LOL - "let me off the hook"?  What you actually mean,  is that you'll concede that I'm right.  Thanks.

I was letting you off the hook because you have a child-like(AOC) level of comprehension on this topic.

Hey mark - um, ALL cars, whether gas or electric will need these metals.  Duh.  So here's an idea - let's use a fuel in those cars that DOESN'T require more fossil fuels.

Yeah - again, see above....

This is my point, you're world revolves around driving a car or getting on a bus or plane now and then. You're not realizing the energy required to power the infrastructure for all those items to be possible. And you're not considering the energy needs of the near future. At least 25% of the world's population do not have access to electricity.

There are numerous write ups on this topic and one I read recently was pointing out something related to your powered flight to moon analogy.

The maximum energy efficiency that can be captured by wind blade is 60%. That's it, can't go any higher. Today's blades are at 45%. The maximum energy for photovoltaic in solar panels is 33%. That's it. Right now we're at 26%.

Yea, we went to the moon in 70 years. And we can go to a few planets over a very long period of time, but that's it. We'll never, ever travel to a star. We simply cannot travel fast enough. There is a limit that we'll reach and that will be it.

The fuel to power a rocket into orbit weights many times more than the rocket itself meaning we have nearly, if not already, reached the limit of what we can launch into orbit.

Now, apply that to energy generation using wind and solar. It can't be done.

Physics are a b!itch but they are what they are.

WebsterMark wrote on 09/18/19 at 10:26:59:

It sounds like you're saying,.. because we can't use renewable energy for everything, we shouldn't use it at all...

How about the opposite logic,.. because we will always need fossil fuel for some things, we shouldn't squander it on those things that we don't.

As far as wind energy being 60% efficient,... does that even make sense, being that the wind is blowing whether we use it or not?
Whatever amount we capture is 100% more than nothing.

Wow, you are so clueless on this mark...

Now - here's my point that you missed completely.

The example I give about going to the Moon has NOTHING to do with rocket velocity or distance or anything of the sort.

It's about the technology that we developed - solely to beat the Russians - to get to the Moon.  The advancements in computing, fuel cells, robotics, communications, etc.  In those 7 decades we traveled not only to the moon, but also into a new era - thanks solely to the practically unlimited budget of Nasa to defeat the Russians during the Cold War.

Like I said - 100% political.  That's a fact.

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about. Seriously. Read up on the Laws of Thermodynamics and get back to me.

It sounds like you're saying,.. because we can't use renewable energy for everything, we shouldn't use it at all...

Not at all. I'm just say stop fooling yourself into thinking renewables are a solution. They are not. They are just one component of energy production.

How about the opposite logic,.. because we will always need fossil fuel for some things, we shouldn't squander it on those things that we don't.

All for it. I'd love the option of an electric motorcycle. Just don't force me to get rid of an SUV or turn my AC up in the winter because you think you're going to save the planet. You're not.


As far as wind energy being 60% efficient,... does that even make sense, being that the wind is blowing whether we use it or not?
Whatever amount we capture is 100% more than nothing.

It makes a great deal of sense if you're operating under the delusion that wind and solar are viable sources to replace our current sources. Like I mentioned elsewhere, 60% of 10 is a hell of a lot smaller than 37%  of 100.

You are mind numbingly ignorant.

EVERY SINGLE FEMTO-WATT OF ENERGY THAT THIS PLANET HAS HAD OR WILL EVER HAVE, COMES (directly or indirectly) FROM THE SUN.

That statement means nothing. It's like saying everything on the earth comes directly or indirectly from cosmic events. Yea, so?  I think I read once that the sun produces more energy in one second than mankind has used during it's entire existence.

Seriously, stop talking. Or better yet, stop googling terms and posting stuff you just read. You don't know what you're talking about. You never heard of the term femtowatt until you read it earlier today.

WebsterMark wrote on 09/18/19 at 13:55:04:



OK professor - prove that I'm wrong on anything I posted.  ANYTHING.

I dare you.

Not my fault you don't like to be schooled.  

(btw, "femto" is a term I've used on here many times before - you need to pay better attention - that's why you got schooled)

OK professor - prove that I'm wrong on anything I posted.  ANYTHING.

As I've indicated, you don't really understand much at all on this topic as indicated below.  

You're gonna sit there and tell me that just because wind can only be 60% efficient that we should quit and count our losses?  Meanwhile, now at their peak technology, coal is topping out at 37% efficiency and natural gas/combined are at 55 - 60%.  That's as good as they'll get.  Wind, solar and other renewables are in their infancy comparatively.

And this is why you should stop talking. 37% efficiency of coal with a power density which is at least one multitude higher than wind at 60%. Think for a minute, look at it this way, 37% of a 500 watt lightbulb vs 60% of a candle flame.