Renewables you support-solar or wind.

[ScienceRocks]

 

[westwall]

China dumps everything into their environment as they're unregulated. This is why you republicans are wrong about unregulating stuff.

They dump oil, coal, natural gas and probably even dead animals into their rivers. Have you ever seen the smog that is killing that country because of fucking coal? The thing that you're defending.

Let me see....who was it that created the EPA???? Now who was that???? Oh yeah, it was a REPUBLICAN by the name of RICHARD NIXON, you fucking moron....

And it is your party that wants to remove it you fucking cowards. Piece of shit!

I'm a DEMOCRAT you idiot. Have been my whole life. I've also cleaned up more environmental shit than you can even imagine so you can blow that out your sphincter. I see you are in Portland, you MUST be olfrauds son, you two are equally dim.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You think a regulated society like the US will allow solar to dump shit into the water? Fuck no. Thank you epa. Trying to slam solar for what china allows is stupid.

 

[westwall]

You should realize (but I understand you have the intellect of a gnat now) that those plumes are WATER VAPOR. Dude, when you go full moron you really go all out.

 

[westwall]

You think a regulated society like the US will allow solar to dump shit into the water? Fuck no. Thank you epa. Trying to slam solar for what china allows is stupid.

Solar is cheap because it is made in China. Make it anywhere in the first world where we have laws that prevent the pollution and your precious cheap solar modules become incredibly expensive. No cheap solar moron.

BTW that's fine with me. I'm not wrapped around the axle of the socialists you seem to love.

 

[elektra]

Outside of a one time energy transfer solar won't pump constantly this shit. This is coal, oil and other fussil fuels.

Yes, Coal used by the Wind Turbine and Solar Panel manufacturers. You must use a higher percentage of Fossil fuels to manufacturer Green Energy and this is the result.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Harbin Smog Crisis Highlights China’s Coal Problem

Choked with smog that shut down roads, schools, and its main airport, the city of Harbin (map) this week offered a striking reminder that China has a long way to go in addressing the hazards caused by its dependence on coal.

Visibility in the northeastern city of more than 10 million people reportedly was reduced in places to less than 65 feet (20 meters) as coal-fired heating systems ramped up for the winter months. Officials also pointed to farmers burning crop stubble and low winds as additional causes for the pollution crisis.

Harbin, also known as the Ice City, hosts an ice and snow festival every year that features displays of elaborate ice sculptures. But the city's frigid temperatures, which can reach -40ºF (-40º C) in winter, mean that residences usually need heating for six months of the year. As part of a national effort to reduce energy intensity, Harbin in 2010 spent $1.1 million to retrofit 21 million square feet (2 million square meters) of residential buildings—adding five new layers of wall insulation, as well as better windows and roofing. (See related story: "In China's Icy North, Outfitting Buildings to Save Energy.")

But building retrofits can go only so far in a country where coal fuels 70 percent of the energy consumption. China, the world's largest consumer of coal, is also the world's leader in carbon emissions. (See related interactive map: "Four Ways to Look at Global Carbon Footprints.") Those emissions have stark consequences for the country's residents, a fact highlighted in two recent studies that measured the health impacts of fossil fuel emissions.

Deadly Pollution Problems

The level of fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, in Harbin's air this week reportedly reached 1,000 micrograms per cubic meter, exceeding the World Health Organization's daily target level by a factor of 40. While Harbin's predicament is alarming, it is not isolated; many cities in Northern China, including the capital Beijing and neighboring Tianjin, rank among the most polluted in the world. In January, Beijing made headlines when its air quality got so bad that it went beyond the very top of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Air Quality Index.

Harbin Smog Crisis Highlights China's Coal Problem

99% electricy to power homes and buildings. + cars. Coal is the nasties shit imagine when unregulated.

History proves me right as Europe and America during the early part of the 20th century seen the same thing.

Take your lies and stick them up your ass!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Gulf oil spill=uncontrolled cluster fuck!

At least the solar corps can control it here in America and safely take care of it. Not true when it is a damn oil spill.

The difference is the oil corps can't control these cluster fucks while solar can as it is within a building. If they're stupid enough to try to personally pour it into a river like here in America = fined the shit out of them. China if they gave a damn would do just that to anyone polluting.

Of course you will support such a uncontrollable cluster fuck as you simply don't care.

 

[elektra]

Gulf oil spill=uncontrolled cluster fuck!

