Wind has overtaken coal for energy use in Texas

[Rustic]

Lol
You’re missing the point, those rail lines have to go across peoples private property… Unacceptable

As far as "unacceptable" things the federal government has done in the past, imposing a right-of-way for a modern high speed rail line wouldn't even make the top 100.

Lol
Tell that to fly over America… Good luck

 

[Blues Man]

We Can't Solve Climate Change without Nuclear Power

Chernobyl, Fukushima. 3% of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is high level:
High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.

90% of the waste is "low level" and it is simply buried. Poisoning Mother Earth, our very soil and groundwater, for a cheap electric bill.

This stuff is deadly. A meltdown would equally be deadly and render the area uninhabitable for decades, at least (if Chernobyl is any indication).

Personally, even though it is risky, I don't object to continuing to use it. I object to using it MORE instead of turning to more responsible alternatives. We only have one planet. Poison it too much and we're screwed. Being responsible for killing half the human population is bad; being responsible for making our planet uninhabitable is AWFUL. I don't want to be part of the jamoke generation that chooses that.

Chernobyl was a 1 off design that was never used anywhere else.

And Fukishima was poorly placed in an earthquake prone area

You do know that France has been generating almost 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for then past 30 plus years don't you?

So where are all your disaster stories from France? in one sentence you say technology is getting better all the time but in the next you say that nuclear power can never get safer?

Next generation reactors can be buried underground, they run at atmosphere not under pressure like the old light water plants. They can use the nuclear waste we have sitting around for fuel. They can be built off site and shipped by rail. They are incapable of melting down or overheating.

One 50 MW reactor will power a small town for up to 30 years without being refueled.

Nuclear waste is the most toxic substance known to humanity. Prove me wrong by snorting some you imbecile

And it's not a big deal

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

The nuclear material we have sitting around can be used as fuel for next generation reactors

 

[Blues Man]

Windmills don't kill birds here. Our windmills are out in the desert. I've photographed them countless times. There are no dead birds anywhere by windmills. You're repeating a very old lie

Not a lie, but I'm glad YOURE not murdering birds and bats. That is an established FACT.

I've photographed the windmills in California, Hawaii and here in Washington. I started photographing them in the 1990s. Not once have I ever seen a dead bird by the windmills. None in all those states.

If there's dead birds somewhere because of windmills it's not here or the other two states I've photographed windmills.

I have never, ever seen a dead bird by a windmill.

Birds are stupid but not that stupid. They fly above the windmills. I've seen countless birds flying above windmills through the decades. The windmills aren't that tall and birds fly much higher than the windmills.

One of my neighbors went to the Town and asked permission to install a wind turbine for his home. This was .. oh, maybe twenty years ago, when the new turbines were first coming out. So anyway, we live on a hill and he was told no, because it could kill seabirds (we live on the ocean) when they migrate.
Now all the buzz is a giant offshore wind farm, and no one seems to give a damn about the birds anymore. Especially not the seagulls.

We Can't Solve Climate Change without Nuclear Power

Chernobyl, Fukushima. 3% of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is high level:
High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.

90% of the waste is "low level" and it is simply buried. Poisoning Mother Earth, our very soil and groundwater, for a cheap electric bill.

This stuff is deadly. A meltdown would equally be deadly and render the area uninhabitable for decades, at least (if Chernobyl is any indication).

Personally, even though it is risky, I don't object to continuing to use it. I object to using it MORE instead of turning to more responsible alternatives. We only have one planet. Poison it too much and we're screwed. Being responsible for killing half the human population is bad; being responsible for making our planet uninhabitable is AWFUL. I don't want to be part of the jamoke generation that chooses that.

Chernobyl was a 1 off design that was never used anywhere else.

And Fukishima was poorly placed in an earthquake prone area

You do know that France has been generating almost 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for then past 30 plus years don't you?

So where are all your disaster stories from France? in one sentence you say technology is getting better all the time but in the next you say that nuclear power can never get safer?

Next generation reactors can be buried underground, they run at atmosphere not under pressure like the old light water plants. They can use the nuclear waste we have sitting around for fuel. They can be built off site and shipped by rail. They are incapable of melting down or overheating.

One 50 MW reactor will power a small town for up to 30 years without being refueled.

Those innovations sound very cool, Blues Man. I still think it is better to not play with fire if we have alternatives, which we do. But some of those improvements--if they are actually ready to be implemented--sound good.

Intermittent power supplies are not an alternative all they will ever be is supplemental.

We are nowhere near being able to meet our current needs for electric power with wind and solar.

So now think about future power needs as we phase out all fossil fuels and use electricity for more and more of our power needs like heating, transportation and other industrial processes in the future.

The only power source we have that can be ramped up fast enough to make a difference in emissions and not only meet our current needs but also any and all future needs is nuclear

 

[August West]

It also enables us to reserve or export more petroleum and other fossil fuels.

Wind energy is booming in Middle America and creating a huge demand for workers who can keep turbines spinning.
Not blowing smoke: Wind has overtaken 'risky' coal for energy use in Texas for the first time

When I was driving through Indiana back around 1990, I saw many farms like this--it makes sense. My family powered their whole point of land, with three homes and two large barns, with one a hundred years ago. They work. It's a shame that has been poopooed by the people who are earning their billions on oil and coal.

Very picturesque. Is this?
View attachment 270990

More picturesque than Mt. top removal or the 3,000 miles of dead streams in Pa. due to mine acid drainage.

 

[OldLady]

Lol
You’re missing the point, those rail lines have to go across peoples private property… Unacceptable

As far as "unacceptable" things the federal government has done in the past, imposing a right-of-way for a modern high speed rail line wouldn't even make the top 100.

If you build it, they will come. They hemmed and hawed for years about bringing back rail service to Maine. As soon as they did, the trains were full. They are now expanding it.

 

[Blues Man]

Please define "booming"

U.S. Wind Power Grows a Record 8% in 2018

Clean energy is building a new American workforce

Commentary: Renewable Energy Is Booming. Here’s How to Keep It Going

US wind energy industry is booming, but tariffs pose a threat

Renewable Energy Job Boom Creates Economic Opportunity As Coal Industry Slumps

America's renewable energy set to surpass coal for the first month ever - CNN

Why Wind Energy Is Booming in the U.S. -- The Motley Fool

Solar and wind are booming, while coal keeps shrinking - CNN

Here's where once again we see the numbers using installed capacity not actual output

So when you want to know the real numbers just divide installed capacity by 4 and multiply all costs by 4

 

[OldLady]

Windmills don't kill birds here. Our windmills are out in the desert. I've photographed them countless times. There are no dead birds anywhere by windmills. You're repeating a very old lie

Not a lie, but I'm glad YOURE not murdering birds and bats. That is an established FACT.

I've photographed the windmills in California, Hawaii and here in Washington. I started photographing them in the 1990s. Not once have I ever seen a dead bird by the windmills. None in all those states.

If there's dead birds somewhere because of windmills it's not here or the other two states I've photographed windmills.

I have never, ever seen a dead bird by a windmill.

Birds are stupid but not that stupid. They fly above the windmills. I've seen countless birds flying above windmills through the decades. The windmills aren't that tall and birds fly much higher than the windmills.

One of my neighbors went to the Town and asked permission to install a wind turbine for his home. This was .. oh, maybe twenty years ago, when the new turbines were first coming out. So anyway, we live on a hill and he was told no, because it could kill seabirds (we live on the ocean) when they migrate.
Now all the buzz is a giant offshore wind farm, and no one seems to give a damn about the birds anymore. Especially not the seagulls.

We Can't Solve Climate Change without Nuclear Power

Chernobyl, Fukushima. 3% of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is high level:
High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.

90% of the waste is "low level" and it is simply buried. Poisoning Mother Earth, our very soil and groundwater, for a cheap electric bill.

This stuff is deadly. A meltdown would equally be deadly and render the area uninhabitable for decades, at least (if Chernobyl is any indication).

Personally, even though it is risky, I don't object to continuing to use it. I object to using it MORE instead of turning to more responsible alternatives. We only have one planet. Poison it too much and we're screwed. Being responsible for killing half the human population is bad; being responsible for making our planet uninhabitable is AWFUL. I don't want to be part of the jamoke generation that chooses that.

Chernobyl was a 1 off design that was never used anywhere else.

And Fukishima was poorly placed in an earthquake prone area

You do know that France has been generating almost 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for then past 30 plus years don't you?

So where are all your disaster stories from France? in one sentence you say technology is getting better all the time but in the next you say that nuclear power can never get safer?

Next generation reactors can be buried underground, they run at atmosphere not under pressure like the old light water plants. They can use the nuclear waste we have sitting around for fuel. They can be built off site and shipped by rail. They are incapable of melting down or overheating.

One 50 MW reactor will power a small town for up to 30 years without being refueled.

Those innovations sound very cool, Blues Man. I still think it is better to not play with fire if we have alternatives, which we do. But some of those improvements--if they are actually ready to be implemented--sound good.

Intermittent power supplies are not an alternative all they will ever be is supplemental.

We are nowhere near being able to meet our current needs for electric power with wind and solar.

So now think about future power needs as we phase out all fossil fuels and use electricity for more and more of our power needs like heating, transportation and other industrial processes in the future.

The only power source we have that can be ramped up fast enough to make a difference in emissions and not only meet our current needs but also any and all future needs is nuclear

Alright, but you are not giving the alternatives a chance. Saying they will never be anything but supplemental is like saying the horseless carriage will never catch on.
What I object to is closing the door on it. Of course it won't be great and meet all our needs if it isn't used and developed.

 

[Blues Man]

Windmills don't kill birds here. Our windmills are out in the desert. I've photographed them countless times. There are no dead birds anywhere by windmills. You're repeating a very old lie

Not a lie, but I'm glad YOURE not murdering birds and bats. That is an established FACT.

I've photographed the windmills in California, Hawaii and here in Washington. I started photographing them in the 1990s. Not once have I ever seen a dead bird by the windmills. None in all those states.

If there's dead birds somewhere because of windmills it's not here or the other two states I've photographed windmills.

I have never, ever seen a dead bird by a windmill.

Birds are stupid but not that stupid. They fly above the windmills. I've seen countless birds flying above windmills through the decades. The windmills aren't that tall and birds fly much higher than the windmills.

One of my neighbors went to the Town and asked permission to install a wind turbine for his home. This was .. oh, maybe twenty years ago, when the new turbines were first coming out. So anyway, we live on a hill and he was told no, because it could kill seabirds (we live on the ocean) when they migrate.
Now all the buzz is a giant offshore wind farm, and no one seems to give a damn about the birds anymore. Especially not the seagulls.

We Can't Solve Climate Change without Nuclear Power

Chernobyl, Fukushima. 3% of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is high level:
High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.

90% of the waste is "low level" and it is simply buried. Poisoning Mother Earth, our very soil and groundwater, for a cheap electric bill.

This stuff is deadly. A meltdown would equally be deadly and render the area uninhabitable for decades, at least (if Chernobyl is any indication).

Personally, even though it is risky, I don't object to continuing to use it. I object to using it MORE instead of turning to more responsible alternatives. We only have one planet. Poison it too much and we're screwed. Being responsible for killing half the human population is bad; being responsible for making our planet uninhabitable is AWFUL. I don't want to be part of the jamoke generation that chooses that.

Chernobyl was a 1 off design that was never used anywhere else.

And Fukishima was poorly placed in an earthquake prone area

You do know that France has been generating almost 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for then past 30 plus years don't you?

So where are all your disaster stories from France? in one sentence you say technology is getting better all the time but in the next you say that nuclear power can never get safer?

Next generation reactors can be buried underground, they run at atmosphere not under pressure like the old light water plants. They can use the nuclear waste we have sitting around for fuel. They can be built off site and shipped by rail. They are incapable of melting down or overheating.

One 50 MW reactor will power a small town for up to 30 years without being refueled.

Those innovations sound very cool, Blues Man. I still think it is better to not play with fire if we have alternatives, which we do. But some of those improvements--if they are actually ready to be implemented--sound good.

Intermittent power supplies are not an alternative all they will ever be is supplemental.

We are nowhere near being able to meet our current needs for electric power with wind and solar.

So now think about future power needs as we phase out all fossil fuels and use electricity for more and more of our power needs like heating, transportation and other industrial processes in the future.

The only power source we have that can be ramped up fast enough to make a difference in emissions and not only meet our current needs but also any and all future needs is nuclear

Alright, but you are not giving the alternatives a chance. Saying they will never be anything but supplemental is like saying the horseless carriage will never catch on.
What I object to is closing the door on it. Of course it won't be great and meet all our needs if it isn't used and developed.

I never said don't use them

I said they are nowhere close to meeting even our current needs never mind what will be an ever increasing need in the future.

A power source that only puts out 25% of its rated capacity is not good enough.

Would you buy anything that only worked 25% of the time?

 

[Frannie]

We Can't Solve Climate Change without Nuclear Power

Chernobyl, Fukushima. 3% of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is high level:
High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.

90% of the waste is "low level" and it is simply buried. Poisoning Mother Earth, our very soil and groundwater, for a cheap electric bill.

This stuff is deadly. A meltdown would equally be deadly and render the area uninhabitable for decades, at least (if Chernobyl is any indication).

Personally, even though it is risky, I don't object to continuing to use it. I object to using it MORE instead of turning to more responsible alternatives. We only have one planet. Poison it too much and we're screwed. Being responsible for killing half the human population is bad; being responsible for making our planet uninhabitable is AWFUL. I don't want to be part of the jamoke generation that chooses that.

Chernobyl was a 1 off design that was never used anywhere else.

And Fukishima was poorly placed in an earthquake prone area

You do know that France has been generating almost 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for then past 30 plus years don't you?

So where are all your disaster stories from France? in one sentence you say technology is getting better all the time but in the next you say that nuclear power can never get safer?

Next generation reactors can be buried underground, they run at atmosphere not under pressure like the old light water plants. They can use the nuclear waste we have sitting around for fuel. They can be built off site and shipped by rail. They are incapable of melting down or overheating.

One 50 MW reactor will power a small town for up to 30 years without being refueled.

Nuclear waste is the most toxic substance known to humanity. Prove me wrong by snorting some you imbecile

And it's not a big deal

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

The nuclear material we have sitting around can be used as fuel for next generation reactors

There is such a thing as nuclear waste. The enterprise is sitting in dry dock waiting to be cut up. No one knows how to do this, it may be done by 2030. The waste is not just spent fuel but every bit of concrete or metal that had or has any exposure to the fuel. This is millions of metric tons if extrapolated to power plants

Feel free to handle some and tell me I'm wrong as your hair falls out

 

[BULLDOG]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

 

[Frannie]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Actually they do not turn when the wind hits them. A diesel engine starts them turning when the wind hits them

 

[danielpalos]

It also enables us to reserve or export more petroleum and other fossil fuels.

Wind energy is booming in Middle America and creating a huge demand for workers who can keep turbines spinning.
Not blowing smoke: Wind has overtaken 'risky' coal for energy use in Texas for the first time

Thank you.

California should be doing a better job.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Actually they do not turn when the wind hits them. A diesel engine starts them turning when the wind hits them

Well, no. Some of the first wind turbines were built with a starter to start the blades turning, but improved blade design will allow them to self start in winds as low as 5mph and maintain rotation in winds as low as 3mph..

 

[Frannie]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Actually they do not turn when the wind hits them. A diesel engine starts them turning when the wind hits them

Well, no. Some of the first wind turbines were built with a starter to start the blades turning, but improved blade design will allow them to self start in winds as low as 5mph and maintain rotation in winds as low as 3mph..

Actually the new ones weigh more and still need fossil fuel to begin operating. Most numbnuts have no clue

 

[BULLDOG]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Actually they do not turn when the wind hits them. A diesel engine starts them turning when the wind hits them

Well, no. Some of the first wind turbines were built with a starter to start the blades turning, but improved blade design will allow them to self start in winds as low as 5mph and maintain rotation in winds as low as 3mph..

Actually the new ones weigh more and still need fossil fuel to begin operating. Most numbnuts have no clue

I have no idea about all, but evidently you are one who has no clue. Even the ones that required a starter just reversed the electrical flow from the grid and used the generator as a motor to start rotation. No diesel engine was required. dumb ass.

 

[Blues Man]

We Can't Solve Climate Change without Nuclear Power

Chernobyl, Fukushima. 3% of nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant is high level:
High-level wastes can remain highly radioactive for thousands of years. They need to be disposed of deep underground in engineered facilities built in stable geological formations. While no such facilities for high-level wastes currently operate, their feasibility has been demonstrated and there are several countries now in the process of designing and constructing them.

90% of the waste is "low level" and it is simply buried. Poisoning Mother Earth, our very soil and groundwater, for a cheap electric bill.

This stuff is deadly. A meltdown would equally be deadly and render the area uninhabitable for decades, at least (if Chernobyl is any indication).

