More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is nobody like conservatives to kick the can down the road. There is no problem that can't be accommodated for another day. Ignore, ignore, ignore, panic. But blame the delay on others. That’s the important part. Blame, blame, blame.

What a bunch of losers.

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

Not 50 years to payback. 50 years to solve.

Paying Big for Nothing

For society as a whole, the costs have reached levels comparable only to the euro-zone bailouts. This year, German consumers will be forced to pay €20 billion ($26 billion) for electricity from solar, wind and biogas plants -- electricity with a market price of just over €3 billion. Even the figure of €20 billion is disputable if you include all the unintended costs and collateral damage associated with the project. Solar panels and wind turbines at times generate huge amounts of electricity, and sometimes none at all. Depending on the weather and the time of day, the country can face absurd states of energy surplus or deficit.

If there is too much power coming from the grid, wind turbines have to be shut down. Nevertheless, consumers are still paying for the "phantom electricity" the turbines are theoretically generating. Occasionally, Germany has to pay fees to dump already subsidized green energy, creating what experts refer to as "negative electricity prices."

High Costs and Errors of German Transition to Renewable Energy - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Can we get some of that super expensive, unreliable electricity here?
I wouldn't want to kick the can down the road.

 

[SSDD]

Well funded by whom?

The federal government.

Correct. Many federal governments fund the UN which funds the IPCC. Science is not free.
What's the problem with paying people to do their job?

Do you work for free?

If I failed as miserably at my job as the IPCC has, I would not have a job....and why the IPCC will soon be out of business as well. The last report from them will be their last. Even the mainstream press is having a hard time supporting them now.

 

[SSDD]

The difference between liberals and conservatives is the value of truth. Conservatives don't care if things are true as long as they are politically useful.

Blame your opponent for what you are doing. The first rule in propaganda and you have it down pat. Congratulations....goebells would be proud of you.

 

[PMZ]

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

Let's see, you could spend $30,000 to save $600 a year. Is that efficient?

You could spend billions on wind power that still requires a gas power plant to run when the wind stops blowing. Is running a nat gas plant 30% or 50% of the time efficient?

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now.

You guys haven't whined that we shouldn't tap the ANWR, because it would only last 5 years? That we shouldn't drill offshore, because it'll only supply us for a few years?

Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Money spent for reliable power that works is more affordable than money spent on unreliable power.
And I'd like a link for anyone that ever said it's affordable forever.

There is nobody like conservatives to kick the can down the road. There is no problem that can't be accommodated for another day. Ignore, ignore, ignore, panic. But blame the delay on others. That’s the important part. Blame, blame, blame.

What a bunch of losers.

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

You apparently have found an alternative to permanent, fuel and waste free energy. I can't wait to hear it.

 

[flacaltenn]

"B'Endiana Natuf and the Volcano of Doom"

A right wing crisis of sorts
A disaster close to our hearts
One more carbon dioxide machine
Extinct, gone from the scene
Call Rush! Call Sean! Call Bono!
We must save the last volcano

Arriving in their corporate jets
Or convoys of hummers and corvettes
They rally at Reagan Internationale
So dour, so pious, so fashionable
Nary a common tree hugger wacko
Thus not a word of enviro mytho

We'll have our statement on the environments
After we make these two announcements
We've selected B' En as our native guide
To save this generator of carbon dioxide
He'll sail for Iceland on the Calypso
That frenchy's ship we got as a repo

A gaseous producer we'll save to prove our points
That a mere compound of life giving elements
Cannot trap heat in the atmosphere
What we deny will be perfectly clear
It will not take inspector Cleauseau
To prove the innocence of CO2

B' En has landed in Iceland he reports
He will initiate our plan of last resorts
For the volcano with the limestone facade
No doubt plugged by Bjork and Sinead
A flyover with Sarah shooting drano
Down the throat of that dormant volcano

With a prayer to Vulcan , B' En departs
No virgin to sacrifice Sarah retorts
(Tucker Carlson didn't answer our query)
The blast and the sound and fury
Signals the spewing of dogma we bestow
Again to the world with this magma flow
___________

Just to be clear.. The thanks on that post is for the entertainment and drama.. Not for any particular scientific insight or opinion...

 

[bripat9643]

It seems they ran the letter. So to what censorship do you refer? And how is free enquiry affect in the slightest?

My apologies, I had not read the link. It seems they did not publish it. Standby while I finish the article.

Okay. I heartily endorse the LA Times decision not to publish letters containing factual inaccuracies.

Letters to the editor aren't required to be "factually accurate." Furthermore, the L.A. Times isn't qualified to determine their accuracy.

The same condition has never stopped you from pretending to determine accuracy.

I'm more than qualified to detect bullshit when I encounter it. Consider every one of your posts. Every single one contains one or more logical fallacies.

 

[polarbear]

There is nobody like conservatives to kick the can down the road. There is no problem that can't be accommodated for another day. Ignore, ignore, ignore, panic. But blame the delay on others. That’s the important part. Blame, blame, blame.

What a bunch of losers.

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

You apparently have found an alternative to permanent, fuel and waste free energy. I can't wait to hear it.

And I can`t wait to hear or see how your jaw drops when you finally realize how you have been had by the "green" or "renewable energy" agenda.
You should think that you can`t fool all of the people all of the time, especially since we live now in what`s toted as the information age.
Then again there is no shortage of people like you, totally ignorant of reality till it runs you over and makes roadkill out of you, as it did with most Europeans years ago, when they were (finally) "informed" that neither wind nor solar can supply power on demand.
Only after huge sums of money, tax payer`s money of course and future generations have been hopelessly indebted and after the point of no return was reached.
Every engineer knew that neither wind nor solar can supply a power on demand grid.
The engineers who pointed that out have been subjected to witch hunts and the rest shut up and cooperated with the tax subsidized green agenda to implement step #1.
Now that turning back is no longer a option step #2 is finally revealed.
Step #2 is by far more expensive and environmentally destructive than step#1 . It necessitates the decapitation of mountain tops in the once pristine black forest to make room for huge pump storage basins:

Bad Säckingen: Bleibt alles so, kommt Atdorf nicht - badische-zeitung.de

Bleibt alles so, kommt Atdorf nicht

Each of these storage basins costs more than 1.5 billion Euros and will use the power from wind and solar to store pumped water in order to run hydro turbines which then and only then will be able to sync with a power on demand power grid such as the one you are relying on.

Now there is a huge backlash from enviro groups who have been fooled just like you:

It`s too late now, but they finally realized that those who can say "we told you so" were not paid off by "the oil lobby".
Seeing that all that information is freely available on the internet what happened on the other side of the Atlantic should prevent the same con-game on this side of the ocean.
But apparently in the meantime way more than one sucker per minute is born over here....writing crap like that:

The difference between liberals and conservatives is the value of truth. Conservatives don't care if things are true as long as they are politically useful.
How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

 

[PMZ]

Letters to the editor aren't required to be "factually accurate." Furthermore, the L.A. Times isn't qualified to determine their accuracy.

The same condition has never stopped you from pretending to determine accuracy.

I'm more than qualified to detect bullshit when I encounter it. Consider every one of your posts. Every single one contains one or more logical fallacies.

There must be a huge difference between what's in your mind and what you post. And what you read here and what goes in your mind.

 

[PMZ]

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

You apparently have found an alternative to permanent, fuel and waste free energy. I can't wait to hear it.

