Greta’s Captain Misses Her Petrol Station

Greta’s captain flew in on an airplane, magically “sailed” into a 25-30 knot wind, and misses her petrol station.  Perhaps she will teach Greta a few things about the real world.

(88) Nikki Henderson – Home

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Greta’s Captain Misses Her Petrol Station

  1. Dave N says:

    I guess she didn’t entirely have her full faculties when she posted that, including the irony that it relies on a fossil-fuel backed global network in order to reach everybody.

    Now if only she could imagine being on a ship that was constructed and outfitted with absolutely no fossil fuel involvement whatsoever..

    Lol.. Nah.. took her long enough to realise the stuff she is missing.

    • Scissor says:

      She sounds like a thankful person and talented and skilled sailor and fully indoctrinated.

      • Ken says:

        My heart is warmed because they are not burning the fossil fuels that I gladly burned when my wife and I went on a ride with another couple in their full-sized, long-bed, crew-cab cowboy Cadillac (luxury pickup truck) on a cruise to Muskogee to reminisce about my wife’s and the husband’s upbringing in that nice town. Then we went over to Ft. Gibson because the “Big Boy” 4-8-8-4 locomotive was coming through on a US tour after it was restored at great cost to help us all remember why we live in such a great economy. This big-a** locomotive ( 550,ooo kg) was built in 1941 to haul coal from Utah to Wyoming over the Wasatch Range (there were 25 of them built). I have ridden on some trains pulled by steam engines, but none of those engines were capable of burning so much fossil fuel (originally low-grade coal, now fuel oil) as this guzzler. Thank you, Greta. In case you don’t know it by now, the boat your are on and every single piece of it, plus the electronics that you and the crew and your friends use, and the engines that help you get in and out of port without colliding with other vessels and the docks, could not have been made without fossil fuels. Also made possible by fossil fuels: the harbor which requires fossil-fueled dredges to maintain its depths and width; the navigation aids which are made of stainless steel, alunim(i)um, brass, copper, and glass; the docks, breakwaters and all of the other vessels; the port administration buildings and all of their furnishings and computers; the grocery stores and restaurants, the vehicles to transport you to whatever buildings (also made possible by fossil fuels) you are going to, unless the odd electric car shows up to carry you away, were all created because of fossil fuels. I am leaving out a lot of things that were provided by fossil fuels, like roads, stoplights, sidewalks, sewer systems, water systems, electrical grids, farms, tractors and other farm equipment, etc., etc., etc.

        But you might say, “Yes, but some of the energy came from wind turbines and solar arrays.” And you would be correct. But then you forget (if you ever knew), that wind turbines and solar arrays were only possible because of cheap, abundant, fossil fuel energy. If you pay attention to basic physics and basic arithmetic, you realize that the average wind turbine cannot, in its lifetime, generate enough energy to build, erect, and maintain, a wind turbine. The same goes for solar panels. Ironic, no?

        Greta, I have a question. Are you that naive? Or are you just uneducated?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Hey Ken! You say, “the average wind turbine cannot, in its lifetime, generate enough energy to build, erect, and maintain, a wind turbine. The same goes for solar panels. Ironic, no? Greta, I have a question. Are you that naive? Or are you just uneducated?”

          Naive or uneducated? Nah… the issue is just that the CAGW enthusiasts fail to admit that the purpose of wind turbines and solar panels was never about net power production. They are not designed to produce power; they are built to produce warm fuzzy virtue feelings — and for that, they are very effective, at least to the CO2 cultists.

        • Ken says:

          To be fair, I did some searching after I posted this and found several websites that say that wind turbines do produce enough power over their lifetime to build and install wind turbines if they are installed in an area with favorable wind. Some sites say it takes 3 years to generate that much power, some say less time. Not great. So I removed that wording and posted again.

          Still, they are definitely not suitable for grid-scale power delivery without raising prices dramatically. Just ask UK, Germany, and South Australia, and California as well.

          And remember that former President Obama, in a moment of weakness, said as much. In early 2008, candidate Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that “under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” It was not a strain on him to keep that promise. I especially love the word “skyrocket”. He was uncharacteristically candid. Of course, the mainstream media did not report this. It fell into the MSM’s leftist black hole.

          • Gator says:

            I doubt sincerely that any wind turbine today will produce enough power to justify their energy cost. The only websites I have found that do this use fantasy modeling that assumes optimal conditions and output, and assumes no maintenance. Modern wind farms only produce 30-40% of their capacity, and only if winds are blowing 8-25 mph 24/7/365. Now factor in the fact that instead of 30 years of production, most turbines fail within half that time.

            In the end, wind power costs @ 43 cents/kWh, or 7 times that of natural gas. Why would anyone invest in wind power? And we haven’t even started discussing the massive negative environmental impacts…

      • Ken says:

        My heart is warmed because they are not burning the fossil fuels that I gladly burned when my wife and I went on a ride with another couple in their full-sized, long-bed, crew-cab cowboy Cadillac (luxury pickup truck) on a cruise to Muskogee to reminisce about my wife’s and the husband’s upbringing in that nice town. Then we went over to Ft. Gibson because the “Big Boy” 4-8-8-4 locomotive was coming through on a US tour after it was restored at great cost to help us all remember why we live in such a great economy. This big-a** locomotive ( 550,ooo kg) was built in 1941 to haul coal from Utah to Wyoming over the Wasatch Range (there were 25 of them built). I have ridden on some trains pulled by steam engines, but none of those engines were capable of burning so much fossil fuel (originally low-grade coal, now fuel oil) as this guzzler. Thank you, Greta. In case you don’t know it by now, the boat your are on and every single piece of it, plus the electronics that you and the crew and your friends use, and the engines that help you get in and out of port without colliding with other vessels and the docks, could not have been made without fossil fuels. Also made possible by fossil fuels: the harbor which requires fossil-fueled dredges to maintain its depths and width; the navigation aids which are made of stainless steel, alunim(i)um, brass, copper, and glass; the docks, breakwaters and all of the other vessels; the port administration buildings and all of their furnishings and computers; the grocery stores and restaurants, the vehicles to transport you to whatever buildings (also made possible by fossil fuels) you are going to, unless the odd electric car shows up to carry you away, were all created because of fossil fuels. I am leaving out a lot of things that were provided by fossil fuels, like roads, stoplights, sidewalks, sewer systems, water systems, electrical grids, farms, tractors and other farm equipment, etc., etc., etc.

        But you might say, “Yes, but some of the energy came from wind turbines and solar arrays.” And you would be correct. But then you forget (if you ever knew), that wind turbines and solar arrays were only possible because of cheap, abundant, fossil fuel energy.

        Greta, I have a question. Are you that naive? Or are you just uneducated?

  2. Jimmy Haigh says:

    It sounds a really tough life being a climate warrior.

  3. Lasse says:

    No Water?
    They are surrounded of it. With some pressure it can be drinkable. It takes some energy-even manual energy can bee used. Perhaps Yatzy was more fun?
    Most boats have a method to clean seawater from salt. But I guess the energy that can do it is petroleum based, there is the problem!
    For them!

    • Disillusioned says:

      LOL

      • Logic n reason says:

        The preening , sanctimonious, self righteousness of Ms Henderson’s post is nauseating. All the things she counts her blessings for like the grocery store etc are all supplied by …..fossil fuels! As I have said before about Greta ‘She is not the Messiah, she’s a very naughty girl!’

  4. Dave Ward says:

    Considering their Catamaran has a pair of 30hp Volvo Diesel engines, it’s just as well they missed the “Petrol” station…

    • Tomsa says:

      They need petrol likely for the Yamaha generator which with the weather conditions they’re having they need to use since the fancy solar panels onboard likely aren’t doing much to help charge their batteries.

      They’re not making much progress today. Wonder if Greta will let them use those engines if they can’t make the conference on time.

  5. dearieme says:

    How does one “crack open” a bar of chocolate?

    I wonder what the first draft said.

  6. Robertv says:

    “Greta’s captain flew in on an airplane”

    That was my thought, Too many women for just one man on that ship.

  7. Andy says:

    Clever by the two you tube sailers to get Greta on board out of “kindness”. Their channel will have thousands more viewers and make them even more money.

    They started off with a cheap monohull at the start in the Med, and now I see they are up to a catamaran. At this rate this will be able to afford one of Roman Abramovich’s big diesel yachts … :)

    I notice they have put a real sailor on board for probably safety and insurance reasons. The youtubers are enthusiastic but hardly Robin Knox Johnson when it comes to sailing.

  8. Robert Nelson says:

    These types of political/activist show trips are nauseating at many levels but let’s not damage our credibility in criticizing where we don’t have knowledge. You can’t sail directly into the wind but a competent sailor can indeed sail “into” the wind by tacking back and forth at an angle across the incoming wind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.