abu afak
ALLAH SNACKBAR!
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,702
- 2,699
- 315
- Thread starter
- #21
"renewables" are thee most economic?
Not in terms of the amount of land they literally destroy. 1000's of square miles. Cutting down trees, cactus, destroying the wildlife?
Not in terms of cost, $100 trillion is the cost the democrats have stated, the cost that the advocacy groups state, the cost investment advisors such as ceres states. Even the democrats favorite congresswoman states that is the cost.
Not in terms of the time required to build all of them. We are told it will take 50 years (or is that how long it will take to print $100 trillion).
Not in terms of the amount of natural resources needed, more than all other forms of energy combined. After all that $100 trillion is needed to buy and process raw minerals into the worlds largest in area "power plants".
Not in terms of the amount of energy provided
Not in terms of supplying energy in times of war or disaster.
Renewables, are inefficient on a scale abu afk is not smart enough to comprehend
"...they literally destroy. 1000's of square miles. Cutting down trees, cactus, destroying the wildlife?"
You literally a partisan blind story teller.
Windmills go mostly on remote hillsides, prairie, Off shore, and farmers get paid for dotting their empty fields with them.
The best places for solar are arid or desert with few to no "trees." (not to mention house rooftops as good insulation)
(Off the grid naturalists/'homesteaders' cut down trees every day to live 'free.' Watch those Alaska shows.)
Meanwhile you can't walk the street of many parts of China or India without a mask/choking to death on Coal and other Fossil Fuel Particulate that kills or shortens the life of millions.
Not to mention those who live downstream of fossil plants here (and acid rain). And Coal mining/black lung isn't pretty either.
What a goofy tale you made up just to be a RWer.
`
Last edited: