More Pet Projects of the Political Elites Will Impoverish New Englanders

More Pet Projects of the Political Elites Will Impoverish New Englanders

On snowy days, land-guzzling solar systems, despite their huge installed capacity, MW, their generation, MWh, is way short of their “wished for” generation, due to “weather dependence”, especially in New England, with panels frequently covered with snow and ice, and with foggy, dark cloudy conditions. 

Solar systems have near-zero output, MW, from about 5 pm to 9 am the next day, when people are at home using power.

As more systems are built, solar output, MW, during rare sunny days, would have a big bulge at noon-time, which far exceeds user demand, MW

Storing the huge excess MWh in very expensive batteries, and discharging 80% of it during the peak hours of late afternoon/early evening, is out of the question (is a gimmick), as that would add at least 30 c/kWh, to the price of the solar electricity taken from the HV grid, fed into the battery, discharged by the battery, and then fed to the HV grid.

Go woke, go big-time broke.


The political elites are screwing Vermonters and Mainers and everyone else they can get away with. 

Those elites are our real enemies. not some faraway people we do not even know.

Now you know why the electricity rates in the UK, California, Germany, New England, etc., are skyrocketing.

A bunch of climate screwballs were put in charge by the political elites, who are stealing from your pocket
They make the rules that enable/legalize the stealing, all in the name of global warming, which has mostly natural causes.

The only solution is to elect Trump by a major landslide, to far more than overcome any fraud the Democrats will come up with, now that "lawfare" seems to be not succeeding

He will undo all the dysfunctional wind/solar/battery BS inflicted on us by the Obama insiders running the posse that controls demented Biden.

More Pet Projects of the Political Elites Will Impoverish New Englanders

When you have a lot of expensive wind and solar systems, that produce expensive wholesale electricity and need a lot of subsidies, eventually, you will need large-scale battery systems to counteract the ups and downs of wind output and the midday bulges of solar output, especially after the climate know-nothings, with basket weaving and rioting degrees, cause the closure of traditional power plants, as they did in dysfunctional Germany, UK, California, etc.

Those traditional plants have proven for about 100 years, they can function on their own, without wind and solar systems, at 3 times lower production cost/kWh, and minimal subsidies/kWh

Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% throughput, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 20% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 4) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites. Excluded costs would add at least 10 – 15 c/kWh
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the Owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They excessively charged/discharged the system. After a few years, they added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it the during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening. They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations.
There is about a 20% round-trip loss, from HV grid to 1) step-down transformer, 2) front-end power electronics, 3) into battery, 4) out of battery, 5) back-end power electronics, 6) step-up transformer, to HV grid, i.e., you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, low-cost battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.

More Pet Projects of the Political Elites Will Impoverish New Englanders

World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021

During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW

Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%


Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine

Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!


Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.


Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:


1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.


Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)


Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.


About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.


The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies


The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government 


The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment


Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.

Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh


NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:


Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 
The cables would need some type of flexible support system

There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.


Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People: Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy. Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.


Floating Offshore Wind in Norway

Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company

Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.

On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies 

In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.

Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.

If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.



Pet Projects Our Elites Should be Promoting

Nuclear Plants by Russia

According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW

Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022

Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.


In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, 

The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.

As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU


In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom


In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed

In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station

Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.


Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures


Nuclear: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years

Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France


Wind: Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places

They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment 
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3)  a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced


Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.

American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the website, told TASS.


Tripling Nuclear A Total Fantasy: During COP28, Kerry called for the world to triple nuclear, from 370,200 MW to 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.


Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants

Plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.


New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would add 11% of world electricity generation in 2050. See table

Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation. That would become about 5% of 2050 generation, if some older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, 

Total nuclear would be 11+ 5 = 16%; minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. 

Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.

Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022


Proposed tripling


Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050


New Nuclear, MW






New Reactors, rounded






New nuclear production, MWh, 2050


Conversion factor



New nuclear production, TWh, 2050



World total production, TWh, 2050


The Elites Screw the People by Fraudulent Elections

While US people were kept in an induced, feel-good coma for decades, courtesy of the public school system and the lapdog Mass Media, the evil doers, operating under a stone, were:


1) Padding voter registration lists with much more names than people 18 and over, as in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin, plus


2) Buying the police force, the post office and the courts, and almost all government employees, plus


3) Controlling the counting centers, the rules of the game, and the printing press, in case more ballots were needed to get their favorite candidates over the hump, by hook and by crook, plus.