Personally, even though it is risky, I don't object to continuing to use it. I object to using it MORE instead of turning to more responsible alternatives. We only have one planet. Poison it too much and we're screwed. Being responsible for killing half the human population is bad; being responsible for making our planet uninhabitable is AWFUL. I don't want to be part of the jamoke generation that chooses that.

Chernobyl was a 1 off design that was never used anywhere else.

And Fukishima was poorly placed in an earthquake prone area

You do know that France has been generating almost 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for then past 30 plus years don't you?

So where are all your disaster stories from France? in one sentence you say technology is getting better all the time but in the next you say that nuclear power can never get safer?

Next generation reactors can be buried underground, they run at atmosphere not under pressure like the old light water plants. They can use the nuclear waste we have sitting around for fuel. They can be built off site and shipped by rail. They are incapable of melting down or overheating.

One 50 MW reactor will power a small town for up to 30 years without being refueled.

Nuclear waste is the most toxic substance known to humanity. Prove me wrong by snorting some you imbecile

And it's not a big deal

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste

The nuclear material we have sitting around can be used as fuel for next generation reactors

There is such a thing as nuclear waste. The enterprise is sitting in dry dock waiting to be cut up. No one knows how to do this, it may be done by 2030. The waste is not just spent fuel but every bit of concrete or metal that had or has any exposure to the fuel. This is millions of metric tons if extrapolated to power plants

Feel free to handle some and tell me I'm wrong as your hair falls out

Please.

We have what is called nuclear waste just sitting around already and no one is dying from it. So stop with the histrionics already.

We can use what we have already and power the country for a century at least.

 

[the other mike]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Actually they do not turn when the wind hits them. A diesel engine starts them turning when the wind hits them

Well, no. Some of the first wind turbines were built with a starter to start the blades turning, but improved blade design will allow them to self start in winds as low as 5mph and maintain rotation in winds as low as 3mph..

Actually the new ones weigh more and still need fossil fuel to begin operating. Most numbnuts have no clue

They've been experimenting with 'higher wind power' by placing them near churches so we'll see how that goes. They have noticed less dead birds miraculously.

 

[Frannie]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Actually they do not turn when the wind hits them. A diesel engine starts them turning when the wind hits them

Well, no. Some of the first wind turbines were built with a starter to start the blades turning, but improved blade design will allow them to self start in winds as low as 5mph and maintain rotation in winds as low as 3mph..

Actually the new ones weigh more and still need fossil fuel to begin operating. Most numbnuts have no clue

I have no idea about all, but evidently you are one who has no clue. Even the ones that required a starter just reversed the electrical flow from the grid and used the generator as a motor to start rotation. No diesel engine was required. dumb ass.

Lol do the wind starts blowing meaning the turbine is not producing, now to get it to turn an electric motor getting power from the fossil fueled grid can start the turbine turning

Yawn

I like morons

 

[Frannie]

Of which most are out in west Tx. Let’s send that west Texas sand we all choke on further up into the atmosphere! Let the whole state choke, anytime the wind blows out there.
Wonder how much worse asthma and allergies have gotten there? Clean coal burning is much cleaner.
View attachment 270979

And let’s be sure to deplete the soil of as much of its little moisture as we can. Not to mention frying the birds.

You understand the wind is already blowing, don't you? Those Turbines are not fans to create wind. They just turn when the wind hits them. I didn't realize you were that stupid.

There is no such thing as clean coal.

Actually they do not turn when the wind hits them. A diesel engine starts them turning when the wind hits them

Well, no. Some of the first wind turbines were built with a starter to start the blades turning, but improved blade design will allow them to self start in winds as low as 5mph and maintain rotation in winds as low as 3mph..

Actually the new ones weigh more and still need fossil fuel to begin operating. Most numbnuts have no clue

They've been experimenting with 'higher wind power' by placing them near churches so we'll see how that goes.

I want to see them in Martha's vineyard near the kennedies poop stables

 

[Wry Catcher]

It also enables us to reserve or export more petroleum and other fossil fuels.

Wind energy is booming in Middle America and creating a huge demand for workers who can keep turbines spinning.
Not blowing smoke: Wind has overtaken 'risky' coal for energy use in Texas for the first time

I'm not surprised that Texas benefits from the wind, the amount of hot air posted by Texans on this message board could power a medium sized city for months.