The Anthropocene

[elektra]

You don't get to paraphrase me and then say that's what I said, asshole.

If you think they produce more CO2 than humans, then you are ignorant of the topic.

Or you could have just read and comprehended ALL the prior discussion.

I see crick is back, ignoring the quotes and comments I made, replying to the links crick posted.

Hit with facts, crick always runs away

Contradictory Crick, CC for short? Or should you just be crickets, for that is all we here after someone replies to crick

 

[Crick]

I see crick is back, ignoring the quotes and comments I made, replying to the links crick posted.

Hit with facts, crick always runs away

Contradictory Crick, CC for short? Or should you just be crickets, for that is all we here after someone replies to crick

You think I've run away? Is that what you call it when someone destroys every argument you present?

 

[elektra]

You think I've run away? Is that what you call it when someone destroys every argument you present?

You have run away. Presenting a link, with no quote or comment, and then failing to respond to other's comments and quotes from your links, is exactly what running away, is.

 

[elektra]

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

In this link from Forbes, it clearly states it takes hundreds of tons of materials to build wind turbines?

Last I checked, the concrete in the base weighs over a 1,000 tons. The rebar in the base weighs another thousand tons.

There is no way it takes so little material to build one wind turbine let alone the 200,000 wind turbines that have been built and installed in the USA.

It is more accurate to state billions of tons of material has been used by heavy industry to manufacture hundreds of thousands of wind turbines.

200,000 installed in the USA. People like to pretend these last forever, they don't. Today there is only 75,000. The first generation of wind turbines were scrapped 20 years ago. 2nd generation were broke and replaced as well. We are on the 3rd and 4th generation, maybe 5th?

Hundreds of tons? Billions of tons is more accurate. By morning there will be more built. So my number will have to grow.

By the time crick replies, if we don't hear crickets, over a million tons of CO2 will pollute our atmosphere from the renewable, clean, green, sustainable, alternative, wind turbine's heavy industry manufacturing all night long.

Crick claims, crick destroyed my comment revealing the lies in the link crick thinks somehow establishes fact?

Where is your response crick, you links says it takes 100's of tons of materials to make wind turbines. Yet it takes over 2000 tons of material for just one wind turbine.

Not one comment, in reply to the facts I present proving the link is incorrect, lies, falsehoods.

 

[Crick]

You have run away. Presenting a link, with no quote or comment, and then failing to respond to other's comments and quotes from your links, is exactly what running away, is.

I really hate to let you in on this, but I have a life outside this stupid forum. Do you?

 

[Crick]

Crick claims, crick destroyed my comment revealing the lies in the link crick thinks somehow establishes fact?

Where is your response crick, you links says it takes 100's of tons of materials to make wind turbines. Yet it takes over 2000 tons of material for just one wind turbine.

Not one comment, in reply to the facts I present proving the link is incorrect, lies, falsehoods.

For the third or fourth time now, I have presented multiple sources showing that the fuel consumed manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels is very quickly made up. You, on the other hand, have present NOTHING but your own personal hand-waving. I know what is wrong with your arguments. Your position is unsupportable. What I don't know is what's wrong with you that you try to stick with them in the face of all this humiliation.

 

[elektra]

For the third or fourth time now, I have presented multiple sources showing that the fuel consumed manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels is very quickly made up. You, on the other hand, have present NOTHING but your own personal hand-waving. I know what is wrong with your arguments. Your position is unsupportable. What I don't know is what's wrong with you that you try to stick with them in the face of all this humiliation.

Crick, you have shown nothing but a link, a link that says 100's of tons of materials quickly made up. In theory?

Problem is, it is 1000's of tons for one Wind Turbine, and billions of tons for the 100,000's of Turbines already manufactured.

And again, since I posted last night, the continuous manufacturing of wind turbines has increased the amount of pollution in our atmosphere. It never stops (unlike the electrical output from wind turbines).