At least the solar corps can control it here in America and safely take care of it. Not true when it is a damn oil spill.

The difference is the oil corps can't control these cluster fucks while solar can as it is within a building. If they're stupid enough to try to personally pour it into a river like here in America = fined the shit out of them. China if they gave a damn would do just that to anyone polluting.

Of course you will support such a uncontrollable cluster fuck as you simply don't care.

The Oil spills you post are just a tiny fraction of the Fossil Fuel demanded by the Green Energy industry for the manufacture and installation of Solar panels and Wind Turbines.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Meaning that YOU have no clue what the CONTINUING and uncounted costs of flaky renewables will be when MORE of that crap hits the grid.. And you're not even interested in $500Mill/battery barn type costs and the environmental impact of that..

Is everything you refuse to understand a "non sequitur"??

You are the first, and as yet only poster, to have come up with this off the wall idea of requiring batteries to support renewable energy sources. Here is a newsflash for you, the wind is always blowing somewhere or other. Water will still be flowing through hydro-electric plants. The tides will still be going in and out providing tidal power. Geothermal sources will still be operating on "full steam". And yes, nuclear plants will still be in operation and so will natural gas "instant on" emergency power generators.

So yes, your post was a complete and utter non sequitur.

Not really.. You are just more naive than the average environmentalist..

1) Wind is completely unreliable and can be gone under a 500 mile wide high pressure dome for days. Electrical transport OUTSIDE of that area is extremely lossy and nobody wants to pay for heating transmission wires. Bad enough that it's on for 20 minutes and gone for an hour..

2) Hydro is not likely to be ADDING any generation capacity here in this country.. And NEW hydro installations are a LARGE source of CO2 and NOT enviro friendly.. Go ask the Sierra Club...

3) Tidal power destroys massive areas of coastal habitat and when the plans are on the table --- don't look that good as an enviro deal.. I can show you multiple examples of folks wanting to literally WALL OFF (dam) square MILES of coast to increase the efficiency of tidal turbines. It's a cuisinart barrier for those biomes.. Maintenance is an f'ing nightmare.

4) Geothermal is a dirty mining operation. Worse than fracking in that the effluent is so corrosive -- the drill location has to be redone after several years.. It IS FRACKING. And it's not even truly renewable as the local heat does peter out and the wells need to be periodically extended or redrilled. In the case of BLOWOUTS -- toxic fluids and vapors have the capacity to KILL every living thing in a 1/2 mile radius.. Also very geographically limited.

But lets get back to the NECCESSITY of adding battery or other storage to the grid when more than 10% flaky renewables are present.. Are you COMPLETELY IGNORANT of this requirement? Or do you just think that grid stability is a right-wing myth?

"Heating transmission wires"? Seriously? After pretending that massive batteries are essential? Congratulations, you went from zero to negative credibility in just 2 posts!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes I do, but just because you call a Wind Turbine Renewable does not make it renewable, it takes oil, natural gas to make a Wind Turbine. So how can you use Oil and Natural Gas at a greater rate to make a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel yet claim that Oil will run out but not Renewables.

Solar Panels and Wind Turbines have a small life span, years, not decades, they constantly need replacing hence you will constantly use more oil to produce Renewables.

Kindly explain how it can be green or renewable when you constantly replace them with new "renewables".

Your government mandated industry is using natural resources at an increased rate and you are ignorant to this? You completely discount the impact?

The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.

I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.

Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.

So provide a link if you expect the same

Already done so in another post but still zip from you!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Solar Panels cost is expensive, much more expensive than coal, why is that, the simple answer is because it takes much more energy and raw materials to produce Solar Panels. Using more money means it produces more waste, more pollution, its a simple fact that all the "studies" in the world can not eliminate.

Solar Panel Production must use energy produced from Coal and Fossil fuels, its a fact. Making Solar Panels increases fossil fuel use, period. Solar Panel production does not decrease fossil energy use. Somehow we must believe that using more fossil fuel somehow results in less pollution.

I do not care how many articles you cut and paste, they are all based on the same studies, hence the same opinion is repeated over and over. look at the source in the articles, its all the same. You act like your finding proof and facts when you just regurgitate the same propaganda.

Solar Panels take more money, more fossil energy to produce, hence the fact that they are creating more pollution.

Consider all these articles are based on "installed capacity", not actual power output, and the truth is the articles are extremely misleading.

And yet you never produce a single credible link supporting your own allegations.