4) Stuffing the ballot drop boxes in the wee hours of the day.

Democrat mantra is:


Get those illegals out of holding pens, off the streets and into any legal housing with a legal address

Get them on a benefit and voter list

Get fake ballots into the system.

Get fake ballots counted on the Q T.


Democrats and their lapdog Mass Media mouthpieces tell you over and over, the Election was free, open and fair, the best in the world, the most democratic. Ha, I have a bridge....


Recently, the totally biased US Attorney General stated, IDs of any kind are not required, because that would be “discriminatory”

The US lapdog Media just nods and says nothing!!

A wide open invitation to even more Election fraud in 2024.

However, every European country REQUIRES PHOTO IDs. 


NOTE: Padding the registration list with faux names was the primary strategy to "win" in 2020.

It was not just padding lists, such as 50, or so, people giving an office building as their home address.

It was people who had moved out of the state and were voting elsewhere

It was dead people still on the lists

They were careful to pad the lists with just enough names to win by a small margin.

Illegal ballots arrived after midnight by truck, in backpacks, roll-on suitcases, etc., in the early hours of the day after Election day, in four swing states.

Just enough fake ballots were counted in four states, to win, where Trump was leading until about 10 am on Election day.

These states were Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

This likely will happen again in 2024, because very few people were punished in 2020 to 2024.

Trump will need huge majorities to win these swing states, big enough so massive fraud could not reverse his lead.

Election fraud in 2024 likely will be even worse than in 2020.

Again, it will be very obvious. 

There may be a second American Civil War

Remember the frauds of Election 2020?

At least 4 states gathered enough ballots from wherever, after the polls had closed, so they could be counted, with windows boarded up, into Biden's total, 3 to 6 days AFTER the closing of the polls, a US historic first, to demonstrate its version of free, open, and fair to the world.

The US people were SOOO screwed, plus they got open borders as a big present, from the Obama-led, leftist cabal that uses senile, folksy, Biden as their front man; Biden kept his 10%, and gets away with it, because of a friendly US DOJ.

Trump needs to win by a landslide, so that any cheating will be drowned.
That way Trump can undo 4 years of idiocies of the leftist cabal that controls Biden, who cannot read a teleprompter.

Many people are so brainwashed, so immersed in the Mass Media/WEF bull manure, from Kindergarten on, they are disturbed when faced with an alternative opinion
However, that alternative opinion needs to be listened to, as many countries, including the BRICS-11 countries, have been saying. 
The longer the West suppresses that opinion to its domestic audience, the worse for the West.
The lack of listening by the West, since 1990, is exactly the problem regarding the difficulty of starting and holding meaningful dialogs. 
The West has been making the rules, since 1945, and has been aiming to dictate/impose its “rules-based regime” onto the world for decades, as if one shoe fits all. 
By implication, the OP-ED distributed by Ed Harinck contains a lot of energy/environment issues, which likely was not realized by some people.
That “rules-based regime” has been extended by the West into its “environment craze” to prolong the West’s domination/control of the world.
The West uses its “rules-based regime” to more or less force BRICS-11, etc., to use expensive wind/solar/batteries, instead of plentiful, low-cost fossil fuels, which have been the main driver of the world economy since about 1850. 
About 80% of the world’s energy, for all purposes, is from low-cost fossil fuels, unchanged for at least 40 years.
Prior to 1850, wood was the main driver. 
Just imagine, if the world never had fossil fuels and had 8 billion people.
The impoverishment would be abominable.
The West should be building one hundred, standardized, near-zero-CO2, 2000 MW nuclear plants each year. They are designed to last at least 60 years, to ensure there will be enough power: 
1) Prior to the world’s fossil fuel supply diminishing, and to 
2) Provide the steady power supply to synthetically produce the physical ways and means for building the various infrastructures, for mining/processing raw materials, for making tens of thousands of products, for transporting them, for distributing them, and for selling them, including the thousands of products we use, and come in contact with, every day.
Expensive wind and solar, with crutches, such as super-expensive battery systems, with their short life times, could never economically do that.