And I can`t wait to hear or see how your jaw drops when you finally realize how you have been had by the "green" or "renewable energy" agenda.
You should think that you can`t fool all of the people all of the time, especially since we live now in what`s toted as the information age.
Then again there is no shortage of people like you, totally ignorant of reality till it runs you over and makes roadkill out of you, as it did with most Europeans years ago, when they were (finally) "informed" that neither wind nor solar can supply power on demand.
Only after huge sums of money, tax payer`s money of course and future generations have been hopelessly indebted and after the point of no return was reached.
Every engineer knew that neither wind nor solar can supply a power on demand grid.
The engineers who pointed that out have been subjected to witch hunts and the rest shut up and cooperated with the tax subsidized green agenda to implement step #1.
Now that turning back is no longer a option step #2 is finally revealed.
Step #2 is by far more expensive and environmentally destructive than step#1 . It necessitates the decapitation of mountain tops in the once pristine black forest to make room for huge pump storage basins:

Bad Säckingen: Bleibt alles so, kommt Atdorf nicht - badische-zeitung.de

Bleibt alles so, kommt Atdorf nicht

Each of these storage basins costs more than 1.5 billion Euros and will use the power from wind and solar to store pumped water in order to run hydro turbines which then and only then will be able to sync with a power on demand power grid such as the one you are relying on.

Now there is a huge backlash from enviro groups who have been fooled just like you:

It`s too late now, but they finally realized that those who can say "we told you so" were not paid off by "the oil lobby".
Seeing that all that information is freely available on the internet what happened on the other side of the Atlantic should prevent the same con-game on this side of the ocean.
But apparently in the meantime way more than one sucker per minute is born over here....writing crap like that:

The difference between liberals and conservatives is the value of truth. Conservatives don't care if things are true as long as they are politically useful.
How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

You apparently are the last in the world to hear about energy storage. Congratulations on catching up.

By the way, what do you think that the fuel and waste disposal costs are for a solar/wind/hydro-storage plant are?

And, oh, have you ever seen an open pit tar sands mine?

 

[mamooth]

Yeah -- that's right.. Endorse censorship and fuck free enquiry.. Can't have the news managed properly without it...

You shit your own bed. Now you get to lay in it. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you. But go on, play that victim card. It has to be a CONSPIRACY!

Here's a thought. Consider Occam's razor. Which hypothesis is more likely:

1. Almost the entire planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy against you.

or ...

2. Y'all have been acting like 'tards.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- that's right.. Endorse censorship and fuck free enquiry.. Can't have the news managed properly without it...

You shit your own bed. Now you get to lay in it. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you. But go on, play that victim card. It's has to be a CONSPIRACY!

Here's a thought. Consider Occam's razor. Which hypothesis is more likely:

1. Almost the entire planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy against you.

or ...

2. Y'all have been acting like 'tards.

OR --- consider this..

If all ya got is profanity, insults, and childish non-sequitors --- we've already won..

You LOVE having opinion page editors censor science.. That much is clear..
Shows how much value you place in the qualifications of your field marshalls..

 

[westwall]

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

You apparently have found an alternative to permanent, fuel and waste free energy. I can't wait to hear it.

And I can`t wait to hear or see how your jaw drops when you finally realize how you have been had by the "green" or "renewable energy" agenda.
You should think that you can`t fool all of the people all of the time, especially since we live now in what`s toted as the information age.
Then again there is no shortage of people like you, totally ignorant of reality till it runs you over and makes roadkill out of you, as it did with most Europeans years ago, when they were (finally) "informed" that neither wind nor solar can supply power on demand.
Only after huge sums of money, tax payer`s money of course and future generations have been hopelessly indebted and after the point of no return was reached.
Every engineer knew that neither wind nor solar can supply a power on demand grid.
The engineers who pointed that out have been subjected to witch hunts and the rest shut up and cooperated with the tax subsidized green agenda to implement step #1.
Now that turning back is no longer a option step #2 is finally revealed.
Step #2 is by far more expensive and environmentally destructive than step#1 . It necessitates the decapitation of mountain tops in the once pristine black forest to make room for huge pump storage basins:

Bad Säckingen: Bleibt alles so, kommt Atdorf nicht - badische-zeitung.de

Bleibt alles so, kommt Atdorf nicht

Each of these storage basins costs more than 1.5 billion Euros and will use the power from wind and solar to store pumped water in order to run hydro turbines which then and only then will be able to sync with a power on demand power grid such as the one you are relying on.

