I'm not an advocater of it, but for the fun of it I will debate about it and play the three huger of the day

"If wind power were so great then why did shipping stop using it?"
They still use it for minor boats and it works fine.

"If wind power were so great then why is there no modifiications for cars to collect it and use the mechanical energy to power them?"
Because cars are a whole lot different. They need to take the energy with them.(like boats)  The density of energy is why electricity still doesn't work very well in cars. But it doesn't mean it works for houses.

"If wind power were so great then why are gliders less efficient for long distances than a jet plane?"
They don't use wind energy to go forward, and jet planes cost a whole lot more.

"If wind power were so great then why why is the White House not got a fan of its own?"
Cause obama has got to spoil it elswhere?... Maybe his kid has one of those little mills for children you put one ice cream.

> Einstein wrote:

> This is just to make you angry

Trofl <---- (my new "rofl" for uses against/by trolls...)

'Reductio ad absurdum' (I hope that is how it is spelt) is not a valid arguing technique

Why don't we just sit a nuclear reactor in every car? Maybe we can go back to using coal fuelled trains? (ie. Steam trains) OOOOOOO geo-thermal energy to fuel cars! For example, maybe Hydrogen technology can be refined enough to make it a viable energy source, but would that be an effective source for large scale energy consumption? (the answer to this is probably not...and this is only my opinion, but since the production of Hydrogen requires electricity, it still requires another energy source). Nuclear reactors (using either Thorium or Uranium) are not viable sources for automobiles for power generation, but doesn't mean that they should be abandoned all together?

If wind power can be used to create energy to fit into a countries energy plan, budget, and policy, why should it be rejected because it can't be used in another application like automobiles?

I demand a geothermal powered airplane!

> Zarf BeebleBrix wrote:

> I demand a geothermal powered airplane!

Actually, I am sure I can find a light aircraft powered by an electric motor...we could charge the batteries from geothermal energy, does that count?

Kemp... your lack of humor annoys me.

Tie him to a windmill!

Your lack of humor has been reported to the EPA, they have dispatched a handpicked NEA squad to re-educate you.

I think you mean Inner Mongolia...?

>>China has an 'all of the above' strategy, while Obama has a 'only if it helps my friends' strategy.

Are you saying that any other person in western politics would be any different? I mean normally the right when in power are worse for helping their mates into positions of privilege, though I notice (when I bother to look) that in the US it is a very tic for tac type efforts on just about everything, giving plush jobs to friends, re-writing the way democracy works, ensuring people they don't like are marginised and ignored, removing freedoms that give them more power and the other side less....

So you agree corruption is happening, and you are against it?

Then repeat after me

"Obama should not be re-elected since he has shown corruption"