El Niños, Hunga Tonga Volcanic Eruption, and the Tropics

Also see


Molecules Absorbing Photons Excites Molecules and Creates Heat

Photons are very small packets of energy with various frequencies; E = h x f;  h = 6.626 x 10^-34, Planck's constant.

c/f = y, is wavelength; c = 3 x 10^8 meter, the speed of light in a vacuum.

Infrared photons have low energies, because of low frequency and long wavelengths.

If y = 15 micrometers, E = 1.3252 x 10^-20 joule; 1/y = wavenumber.

See C.7 Molecules, Photons, and Total Extinction

C.7.1, CO2


The radiation, E, emitted by the earth at the 15 micrometer wavelength, and line width of 2 micrometer is 0.0042 W/cm2    C.6.3

The photon energy is according to Planck Ef = hc/λ     C.7.1

Thus Ef = (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15 x 10^-6) = 1.325 x 10^-20 joule

The number of photons emitted is 0.0042/(1.325 x 10^-20) = 3.17 x 10^17 per cm^2 per second.

At sea level, at 288 K, air density at 1.223 kg/m3, CO2 at 400 ppm, the number of CO2 molecules is 1.012 x 10^22 per m3.


The Dr. Heinz Hug (1) experiment measured, a virtually total extinction distance of 10 m.

Thus, the time frame within which absorption takes place is 10/(3 x 10^8) = 3.333 x 10^-8 second, i.e., 0.0333 microsecond.

In such a timeframe, the number of emitted photons is 3.17 x 10^17 x 0.0333 x 10 ^-6 = 1.0556 x 10^10 

In a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 m high, for extinction, CO2 at 400 ppm, the number of CO2 molecules is 1 x 10^19

Thus, the ratio between CO2 molecules and photons for extinction is (1 x 10^19)/(1.0556 x 10^10) = 9.47 x 10^8 molecule/photon


In a column of air, 1 cm2 and 80 km high, CO2 at 400 ppm, the number of CO2 molecules is 8.28 x 10^21

Thus, the fraction of CO2 molecules that participates in extinction is (1 x 10^19)/(8.28 x 10^21) = 0.0012 i.e., 0.12%

This is independent of the way the excitation energy is dissipated, be-it by collisions or by radiation.


C.7.2, WV


WV is the most dominant greenhouse gas.

Above about 10 km, WV ppm is near zero. 

The average concentration of WV in the troposphere is about 0.4% volume, or 4000 ppm.

With an average WV density of 0.6 kg/m^3, in a column of air, 1 cm^2 and 10 km high, the number of WV molecules is (volume x density/mole wgt.) x number of Avogadro x concentration (See C.7.1), i.e., 600 kg/29 x (6 x 10^23) x (4000 x 10^-6) = 4.96 x 10^22 molecules 


In 150 m there is full extinction of BB radiation. It sets a time frame of 0.5 microsecond

A column of air, 1 cm2 and 150 m high, at 288 K, at 10^5 Pa, and ρ = 1.223 kg/m3, contains 0.0183 kg air.
Thus, the number of air molecules is (18.3/29) x (6 x 10^23) = 3.79 x 10^23 molecules.  See C.1 and C.2

At 4000 ppm, the number of WV molecules, 150 m high is (4000 x 10^-6) x (3.79 x 10^23) = 1.516 x 10^21

The fraction of WV molecules that participates in full extinction is (1.516 x 10^21)/(4.96 x 10^22) = 0.305 x 10^-1 = 0.0305, i.e., 3%. 


The average wavelength in the BB radiation is about 15.4 micrometer

Thus, the energy of one photon is Efa = hc/λ= (6.626 x 10^-34) x (3 x 10^8)/(15.4 x 10^-6) = 1.291 x 10^-20 Joule

The total BB radiation is 0.0459 W/cm2  See C.6.6

Thus, the number of photons is 0.0459/(1.291 x 10^-20) = 3.56 x 10^18 per second

Extinction in 150 m, and a timeframe of 0.5 microsecond, gives (0.5 x 10^-6) x (3.56 x 10^18) = 1.78 x 10^12 photons

Thus, the ratio between WV molecules and photons for extinction is  (1.516 x 10^21)/(1.78 x 10^12) =

8.51 x 10^8 molecule/photon.