Now there is a huge backlash from enviro groups who have been fooled just like you:

It`s too late now, but they finally realized that those who can say "we told you so" were not paid off by "the oil lobby".
Seeing that all that information is freely available on the internet what happened on the other side of the Atlantic should prevent the same con-game on this side of the ocean.
But apparently in the meantime way more than one sucker per minute is born over here....writing crap like that:

The difference between liberals and conservatives is the value of truth. Conservatives don't care if things are true as long as they are politically useful.
How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

Yep, it was never about the environment. It's always been about money and power.

 

[westwall]

Yeah -- that's right.. Endorse censorship and fuck free enquiry.. Can't have the news managed properly without it...

You shit your own bed. Now you get to lay in it. Don't expect anyone to feel sorry for you. But go on, play that victim card. It's has to be a CONSPIRACY!

Here's a thought. Consider Occam's razor. Which hypothesis is more likely:

1. Almost the entire planet is engaged in a vast socialist conspiracy against you.

or ...

2. Y'all have been acting like 'tards.

OR --- consider this..

If all ya got is profanity, insults, and childish non-sequitors --- we've already won..

You LOVE having opinion page editors censor science.. That much is clear..
Shows how much value you place in the qualifications of your field marshalls..

Oh yeah, the admiral and his army of clones were crushed months ago. True story!

 

[polarbear]

You apparently are the last in the world to hear about energy storage. Congratulations on catching up.

By the way, what do you think that the fuel and waste disposal costs are for a solar/wind/hydro-storage plant are?

And, oh, have you ever seen an open pit tar sands mine?

Typical libtard response.
"you are the last in the world to hear about energy storage"
You just don`t get it do you...?
I never thought somebody could be that dumb and not realize that the required step#2, the likes of Schluchsee, Atdorf etc are complete hydro electric power plants,...not just "energy storage basins" and are by far more expensive than conventional hydro electric power plants that store river water in a natural basin.
What kind of an idiot would buy into a "power plant" design that is supposed to run on wind & solar but needs a whole array of even more expensive pumped elevation basin hydro power plants in order to be able to generate usable power....????
Answer:
Idiots like you would have us buy a power plant that needs a second power plant so that it can function..and the second power plant requires several mountain tops to be deforested, huge excavation and not just hydro turbines but also a pump system that can keep pace with the required flow rates. Not to mention the rest of the necessary infra structure such as the HV supply power lines from the wind farm to the pumps and yet another set of lines from the hydro turbines into the main power grid.
For the same cost of just Schluchsee you could build dozens of conventional power plants , nuclear , natural gas or coal fired...or build a few more hydro dams.
For the US none of the above is even necessary. Canada currently feeds ~ 60 % of your power on demand grid and we are able to supply 100% just with our surplus hydro electric electric power.
Again all that info is readily available on the internet but never gets noticed because it`s not posted on the garbage blogs you read & quote.
BTW yes I have seen the oils sands.
1.) There is no such thing as "tar sand"
Tar is a crude oil distillation residue and we pave roads with it.
The sand contains oil, not tar...
pretty dumb not to know the difference between oil and tar, I would say.
2.) This is what an "open pit" mine in Alberta looks like today:

Sunrise Oil Sands Project, Alberta - Hydrocarbons Technology

That`s how most of the bitumen is "mined" now!!!.
Most of the areas where it was close enough to the surface to be "open pit mined" have finished doing so and have long since been reclaimed.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ6AYnrKh7c#t=20"]Reclamation in Alberta's Boreal Forest - YouTube[/ame]
Alberta's Oil Sands Reclamation

I`ve been through Alberta at least twice a year since 1968 and I do think I know it better than you or your bloggers ever will !
Unbelievable how ignorant some people can be. I bet people in countries that censor the internet are by far better informed than you.

 

[itfitzme]

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to hear a major case challenging Environmental Protection Agency regulations of greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like power plants. The justices declined to hear a variety of related attacks on the agency’s authority to address climate change.