Its not an allegation, its something you can physically see, Solar Power farms are bigger in size than a Fossil Power plant that produces equal power, bigger in size does mean it takes more energy to produce, more natural resources. If you can not grasp something that simple no amount of links in the world will convince you.

Should I also provide a link to show you that the Sky is blue.

Links will not teach common sense.

Zero link = zero credibility!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.

Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.

Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing. They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it. In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro.. And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.

And again Matthew. Solar is not an alternative to nat gas.. It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows. Its merely a Daytime peaker tech. You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.

Obviously you have never actually read anything at all about solar energy because you believe that it "runs out" "everytime a cloud goes by or it rains".

 

[elektra]

The moving parts on wind turbines can be refurbished and solar panels are expected to last up to 40 years.

I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.

Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.

So provide a link if you expect the same

Already done so in another post but still zip from you!

No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Outside of a one time energy transfer solar won't pump constantly this shit. This is coal, oil and other fussil fuels.

Yes, Coal used by the Wind Turbine and Solar Panel manufacturers. You must use a higher percentage of Fossil fuels to manufacturer Green Energy and this is the result.

Too bad you can't produce anything credible to substantiate your allegations!

 

[elektra]

Solar farms produce a resource that isn't ever going to run out(in the human time frame). Do you morons really believe that your fracking and oil drilling doesn't take up a lot of fucking land???? A desert out in the middle of no where causing no pollution and no threat of doing what your pipelines do all the time = winning.

Sure the area is bigger but 1. it isn't going to spill all over the place unless you're talking about manufacturing then regulations are there for a reason...2. It isn't gong anywhere....Unlike your filth that explodes nearly every week.

Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing. They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it. In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro.. And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.

And again Matthew. Solar is not an alternative to nat gas.. It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows. Its merely a Daytime peaker tech. You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.

Obviously you have never actually read anything at all about solar energy because you believe that it "runs out" "everytime a cloud goes by or it rains".

Enlighten us, what is the output of the best Solar Panels during thunderstorms?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I see you have asked for a link twice, so where is your link? Ironic, huh, asking of me twice while failing to provide your own link.

Seeing how you seem to know so much tell us why the 40 ton turbine blades are replaced, not refurbished. That part moves, or are you talking about all the ball bearing that needed redesign and replacing, not refurbishing.

So provide a link if you expect the same

Already done so in another post but still zip from you!

No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.

Try reading post #114.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8235901-post114.html

 

[Derideo_Te]

Environmentalists never complained about the tiny footprint left after the nat gas well or oil well is drilled and producing. They complain about the ACCESS and infrastructure and traffic that an energy site brings with it. In the middle of the desert its the roads and transmission lines and maintenance housing that impacts the enviro.. And yes ---- the developed footprint for a well is far less than 100s of acres of desert floor being covered with panels.

And again Matthew. Solar is not an alternative to nat gas.. It "runs out" 18 hours a day and everytime a cloud goes by or it rains or snows. Its merely a Daytime peaker tech. You can keep claiming its either/or with nat gas, but youd be wrong every time.

Obviously you have never actually read anything at all about solar energy because you believe that it "runs out" "everytime a cloud goes by or it rains".

Enlighten us, what is the output of the best Solar Panels during thunderstorms?

Photovoltaics use ultraviolet rays and continue to perform at about 50% capacity during a thunderstom as opposed to zero output as erroneously alleged by your ignorant buddy.

 

[elektra]

Already done so in another post but still zip from you!

No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.

Try reading post #114.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8235901-post114.html

A press announcement from a Wind Turbine service company that provides wind measurement equipment is your source?

Now that is a big joke, there is zero technical data in the press announcement, zero, nothing showing costs or failures. Nothing showing even basic maintenance.

All this proves is you know nothing of your own link.

At best its a simple marketing piece advertising for a service company.

Your link is useless in supporting the claim you make.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No, you do not provide links to your recent posts that I commented on, you have zero credibility providing no links to your posts.

Try reading post #114.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8235901-post114.html

A press announcement from a Wind Turbine service company that provides wind measurement equipment is your source?

Now that is a big joke, there is zero technical data in the press announcement, zero, nothing showing costs or failures. Nothing showing even basic maintenance.

All this proves is you know nothing of your own link.

At best its a simple marketing piece advertising for a service company.

Your link is useless in supporting the claim you make.

Typical mindless response. You were provided with a credible link and you cannot refute a single fact so you pretend instead!