Sorry, you are right, I mixed up the name of the sugar I meant ... have to dig it out again.

So you take your invested $ to generate this power, divide it by the efficiency of your H2 generation rig YES.
[...] Oh and you also just expanded your capital costs by the cost of an industrial-sized H2 generator: YES
a gas pipeline NO, that is already existing, that is the point.
and a gas plant. NO, that is already existing, that is the point.

See, you understand how forgone revenue works. Instead of losing all of the power from curtailed wind turbines, you only lose ~3/4 of it by using the energy - H2 - energy conversion method, No, the loss is max 20% when H2 is generated and 40% when the CH4 is burned in a combined gas plant (as pointed out: H2 is burned by ordinary stoves and heating customers, not in a gas plant, so we trade H2 for CH4)
So why don't you look at it from the "correct" perspective? Instead of losing 100% by doing nothing but shutting down the wind turbine, we don't lose 50% in the conversion processes but GAIN 50% of the energy we otherwise had lost.
in effect increasing your cost to produce it by a factor of 4. No it does not, the cost for electrolysis and pumping H2 into an existing gas grid is minimal. And you add capital costs for an H2 generation rig and gas grid and gas plant operations. Also, selling into the gas market means you're competing with the NG providers, so you'll be selling at whatever they're selling at (and they tend to sell _really_ cheap).
You seem not to read what I write. NG providers and electricity providers are the same companies And you have no clue about gas markets. Cheap? In the USA? Yes! In Europe? No! Gas costs nearly the same as electricity (for big customers).

Wow, that 1% reduction is really going to save the planet. Remember, you're limited by a volumetric concentration of 5%.
Yes and no. You can add the H2 to a bio gas storage, then you have no real limit. And you also simply miss the point:
the H2 is piped into an EXISTING gas grid, CONSUMED IMMEDIATELY (more or less) in gas ovens used for heating and cooking, so the total amount of H2 gas produced is only limited by the current consumption.
While the gas grid distributes H2 mixed in, the gas company saves a huge amount of CH4. The equivalent of the H2 obviously. Yes, it is only 5% ... but look at your bank account. If every month you had 5% of your money left after a few years that would pile up quite nicely. And we are not talking here about a few MWs, we are talking about TWs. So a 5% saving on costs for importing gas sounds not so bad IMHO.
Finally we talk about the option to feed surplus peak power into the gas grid. That does not necessarily mean that there ever will be a draw on the gas grid to produce electricity. Or that such a consumption would be equivalent to the H2 piped in before. So yes, bottom line there will be a nice CO2 saving as the usage of CH4 is reduced.

Whoa now young man, that's a bold statement. I suppose you're not familiar with the acronyms ROI (return on investment) and O&M (operations and maintenance), but in the world of actual projects that cost money to build and run, they reign supreme. Lost production for a wind farm is as serious as it is for anyone (your investors expect a return and profit - try and tell them your ROI is maybe 3-4x as long as you had originally planned and they'll eat you alive).
I'm very likely much older than you :D
You simply forget that (after I pointed out that many of your assumptions are wrong) that ROIs are not that relevant when you are working at plans and projects that change the world and take decades to finish.
Or do you believe someone considered the ROI of the Egyptian pyramids?
If we look at the ROI of the existing nuclear plants in Germany, they only started to pay off after their runtime got extended beyond their original design. Before that they only generated losses. But those losses are hidden away in budgets belonging to the government.
The fact alone that we build wind plants is a stimulus to the economy. Power prices are going down right now, and in a decade Germany will likely have the cheapest power on the world, except for the countries that catch up and also invest into renewable. Another stimulus to the economy, not a great one though.
And about which investors are you talking anyway? When I'm going to build a 5GW power plant looking for investors is the least thing I do.

I only try to adapt to the level of manners and arrogance and generalization we usually see here :D

In case I visit the USA or Canada I certainly will visit the lakes :D Just googled for some ships ... quite a lot old school sailing.

I was sailing in Brittany the previous week (and south england the channel islands) we saw only a few (like 5 or so) nice ships. A 4 mast tall ship, but under engine, and 3 brigs or brigantines, under sail. One was following us when we where sailing with like 30kn wind in a strong current (top ground speed 14.4kn, unbelievable in a Sloop with just the jib out, but speed through the water was only 6.5kn - 7.5kn or so, the rest was 'surving' and the current)

So? How so? If we don't get down to zero, the planet will continue to warm up, only slower. At some point we have to come to zero, a no brainer.

And? it is the web site of the leading nutrition researcher of the world.
If you want peer reviewed journals, google your self.

100% of the systems broken into use windows AND have India based admin/coding.

Actually, we have replaced our talent with cheaper overseas ppl. In fact, everybody that is being cracked employ many overseas coders (along with Windows).
Think that there is a relationship?

Some of the stupidest ppl elsewhere and here screamed that target was caused by having an HVAC key. So, I guess that HVAC everywhere is making it possible to break into these systems?
Or is is far more likely that all of them using Windows, combined with using off-shore admin/coding, specifically India where the 60 rupees to $1 means that their engineers are making less than $10K / year, the far more likely route?

My bet is that the idiots, combined with those who are doing the bribes, continue to push the idea that it was an American inside job.

My itching was more from hystamine spilling out due to the infamation, the only time there was any pain was when air was hitting the raw skin durring dressing changes; like the itchy, gritty feeling from a sunburn, only lasting for a couple months.

The advantage is that it will create a constant current in the canal.

Regardless of the length of the canal -- at least until evaporation becomes a factor.

The constant current can be leveraged to move boats, presumably fairly deep hulled so the really get in the way of the current, and said boats can carry whatever.

Two canals adjoining allows the boat to be moved from one to the other, and sent back to the other end, ad infinitum.

When you put a cork in a river, it'll go from the mountains to the sea, because the current carries it.

What I'm suggesting is create an artificial current using pumps. The two 'c's run in different directions, so you have a full transport loop.

All four ends are physically adjacent, so you only need one pumping station if you connect the two c's across one end.

Old time canals used donkeys and engines to navigate. This works like a river and a raft. You float to where you're going.

> You're assuming you'll get free energy out of this?

Um... no... where would get such an idea?

Think about it. If you put a transport thing in there (think boat) with a nice deep hull, and there's a 5 knot current along the entire canal created by the transfer at the ends of the C, what will the boat do? Now add another boat at a reasonable interval, say another boat length.

Do you imagine doing this will slow down either the current or the other boat?

That's the point, and that's all I am assuming.

That depends on the DPI. My phone, very small indeed, is 1080x1920 (or 1920x1080 if I'm holding it funny.) One of the monitors on my 8-core desktop is 1280x1024.

The DPI difference between them is radical. Even so, any properly designed page will allow the user's browser to resize and reflow the content to fit the window if it's of any sane width (probably only wide enough to render the longest word in the content.) If it can't do that, the browser should hand you scroll bars. Be nice if the browser had a user setting "minimum width before scroll bars", too. That'd be a joy.

Fixed aspect / resolution webpages are horrible.

That, and "hover" menus and windows are the #1 reason why I surf away from web pages.

Tip to "designers": If I didn't CLICK on it, I didn't WANT it, and that means ITS IN MY FUCKING WAY

(cough) Sorry.

Desktop screens have had two sizes in the past 10 years to my knowledge: 4:3 and 16:9 (or close to it),

Irrelevant. All you really need to know is that pixels are square. It's been some time since we had to deal with non-square pixels. Everything else should be up to the user's browser window.

layout constraints

...doing it wrong. The BROWSER should control the layout. Not the data source.