The case is a sequel to Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, a 2007 decision that required the agency to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles if it found they endangered public health or welfare. Two years later, the agency made such a finding, saying that “elevated concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere” pose a danger to “current and future generations.” It set limits on emissions both from new vehicles and from stationary sources like power plants.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit last year unanimously rejected the challenges, some on the merits and some on the ground that the parties before the court lacked standing to pursue them.

“The regulations the court has agreed to review represent the Obama administration’s first major rule making to address the emissions of greenhouse gases from major stationary sources across the country,” said Richard J. Lazarus, who teaches environmental law at Harvard. “At the same time, the court declined to review E.P.A.’s determination that greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles endanger public health and welfare and therefore has left intact the government’s current regulation of motor vehicles emissions to address climate change.”

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to deny numerous further legal challenges to E.P.A.’s science-based determination that six greenhouse gases threaten our nation’s health and well-being is a historic victory for all Americans that are afflicted by the ravages of extreme weather,” Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a statement. “The justices have also declined to hear legal challenges to the broadly supported clean car standards that will strengthen our nation’s energy security, cut carbon pollution and save families money at the gas pump. ”

Stay tuned.







----------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/16/u...ar-challenge-to-epa-emissions-rules.html?_r=0

 

[Abraham3]

I heartily endorse the LA Times decision not to publish letters containing factual inaccuracies.

Congrats Comrade.. You pass the totalitarian purity test.. And FLUNK "the rational person test" if you think an "opinion page editor" is the qualified go-to guy on matters of factual atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and statistics..

From my point of view, the problem is that you don't know how far out in right field your opinions place you. Your particular thoughts would likely get published - you've got a better technical education than most. But there are several posters here that you know would never get published and that you know SHOULD never get published. And were you to draw a parallel with them on another topic, you'd probably agree.

Would it be wrong of the Times to reject letters that assumed a flat-Earth? How about "we never went to the moon"? How about "the Earth is hollow, there's a huge hole where the North Pole's supposed to be, the interior is illuminated by a 3.5 billion year old ball of hot gas floating there and the inner surface is inhabited by aliens? That actually got published in hard back. The Times has a lot less column space than they have letters pouring in. They HAVE to reject some. I think you've got to realize that given the percentages (97-2-1), you're never going to win this argument out there in the real world. The powers that be, in science, in government and in the media, are never going to take you seriously.

You jokers can't even think straight.. You're gonna put the chains on willingly and with glee.
How many others think an opinion editors opinion is worth the price of an LA Times?

Whatever restraints exist on the Times letters to the editor page have existed since the paper was first established. The change has not been in the paper, it's been in the world. Folks with enough education to read the writing on the wall now understand the debate is long over. Sorry Charlie. Really.

 

[Impenitent]

"B'Endiana Natuf and the Volcano of Doom"

A right wing crisis of sorts
A disaster close to our hearts
One more carbon dioxide machine
Extinct, gone from the scene
Call Rush! Call Sean! Call Bono!
We must save the last volcano

Arriving in their corporate jets
Or convoys of hummers and corvettes
They rally at Reagan Internationale
So dour, so pious, so fashionable
Nary a common tree hugger wacko
Thus not a word of enviro mytho

We'll have our statement on the environments
After we make these two announcements
We've selected B' En as our native guide
To save this generator of carbon dioxide
He'll sail for Iceland on the Calypso
That frenchy's ship we got as a repo

A gaseous producer we'll save to prove our points
That a mere compound of life giving elements
Cannot trap heat in the atmosphere
What we deny will be perfectly clear
It will not take inspector Cleauseau
To prove the innocence of CO2

B' En has landed in Iceland he reports
He will initiate our plan of last resorts
For the volcano with the limestone facade
No doubt plugged by Bjork and Sinead
A flyover with Sarah shooting drano
Down the throat of that dormant volcano

With a prayer to Vulcan , B' En departs
No virgin to sacrifice Sarah retorts
(Tucker Carlson didn't answer our query)
The blast and the sound and fury
Signals the spewing of dogma we bestow
Again to the world with this magma flow
___________

Just to be clear.. The thanks on that post is for the entertainment and drama.. Not for any particular scientific insight or opinion...

That's ok! I'll take what I can get! Many Thanks!

 

[westwall]

I heartily endorse the LA Times decision not to publish letters containing factual inaccuracies.

Congrats Comrade.. You pass the totalitarian purity test.. And FLUNK "the rational person test" if you think an "opinion page editor" is the qualified go-to guy on matters of factual atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and statistics..

From my point of view, the problem is that you don't know how far out in right field your opinions place you. Your particular thoughts would likely get published - you've got a better technical education than most. But there are several posters here that you know would never get published and that you know SHOULD never get published. And were you to draw a parallel with them on another topic, you'd probably agree.

Would it be wrong of the Times to reject letters that assumed a flat-Earth? How about "we never went to the moon"? How about "the Earth is hollow, there's a huge hole where the North Pole's supposed to be, the interior is illuminated by a 3.5 billion year old ball of hot gas floating there and the inner surface is inhabited by aliens? That actually got published in hard back. The Times has a lot less column space than they have letters pouring in. They HAVE to reject some. I think you've got to realize that given the percentages (97-2-1), you're never going to win this argument out there in the real world. The powers that be, in science, in government and in the media, are never going to take you seriously.

You jokers can't even think straight.. You're gonna put the chains on willingly and with glee.
How many others think an opinion editors opinion is worth the price of an LA Times?

Whatever restraints exist on the Times letters to the editor page have existed since the paper was first established. The change has not been in the paper, it's been in the world. Folks with enough education to read the writing on the wall now understand the debate is long over. Sorry Charlie. Really.

No, those who have much to lose are trying desperately to quash any form of information getting to those who don't know anything. If ever we needed confirmation that we are winning that is it. But, it matters not. The internet is rapidly turning the print media and the controlled media into dinosaurs. That's why they are so pissed off. their influence is waning and they're not smart enough to figure out how to prevent it plummeting further.

One thing is for sure, when they resort to these sorts of tactics they REALLY lose. The people don't like to be lied too, and they are tired of the media's BS.

 

[PMZ]

You apparently are the last in the world to hear about energy storage. Congratulations on catching up.

By the way, what do you think that the fuel and waste disposal costs are for a solar/wind/hydro-storage plant are?

And, oh, have you ever seen an open pit tar sands mine?

Typical libtard response.
"you are the last in the world to hear about energy storage"
You just don`t get it do you...?
I never thought somebody could be that dumb and not realize that the required step#2, the likes of Schluchsee, Atdorf etc are complete hydro electric power plants,...not just "energy storage basins" and are by far more expensive than conventional hydro electric power plants that store river water in a natural basin.
What kind of an idiot would buy into a "power plant" design that is supposed to run on wind & solar but needs a whole array of even more expensive pumped elevation basin hydro power plants in order to be able to generate usable power....????
Answer:
Idiots like you would have us buy a power plant that needs a second power plant so that it can function..and the second power plant requires several mountain tops to be deforested, huge excavation and not just hydro turbines but also a pump system that can keep pace with the required flow rates. Not to mention the rest of the necessary infra structure such as the HV supply power lines from the wind farm to the pumps and yet another set of lines from the hydro turbines into the main power grid.
For the same cost of just Schluchsee you could build dozens of conventional power plants , nuclear , natural gas or coal fired...or build a few more hydro dams.
For the US none of the above is even necessary. Canada currently feeds ~ 60 % of your power on demand grid and we are able to supply 100% just with our surplus hydro electric electric power.
Again all that info is readily available on the internet but never gets noticed because it`s not posted on the garbage blogs you read & quote.
BTW yes I have seen the oils sands.
1.) There is no such thing as "tar sand"
Tar is a crude oil distillation residue and we pave roads with it.
The sand contains oil, not tar...
pretty dumb not to know the difference between oil and tar, I would say.
2.) This is what an "open pit" mine in Alberta looks like today:

Sunrise Oil Sands Project, Alberta - Hydrocarbons Technology

That`s how most of the bitumen is "mined" now!!!.
Most of the areas where it was close enough to the surface to be "open pit mined" have finished doing so and have long since been reclaimed.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ6AYnrKh7c#t=20"]Reclamation in Alberta's Boreal Forest - YouTube[/ame]
Alberta's Oil Sands Reclamation

I`ve been through Alberta at least twice a year since 1968 and I do think I know it better than you or your bloggers ever will !
Unbelievable how ignorant some people can be. I bet people in countries that censor the internet are by far better informed than you.

