Wind power is terrible. It takes a state's worth of turbines to power a city and making your energy supply dependent upon mother nature is . Doubt it? That drought? Yeah, imagine if we ran wholly on ethanol. Well, we'd have no gas, would we?
Good thing I didn't say that, champ.
So it's stupid to see wind as some sort of permanent solution. It's fine for supplying small amounts of power in addition to something more reilable but that's it. That's it's entire future. Oh, and it's also a pollutant.
Small? Denmark's power is 20% wind and they want to make it to 50% by 2020.
What Denmark has is a clear political will to change their power source. Oh, and a population that understands science.
Hideous to look at and they may interfere with migratory birds as well. Next.
Ugly, but certainly better for your lungs and the environment, as they pollute a lot less. Birds, a myth. A handful die from hitting the mill.
Hydroelectric is also a terrible idea. Again, drought. Lower water levels means less you can use. Aside from that we have that whole 'can cause entire species of fish to go extinct' issue. So yeah, real environmentally friendly.
Tragic, but a better solution than coal. Like less coal=less drought and more water for turbines. I over simplify, but you get the gist of it.
The sun's the best bet but it's not something that can be used everywhere and it is still dependent upon nature to function. I also happen to like that blue petroleum that they're working on. Recycles industrial waste and creates oil. That's pretty good, IMO.
So basically you are saying that everything is a bad idea, so the only thing left is the status quo: coal... until we switch to another form of carbon fuel.
You want wind, water and solar power. All those? Totally dependent upon nature. So yeah, you did. I get that you don't understand what you're asking for, but that's why I'm talking to you. I'm here to educate, brah.
Small? Denmark's power is 20% wind and they want to make it to 50% by 2020.
You're right, I totally forgot how huge Denmark's landmass is. Again, it's fine for specific areas as a supplemental source of energy. And it's also stupid beyond belief to want half or more of your energy output to rely on nature when the reason you want it is because nature is changing. So ya got wind now, right? What about in 25 or 50 years? What's that global warming thing you're so skeered of gonna do to your energy source? Or, you know, is it really not something you see as changing all that much.
Ugly, but certainly better for your lungs and the environment, as they pollute a lot less. Birds, a myth. A handful die from hitting the mill.
They're not better for the environment. They take up land - a lot more than any coal plant does. What do you think is on the land these things - and their access and service roads are - before they get there? And no, not many birds die from flying into them. However, it's quite often a case of shared habitat that isn't shared. Where the wind is is often where the birds need to be.
Tragic, but a better solution than coal. Like less coal=less drought and more water for turbines. I over simplify, but you get the gist of it.
Environmentally a disaster, though. That 'tragic' thing you're talking about has a massive impact on the environment. Extinction is a big deal, no? All I'm saying is you can't sell hydroelectric as environmentally better. At least not honestly.
So basically you are saying that everything is a bad idea, so the only thing left is the status quo: coal... until we switch to another form of carbon fuel.
A real visionary.
When did I say anything was a bad idea? I said it's a bad idea to put all your faith in energy supplies that are wholly dependent upon nature - especially when you constantly say how nature is totally unstable and changing for the worse because of man. You're saying you can't rely on the main variable in your little 'safer' equation remaining stable. That's stupid. But hey, green feels good, right? Who cares about how silly you look when you tell us that nature is changing because of us but that we should totally rely on it 100% (or even 'just' half or a majority) for our energy needs. Seriously. Think about what you're saying. Supplemental, cleaner sources (except hydroelectric)? Yeah, bring 'em on. But the future of energy? Not possible.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.
Section Six Soldier
Front Door of the House of Trolls
If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
You want wind, water and solar power. All those? Totally dependent upon nature. So yeah, you did. I get that you don't understand what you're asking for, but that's why I'm talking to you. I'm here to educate, brah.
The ethanol. Never mentioned it. Depend on nature we are with oil and coal. At some point there will be non left. Oh, and we certainly are vulnerable to one nature with those two, human nature. Speculation and manipulation of prices of oil ring a bell?
Small? Denmark's power is 20% wind and they want to make it to 50% by 2020.
You're right, I totally forgot how huge Denmark's landmass is. Again, it's fine for specific areas as a supplemental source of energy.
Indeed. So why not approve of it for the super large land mass that is the US? Even if it doesn't get to be has productive? It's like your quitting before even starting. "It won't be enough so let's not do it at all".
And it's also stupid beyond belief to want half or more of your energy output to rely on nature when the reason you want it is because nature is changing. So ya got wind now, right? What about in 25 or 50 years? What's that global warming thing you're so skeered of gonna do to your energy source? Or, you know, is it really not something you see as changing all that much.
You be a climatologist now?
Ugly, but certainly better for your lungs and the environment, as they pollute a lot less. Birds, a myth. A handful die from hitting the mill.
They're not better for the environment. They take up land - a lot more than any coal plant does. What do you think is on the land these things - and their access and service roads are - before they get there? And no, not many birds die from flying into them.
Yup, there is no production of energy without consequences on the environment. Doesn't mean the consequences are all equal. But you are the master of false equivalencies.
However, it's quite often a case of shared habitat that isn't shared. Where the wind is is often where the birds need to be.
Still a myth that it will put birds in danger.
Tragic, but a better solution than coal. Like less coal=less drought and more water for turbines. I over simplify, but you get the gist of it.
Environmentally a disaster, though. That 'tragic' thing you're talking about has a massive impact on the environment. Extinction is a big deal, no? All I'm saying is you can't sell hydroelectric as environmentally better. At least not honestly.
Honestly, you do. Again you are playing the game of false equivalencies.
So basically you are saying that everything is a bad idea, so the only thing left is the status quo: coal... until we switch to another form of carbon fuel.
A real visionary.
When did I say anything was a bad idea?
Pretty much your whole your post.
I said it's a bad idea to put all your faith in energy supplies that are wholly dependent upon nature - especially when you constantly say how nature is totally unstable and changing for the worse because of man.
And yet you do not want to change what is making the climate worse.
You're saying you can't rely on the main variable in your little 'safer' equation remaining stable. That's stupid.
That is your fear. Nature scares you.
The real impact is on price. Not stability. And that I think scares you more. Not being able to overcomsume like you'd want to.
But hey, green feels good, right?
It's not a question of feel. It's understanding the impacts we have on our environment and health and corrected it with different means of production and changing our live styles. Yes, those evil words that mean you won't be able to buy anything you want.
Who cares about how silly you look when you tell us that nature is changing because of us but that we should totally rely on it 100% (or even 'just' half or a majority) for our energy needs. Seriously. Think about what you're saying. Supplemental, cleaner sources (except hydroelectric)? Yeah, bring 'em on. But the future of energy? Not possible.
We are dependant on nature. It is just a false sense of security that you have. Oil and coal will run out and we are very much vulnerable to human nature and speculation on oil pirces. What you want to do is close your eyes and just stay in the present not touching your little conforts.
We have a negative impact on our food supply because of these power sources, among other things. We will have to switch to other sources once they run out. Might as well make the transition now, to have better tech later, get use to it and to minimize the negative impact we have on our selves.
The ethanol. Never mentioned it. Depend on nature we are with oil and coal. At some point there will be non left. Oh, and we certainly are vulnerable to one nature with those two, human nature. Speculation and manipulation of prices of oil ring a bell?
That's price. Higher or lower prices, it doesn't matter. The elecrtricity is still there. Not enough wind or sun or water? No power. False equivalency.
Indeed. So why not approve of it for the super large land mass that is the US? Even if it doesn't get to be has productive? It's like your quitting before even starting. "It won't be enough so let's not do it at all".
Umm, dood? You're not seeing what I'm saying at all. I've said we should use the stuff. I've just said it should be supplemental.
You be a climatologist now?
I'm just as qualified as you are, Mr Pot.
Yup, there is no production of energy without consequences on the environment. Doesn't mean the consequences are all equal. But you are the master of false equivalencies.
Taking wild land and turning it into a wind farm is, to me, just as bad as polluting the air. If it's not to you, that's kewl. But it doesn't make it a false equivalency. A difference of opinion, sure.
Still a myth that it will put birds in danger.
If you use the land the birds need to eat, rest or breed it certainly will. Shorelines are often these sorts of areas.
Honestly, you do. Again you are playing the game of false equivalencies.
So to you extinction is no big deal. See, extinction is more than one dead species. But hey, if the point is to get us off of power supplies that alter the planet negatively, I can see how using a power source that removes a species from it - which impacts many, many other species still on it - as a lesser evil.
Pretty much your whole your post.
In your perverted understanding of it, sure. In reality? Not at all. You just decided to take offense to words that were less than glowing (and based in reality) about something you see as a utopian savior.
And yet you do not want to change what is making the climate worse.
When did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn't. I haven't mentioned what I would like to see used in addition to wind and solar. But hey, you go ahead and make up whatever it is you need to to form an argument.
By the way, you're advocating a power source that makes the environment worse. Hydro kills species. That's bad.
That is your fear. Nature scares you.
No, nature is simply unpredictable. And it's you who says it's changing. Can you explain how these power sources can possibly be reliable if nature - as you contend - is changing rapidly?
And that I think scares you more. Not being able to overcomsume like you'd want to.
Obviously you missed the point of that story. See, you seem to think that human nature and nature nature have the same impact on power. They do not. Again, prices rise or fall - regardless, the power flows (that's human nature). Winds fall, water levels fall, clouds linger - the power doesn't flow (that's nature nature). You see a difference there? Maybe a potential problem? Or do you just wanna continue to ignore it cuz it's green and green is good?
It's not a question of feel. It's understanding the impacts we have on our environment and health and corrected it with different means of production and changing our live styles. Yes, those evil words that mean you won't be able to buy anything you want.
But you refuse to understand the realities of what you're looking for. You want to help the environment but you don't care if you kill off a few species here and there to do it. How's that make any sense? You tell me the climate is changing and yet you say we must depend upon the climate for power. How does that make any sense?
We are dependant on nature. It is just a false sense of security that you have. Oil and coal will run out and we are very much vulnerable to human nature and speculation on oil pirces. What you want to do is close your eyes and just stay in the present not touching your little conforts.
We have a negative impact on our food supply because of these power sources, among other things. We will have to switch to other sources once they run out. Might as well make the transition now, to have better tech later, get use to it and to minimize the negative impact we have on our selves.
Yep, they will run out. That's why I've never said that we shouldn't look for alternative sources of energy. My only contention is that what you say will save us simply won't. And, of course, that you don't even understand the realities of what you're asking - as evidenced by your conflicting reasoning. But, again, I do understand that it's much easier for you to ignore what I've actually said and just guess at what I want and argue against that instead. It's silly, but it's easier.
Resident Prophet of the OTTer.
Section Six Soldier
Front Door of the House of Trolls
If you're terribly afraid of your character dying, it may be best if you roleplayed something other than an adventurer.
Just want to be clear that I don't have any phobic fear of nuclear energy, but I know a lot of people do. In other words, you don't have to convince or ridicule me with your facts and figures. Thanks anyway though!
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."- John Stuart Mill Old Man of the House of Trolls Resident Hater God of Anger and Hatred. Mini Hate Machine
Just want to be clear that I don't have any phobic fear of nuclear energy, but I know a lot of people do. In other words, you don't have to convince or ridicule me with your facts and figures. Thanks anyway though!
But it's so fun.
Nut Eating Resident Sociopathic Eye Forker 2346-strong Squirrel leigon of DOOM Squirrel Overlord of the House of Trolls Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy. ~Ernest Benn The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. ~P.J. O'Rourke "I actually held public office and I left the only way a politician should, in handcuffs." ~ Chael Sonnen It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it! ~ Upton Sinclair Kicked Adam and Eve out of Missouri. Wears flip-flops in church buildings. Official troller of Kolob.
Quoteratin' is huuuuuurrrrrdddd. You, sir, are a derp master when it comes to quotes.
It's a gift.
That's price. Higher or lower prices, it doesn't matter. The elecrtricity is still there. Not enough wind or sun or water? No power. False equivalency.
That is your problem, you see less wind for one moment and than it means there is a blackout. The idea is to use these various power sources, and others like tide, geothermic and hydro, to have a steady supply of power. But it will cost more and people will have to consume less and adapt their way of living.
Umm, dood? You're not seeing what I'm saying at all. I've said we should use the stuff. I've just said it should be supplemental.
Sorry I was confused when you said "wind power is terrible" "being dependent on nature is "hiddious to look at and kills birds" "hydroelectric is a terrible idea" . I didn't know you were being positive and where agreeing with me that these have less of an impact on the climate and thus on us.
I'm just as qualified as you are, Mr Pot.
I certainly understand it more than you. You talk about the impact on birds, I talk about the impact on humans.
Taking wild land and turning it into a wind farm is, to me, just as bad as polluting the air. If it's not to you, that's kewl. But it doesn't make it a false equivalency. A difference of opinion, sure.
It does. It releases a lot less carbon in the air, and that has an impact on your health and the climate. How many time must I say this?
Seeing them as pretty or not, that is an opinion, but carbon release, yeah, that is science, which is not an opinion... Well in most cultures anyway. And the impact climate change has on humans is also not an opi... Well in most countries anyway.
If you use the land the birds need to eat, rest or breed it certainly will. Shorelines are often these sorts of areas.
And they still can. That wind mills kills thousands of birds and is a danger to them is a myth. It's just design to look an environmentally friendly argument. But you know, it was designed in coal and oil marketing "labs" and have nothing to do with the statistics.
So to you extinction is no big deal. See, extinction is more than one dead species.
You are moving the goal post.
But hey, if the point is to get us off of power supplies that alter the planet negatively, I can see how using a power source that removes a species from it - which impacts many, many other species still on it - as a lesser evil.
Like I said, it is tragic, but climate change affect fish on all the planet and more importantly us. You are just making false equivalencies.
