wind power are precious.

 

He's said the noise causes cancer, you can't watch TV when the wind doesn't blow, all the birds are being killed, and a few whales.

 

"I know windmills very much."

 

 

[sandyf]

On 5/24/2025 at 4:07 AM, Social Media said:

Trump claimed that there is “a century of drilling left” and proposed Aberdeen as a strategic hub for this renewed fossil fuel effort.

Never going to happen.

Does he really believe that Aberdeen has forgotten the last time it was a major oil hub. Ended almost overnight leaving many in negative equity.

For some time yet, oil and renewables will live side by side.

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

I can't give you a link to a verification of my assertion that ALL technology, including solar panels, costs more energy to produce, operate, maintain, and dispose of than they ever produce. The verification is in my recent book, but I'm not allowed to enter a link to it or even its title on these forums. In this book, I did use solar systems as my example.

What I believe is the problem with the AI response to your question is that you only asked about the energy "generated" by a solar panel. Without getting into clarifications of the use of the word "generate," I'll only say that you would also have to include the manufacture, operation, maintenance, and disposal of all the related technologies associated with the solar panels and required for their use. Examples of these are their mounting brackets, all the wiring used to transfer the harvested electricity to where it will be used, batteries, if they are part of the system, inverters, if AC electricity is required, etc,, the list goes on and on. When you add the energy expended (and all the pollution created) to manufacture and use all these various parts, the total usable electricity produced is less than that.

So coal-fired power stations do not require wiring, turbines,generators, sulphur scrubbers, and machine maintenance to operate?

 

The capital cost per MW of a coal fired power station is $3300-5500, or $6500 if built with carbon capture and storage. Which is thermodynamic nonsense anyway.

 

The capital cost of a wind turbine is typically $1300-2200.

 

Building a coal - fired power station of 600 MW capacity is north of $2 billion.

 

Wind -powered turbines with the same capacity - $1.3 billion.

 

I am posting data, you are posting opinions and assertions.

[WDSmart]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am posting data, you are posting opinions and assertions.

You are posting someone else's opinions and assertions. I am posting ones of my own.

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, WDSmart said:

You are posting someone else's opinions and assertions. I am posting ones of my own.

Data is not an opinion. The calculated costs are what I have posted.

 

You have yet to post any costings of your own.

[Surasak]

11 hours ago, Tiger1980 said:

Yes, while Milliband is in charge of the zero energy policy, however at the next GE the good people of Doncaster will definitely kick him out.

Let us hope that many others have learnt by their mistake?

[The Cyclist]

11 hours ago, Tiger1980 said:

Yes, while Milliband is in charge of the zero energy policy, however at the next GE the good people of Doncaster will definitely kick him out.

 

I'll just leave this for the zealots, that cannot see past " All bow and worship to the Sainted Greta "

 

 

 

 

[Caldera]

On 5/24/2025 at 4:07 AM, Social Media said:

Trump Urges Starmer to Abandon Wind Power in Favor of North Sea Oil

 

Anyone sane would use both in combination, energy extremism of ANY kind is expensive nonsense. 

[metisdead]

Posts using derogatory and toxic nicknames or intentional misspelling of people’s names will be removed. If you don’t want your post to be removed, spell people’s names correctly.

[WDSmart]

4 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Data is not an opinion. The calculated costs are what I have posted.

 

You have yet to post any costings of your own.

Data is the result of applying an opinion. It's the result of someone's (or some AI's) decision on how to calculate the data. In the case of your data, that calculation did not include all the extraneous technologies, machines, and structures that would be required to create, deliver, operate, maintain, and finally retire the energy-harvesting technology.

I am prohibited from posting links to or even the title of my book. I assume I'd be allowed to send that to you via a message, but I won't do that unless you ask.

You might be interested to know that in my book, I reduce the sources of energy used by energy-harvesting technologies to just three: solar, nuclear, and gravity. I included all the fossil fuels under solar because the biological method in which they were created is exactly like how we use solar panels today. I also included wind and water mills under solar. I placed tides under gravity.

Soon after my book was published, which was five years ago, I decided that solar should also just be a type of nuclear energy. Then several years later after a lot of thinking on the subject, I decided that ALL ENERGY comes from a type of a force we call "gravity."

I have not revised my book since these realizations because classifying types of energy sources is not the main focus of my book. The focus of my book is broader than that. It is an ideological inquiry into the human-caused degradation of the Earth's biosphere. 

[RayC]

8 hours ago, Yagoda said:

The Global Warming is a Socialist hoax to gain power. 

 

Chapter 4 of 'Das Kapital'?

[MicroB]

Obviously, he's not in favour of wet flour.

 

 

Time for him to mend bridges with the separatists in Scotland. Wee Mammy has gone. Alex Salmond is dead. Humza is sorting out his Gaza relatives.

 

Jim Swinney recently met with Son Number 2 over tea and Tunnock's teacakes.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgw118nlkeo

 

Or lock him in a beach hut with an old guy, a pile of beef sandwiches and a bottle of Whiskey, and he might emerge a different man.

 

 

Great movie.

[MicroB]

27 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Data is the result of applying an opinion. It's the result of someone's (or some AI's) decision on how to calculate the data. In the case of your data, that calculation did not include all the extraneous technologies, machines, and structures that would be required to create, deliver, operate, maintain, and finally retire the energy-harvesting technology.

I am prohibited from posting links to or even the title of my book. I assume I'd be allowed to send that to you via a message, but I won't do that unless you ask.

You might be interested to know that in my book, I reduce the sources of energy used by energy-harvesting technologies to just three: solar, nuclear, and gravity. I included all the fossil fuels under solar because the biological method in which they were created is exactly like how we use solar panels today. I also included wind and water mills under solar. I placed tides under gravity.

Soon after my book was published, which was five years ago, I decided that solar should also just be a type of nuclear energy. Then several years later after a lot of thinking on the subject, I decided that ALL ENERGY comes from a type of a force we call "gravity."

I have not revised my book since these realizations because classifying types of energy sources is not the main focus of my book. The focus of my book is broader than that. It is an ideological inquiry into the human-caused degradation of the Earth's biosphere. 

 

 

Some very interesting viewpoints on LCA. You are no doubt very familiar with James Lovelock, and peope like John Martin.

 

I spent the early part of my career demonstrating the viability of CLAW.

 

It boils down to the idea of perpetual motion machines.