A nice analogy is, we are building 1960's school buses so that one person can drive that bus to work.

No economy of scale.

Now crick, when will you admit it is thousands of tons, and not hundreds of tons. If it was hundreds like the article claims, we could debate. But it is thousands, your link was wrong, a lie.

 

[elektra]

I really hate to let you in on this, but I have a life outside this stupid forum. Do you?

you should stick to that life, you do not have the education or common sense for this

 

[Crick]

Five links from post #41 in this thread

What's the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? » Yale Climate Connections

Wind energy is remarkably climate-friendly.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Fact check: Energy costs of wind turbine manufacturing recouped in months

Wind turbines quickly recoup energy expenditure from manufacturing.

www.usatoday.com

Fact-check: Do wind turbines cost more to build than the energy they produce?

A Facebook post casts wind power as a losing proposition. Most studies put the energy payback period for a wind turbine at about a year or so.

www.statesman.com

Wind Energy Pros And Cons (The Carbon Footprint Of Turbines)

Wind energy has the potential to make a positive impact on the environment, but there are still cons to consider with this renewable energy.

8billiontrees.com

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

 

[Crick]

Then there's my post #88 in the thread wind-turbines-co2-emissions-increasing-and-largest-new-source-of-co2 in which I took numbers from YOUR source and showed that a 3MW turbine would make up for the fossil fuel used to manufacture it in 5 days.

 

[Crick]

From my post #168 in Dirty Polluting Wind Power

The energy costs of manufacturing wind turbines are recouped in one to six months; turbines are financially profitable over their lifetimes

The manufacturing costs of wind turbines are recouped within three to six months of operation. While wind turbines are made of materials that can potentially harm the environment, their environmental impact is relatively small compared to fossil fuel facilities. Wind turbines leak 1000 times...

climatefeedback.org

 

[elektra]

Five links from post #41 in this thread

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

yes, five links that crick has not quoted from nor commented on and refuses to answer comments and quotes made by others, from the links.

This link is a great example, here the link claims that 100'a of tons of material is used to build wind turbines. Not one turbine, but plural.

It takes over 2000 tons of material for just one wind turbine. It takes billions of tons of materials for all the wind turbines that have been build since the 1980's.

Even as I write, the wind turbine heavy industry is manufacturing tons of raw materials into the products used for wind turbines, this use of heavy industry by the wind turbine manufacturing never stops.

Wind Turbine manufacturing is a new source, a continuing non-stop source of pollution into our atmosphere.

This is the 4th time I have addressed this link. Listen for crickets

 

[Crick]

yes, five links that crick has not quoted from nor commented on and refuses to answer comments and quotes made by others, from the links.

This link is a great example, here the link claims that 100'a of tons of material is used to build wind turbines. Not one turbine, but plural.

It takes over 2000 tons of material for just one wind turbine. It takes billions of tons of materials for all the wind turbines that have been build since the 1980's.

Even as I write, the wind turbine heavy industry is manufacturing tons of raw materials into the products used for wind turbines, this use of heavy industry by the wind turbine manufacturing never stops.

Wind Turbine manufacturing is a new source, a continuing non-stop source of pollution into our atmosphere.

This is the 4th time I have addressed this link. Listen for crickets

Fuck you you ignorant twat.

 

[elektra]

From my post #168 in Dirty Polluting Wind Power

The energy costs of manufacturing wind turbines are recouped in one to six months; turbines are financially profitable over their lifetimes

The manufacturing costs of wind turbines are recouped within three to six months of operation. While wind turbines are made of materials that can potentially harm the environment, their environmental impact is relatively small compared to fossil fuel facilities. Wind turbines leak 1000 times...

climatefeedback.org

so, you linked? There is nothing in your link that talks about the billions of tons of materials that have been consumed, and are continually consumed.

Just an article that contradicts, no technical details at all.

Cricket can not even quote or comment on the link, just a link presented as a contradiction.

