Well said Jim.
Concerning journalists and physics - one of the reasons for the US having so much
press favoring renewables and other such inconsequentioal (on the scale of our
consumption) sources of energy is because of journalists' utter ignorance of basic
physics and units. I read German and Czech press and there is no comparison on how
confusing and incorrect our data are. Energy is routinely in watts, power in kWh, and
data are presented in any number of the hundred or so units the US uses. Comparison is
impossible without doing math. Numbers are easily used to mislead, as few readers will
bother to compare because of the need for converting. And journalists would not know
how to do the conversion, as you point out.
Now, where does the non-technical but voting public get the education about energy
issues? From the ignorant journalists.
Is there any wonder that California in the last decade did not build any fossil or
nuclear plants but erected thousands of wind mills instead? Curiously, California now
says they did not build ANY power plants while in fact they spent a planty on making
Danmark rich (we buy the mills in Danmark). Are they ashamed? I hope. Gullible
journalists supporting "environmental causes" could not fathom the basic energy
concepts like name-plate power and annual energy generation (which, as any farmer in
Kansas would confirm) will be only a fraction of the name plate. Obviously, all the 16
000 or mills are doing next to nothing to compensate for just the two perfectly good
nukes that Californians voted to shut down.
Anyway, you point is well taken.