By the way, what do you think that the fuel and waste disposal costs are for a solar/wind/hydro-storage plant are?

 

[flacaltenn]

You apparently are the last in the world to hear about energy storage. Congratulations on catching up.

By the way, what do you think that the fuel and waste disposal costs are for a solar/wind/hydro-storage plant are?

And, oh, have you ever seen an open pit tar sands mine?

Typical libtard response.
"you are the last in the world to hear about energy storage"
You just don`t get it do you...?
I never thought somebody could be that dumb and not realize that the required step#2, the likes of Schluchsee, Atdorf etc are complete hydro electric power plants,...not just "energy storage basins" and are by far more expensive than conventional hydro electric power plants that store river water in a natural basin.
What kind of an idiot would buy into a "power plant" design that is supposed to run on wind & solar but needs a whole array of even more expensive pumped elevation basin hydro power plants in order to be able to generate usable power....????
Answer:
Idiots like you would have us buy a power plant that needs a second power plant so that it can function..and the second power plant requires several mountain tops to be deforested, huge excavation and not just hydro turbines but also a pump system that can keep pace with the required flow rates. Not to mention the rest of the necessary infra structure such as the HV supply power lines from the wind farm to the pumps and yet another set of lines from the hydro turbines into the main power grid.
For the same cost of just Schluchsee you could build dozens of conventional power plants , nuclear , natural gas or coal fired...or build a few more hydro dams.
For the US none of the above is even necessary. Canada currently feeds ~ 60 % of your power on demand grid and we are able to supply 100% just with our surplus hydro electric electric power.
Again all that info is readily available on the internet but never gets noticed because it`s not posted on the garbage blogs you read & quote.
BTW yes I have seen the oils sands.
1.) There is no such thing as "tar sand"
Tar is a crude oil distillation residue and we pave roads with it.
The sand contains oil, not tar...
pretty dumb not to know the difference between oil and tar, I would say.
2.) This is what an "open pit" mine in Alberta looks like today:

Sunrise Oil Sands Project, Alberta - Hydrocarbons Technology

That`s how most of the bitumen is "mined" now!!!.
Most of the areas where it was close enough to the surface to be "open pit mined" have finished doing so and have long since been reclaimed.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ6AYnrKh7c#t=20"]Reclamation in Alberta's Boreal Forest - YouTube[/ame]
Alberta's Oil Sands Reclamation

I`ve been through Alberta at least twice a year since 1968 and I do think I know it better than you or your bloggers ever will !
Unbelievable how ignorant some people can be. I bet people in countries that censor the internet are by far better informed than you.

You made me reweigh a couple things PBear... We hear all kinds of screaming about "mountain top removal" mining, but not a peep about putting thousands of pristine Alps acres under water for "wind storage"? At least a mountain top mine can be reclaimed after the task is done. "Wind storage ponds" on mountain tops are forever.. Along with the plumbing and deforestation, and power line access, that tears up the entire slope..

And those oil sand areas.. What's bad about REMOVING TOXIC MATERIALS (worth cash) and reclaiming those lands afterwards. THings are bound to grow better with less petroleum and dense hydrocarbons sitting on the surface soil...

The folks complaining about Nat Gas in their water supply just need MORE drilling to remove the pollution..

Counterintuitive? Am I being cute? NO ---- those wind storage projects are BAD mining and land use.. Extracting fossil fuel from places where it's seeping and inhabiting growth???


Maybe not so bad..