Those percentages fully absorb the earth's BB radiation, at their specific absorption wavelengths, at 300 K. See Image 11A and URL

The rest of the WV molecules first gained their energy by evaporation, then by collisions.

The rest of the CO2 molecules, and almost all other atmosphere molecules gained their energy by collisions.

Molecules near the surface have a mean free path of 64 - 68 nanometer. Even though their average speed, near the surface, is about 470 m/s, they travel very short distances before colliding with other molecules.

Near the surface, with the sun shining on land and water, dew and fog become WV, which is rising and forming clouds. 
As the surface temperature increases, IR radiation photons increase, and because of the above huge molecule to photon ratios, each 100 photons is surrounded by 10000 million molecules, of which 177,220,000 are WV, and 4,230,000 are CO2.

The higher 17722 ppm value is used, because almost all IR photon absorption occurs in the first 200 meter from the surface. See above vertical profile image

22 photons escape to space through the atmospheric window (no collision, no absorption),

5.5 photons (7% of 100 - 22), with 15 micrometer wavelength, either thermalize by collision with all other molecules, or are absorbed by WV and CO2 molecules.

72.5 photons thermalize by collision with all other molecules


Near the surface, WV absorbs 17722/(17722 + 423) = 98% of the 15 micrometer photons, and CO2 2%

If CO2 were 846 ppm (not possible due to not enough fossil fuels), WV would absorb 17722/(17722 + 846) = 95%, and CO2 5%. See image and URLs

It is dishonest to claim, WV does 39 to 62% of the energy retention/greenhouse effect, based on laboratory experiments and subjective models

Near the surface, WV absorbing IR photons totally swamps whatever CO2 does.

See dark areas regarding IR absorption in Image 11A

NOTE: This graph is based on a low value of WV at the surface of 7750 ppm, measured in 1985. 

That understates the H20 area and overstates the CO2 area (the 0 ppm squiggle should be lower).

It should have been based on 14500 to 17722 ppm, because almost all surface IR photon extinction occurs in the first 200 meters above the surface.

BTW, N2O, a trace gas, is just a tiny sliver. See pg. 4 of URL

See pg. 9 of URL



CO2 molecules absorb IR photons at four narrow bands of wavelengths, centered on 2.0, 2.7, 4.3 and 14.9 micrometers; the first three are minuscule compared to wide bands of WV molecules. See dark areas of Image 11A. CO2 molecules absorb minimal IR photons at frequencies greater than 15 micrometers

WV molecules have more bands, and those bands are much wider than of CO2 molecules, especially the bands with shorter wavelengths. See dark areas of Image 11A

WV molecules have up to 6 times wider absorption spectrum than CO2 molecules

IR photons with wavelengths from 0.8 to 70 micrometers (except the 8 - 13 micrometer window) are mostly absorbed by H2O molecules.

Each WV molecule can absorb IR photons at these wavelengths, plus WV molecules are far more abundant than  CO2 molecules.

WV molecules likely are more energetic than CO2 molecules, because of their absorption of short wavelength/high energy photons. See Image 11A and c/f = y equation. 


The heat of the warmed WV molecules is distributed, by means of mass transfer of energy, and conduction, convection, cloud formation/evaporation, to all molecules in the atmosphere, which mostly are 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Argon

That 99.9% neither absorbs nor radiates IR photons. It gets heated by contact with warmed earth surfaces (conduction) and rising warm air (convection)

After some time, that vast quantity of heat is emitted from everything in the atmosphere and earth surfaces.

The big lie behind the Western narrative on Russia is leading us to World War III


At least 40% of Ukraine’s Population Left Their Country

Views: 56


You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Willem Post on March 28, 2024 at 10:23am

20.98 c/kWh is a load of EIA crap for Vermont 

$188.38/819 kWh = 23.00 c/kWh from my latest electric bill

Comment by Dan McKay on March 28, 2024 at 10:02am


Here is the update on electric rates by the EIA, Residential rate, $0.416/kWh, a one-third increase. Yes, Hawaii Electric remains the highest cost electricity provider in the U.S.


Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power


Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT


(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.”

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

© 2024   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service