 

[elektra]

Fuck you you ignorant twat.

poor crick, can search out old posts, copy and paste an old link, but crick can not quote and comment from the link, all cricket's links are contradictions, not a debate or basis for a technical discussion.

here we see that again, cricket is quiet

 

[elektra]

Then there's my post #88 in the thread wind-turbines-co2-emissions-increasing-and-largest-new-source-of-co2 in which I took numbers from YOUR source and showed that a 3MW turbine would make up for the fossil fuel used to manufacture it in 5 days.

yes, I remember that post, which talked about just one part of the wind turbine, not the entire wind turbine, cricket must grasp whatever little straw possible to contradict the facts presented

 

[elektra]

Five links from post #41 in this thread

Wind Energy Pros And Cons (The Carbon Footprint Of Turbines)

Wind energy has the potential to make a positive impact on the environment, but there are still cons to consider with this renewable energy.

8billiontrees.com

This is a great link, proving that crick dont know shit, and it is crick's link!!!

Here it states, one 3mw turbine can power 500 homes. Yet one turbine can not and never has operated for one entire year. The wind does not blow all day every day. Most nights are calm hence no wind power at all. 500 wind turbines can not supply the power for 500 homes in a year, it is simply physically impossible.

 

[elektra]

Wind Energy Pros And Cons (The Carbon Footprint Of Turbines)

Wind energy has the potential to make a positive impact on the environment, but there are still cons to consider with this renewable energy.

8billiontrees.com

Then there's my post #88 in the thread wind-turbines-co2-emissions-increasing-and-largest-new-source-of-co2 in which I took numbers from YOUR source and showed that a 3MW turbine would make up for the fossil fuel used to manufacture it in 5 days.

Crick, you should read what you link to. Your link from post # 41 states, that after a year a wind turbine has paid for itself, not five days as you claim.

 

[elektra]

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'll say it again:

All of the eons, eras, periods, epochs and ages in the stratigraphic record of Earth history were CREATED by mankind to label boundary EVENTS, not fixed upon the presence of actions of any given SPECIES.

Until the anthropocene came along. That differs in that it is a label unlike all other epochs and ages to label the appearance of mankind BY mankind as an EXTERNAL modulus which is acting detrimentally on the Earth rather than just one more event in the ever-changing face of the Earth.

• No one minded when gases in the atmosphere combined with rock to give us the first ice age which caused the first great mass extinction of anaerobic life planet-wide giving way to aerobic life because without it, we wouldn't even be here! These were just natural events, not some evil attack by aerobic life!
• No one minded when deciduous trees and flowering plants replaced ferns and lichen as the primary groundcover because they gave rise to new foodstuffs supporting greater biodiversity! These were just more natural events!
• But then the anthropocene was created as a way of labeling humanity an an EXTERNAL force acting AGAINST the planet, not as a natural event, but as a detrimental one, even though it is just a repeat of what has been going on for four billion years because those creating the anthropocene don't see the rise of textiles, agriculture and energy mining as /natural/ things necessary to the natural survival of Homo created by his natural talents, but as a DESTRUCTIVE one because they place far higher value on PRESERVING the Earth as it was 200 or 2000 years ago rather than seeing mankind into the future, so, have identified it as something to be CONTROLLED and MANAGED.

Lucky for them, this gives great job security and work for them as well as wealth and power in being the newly self-established benefactors /managing/ humanity. Funny how ten billion billion lesser species than us all managed to get by for 4 billion years with no one to manage them, until mankind came along, the most intelligent, creative and resourceful species yet, somehow just can't get by without being "managed, limited and controlled."

You know--- for the "good" of the planet as if it and us were two separate things.

Glowbullies Get a Bang Out of Bangladesh

Impoverishing the productive wealthy countries is a necessary goal of Globalism. Reducing all mankind to its lowest Third World level will enable them to take over a weak, unthinking, and low-energy species.