And your statement is weird coming from a guy who says he is for diversification of power sources. Sounds like you say "I am for diversification, except power source B, C and D, so we are only left with A anyway". Next thing you'll say is climate change is a myth and even it wasn't it has no impact on us.
In your perverted understanding of it, sure. In reality? Not at all. You just decided to take offense to words that were less than glowing (and based in reality) about something you see as a utopian savior.
I just see your words. "Hydro? Terrible. Wind? Terrible. Sun? Too chaotic. Besides, they are just as bad". It's hard actually give credibility to your statement that you want diversification. These produce a lot less carbon, affect climate less and affect us a lot less.
When did I say that? Oh yeah, I didn't. I haven't mentioned what I would like to see used in addition to wind and solar. But hey, you go ahead and make up whatever it is you need to to form an argument.
By the way, you're advocating a power source that makes the environment worse. Hydro kills species. That's bad.
See that is the problem right there. You confuse local with global and make the false equivalency between flooding some land and actually making air unhealthy and nurishing climate change globally and affect us negatively.
You're smart, but for some reason you refuse to admit it and just play dumb.
No, nature is simply unpredictable. And it's you who says it's changing. Can you explain how these power sources can possibly be reliable if nature - as you contend - is changing rapidly?
Sure. The tides are pretty much set unless we blow up the moon. Geothermic won't change soon unless we blow up the earth. Wind will always be there same for the sun. Hydro is the perfect contingency. Let the dams fill up when the other are used. In last resort, use gase.
It certainly works fine here. Not like we have blackout outs or are at the mercy of nature.
Obviously you missed the point of that story. See, you seem to think that human nature and nature nature have the same impact on power. They do not. Again, prices rise or fall - regardless, the power flows (that's human nature). Winds fall, water levels fall, clouds linger - the power doesn't flow (that's nature nature). You see a difference there? Maybe a potential problem? Or do you just wanna continue to ignore it cuz it's green and green is good?
I see you ignored what I said about oil and coal running out. I guess that suits your narrative better. Like this panicky argument that suddenly earth will be sunless and wind less. Was in a NRA magasine that you read it or saw it on Fox News?
But you refuse to understand the realities of what you're looking for. You want to help the environment
No that is what you do not understand cause of all the "clean coal" propaganda you heard. "Environmentalist want to save the whales, bla bla bla..." It's about helping us. We live in this environment. It's our quality of life, our health, our food supplies, our living spaces that are at risk here. Those are the risks linked to climate change. Do you understand what I said? I've said it plenty of time already.
but you don't care if you kill off a few species here and there to do it. How's that make any sense?
You do not understand what I am saying. It's not about saving whales, it's about us. Actually read what I write instead of regurgitating the counter argument that you heard about evil environmentalists who only care about birds.
You tell me the climate is changing and yet you say we must depend upon the climate for power. How does that make any sense?
No, that is your fear of nature scenario. Plus a lack of understanding that climate change can be halted if we change how we live. I've said it already but you ignored it a few times, like I am sure you will now and what I said above and just say "hydro kills fish wind kills birds, just like coal". It's about us.
We have a negative impact on our food supply because of these power sources, among other things. We will have to switch to other sources once they run out. Might as well make the transition now, to have better tech later, get use to it and to minimize the negative impact we have on our selves.
Yep, they will run out. That's why I've never said that we shouldn't look for alternative sources of energy.
"Wind is terrible". "Hydro is terrible". "The sun is pure chaos".
My only contention is that what you say will save us simply won't.
So where did you hear this anyway, I am curious.
And, of course, that you don't even understand the realities of what you're asking - as evidenced by your conflicting reasoning.
I do. I've said this will be more costly to us and that it will mean a change in our way of consumming. You didn't say anything about that. Just ignored and hammered away at how "terrible" other energies are.
But, again, I do understand that it's much easier for you to ignore what I've actually said and just guess at what I want and argue against that instead. It's silly, but it's easier.
Looks whose talking! Ignoring half of what I said. I say climate change is bad for us you talk about fish and birds!
Quick, hook a turbine up to him so we can get some free electricity!
Yeah cause we're going to need free electricity if coal mining regulations doesn't gets under control... cause at the rate things are now, your electric bill is going to sky-rocket...
Coal, like all fossil fuels, is in finite supply. And even "clean coal" is dirtier than an old man's mind.
Do you have an alternative that is plentiful, clean, proven, cost-effective, and cheap to the consumer? Well, until you do, coal is cheap, plentiful, and readily available.
Channeled rain fall, ocean tides, wind power, solar panels, solar heat differential engines, solar steam power (via a field of mirrors super heating a tower), paying hundreds of people to bike connected to generators, running horses in giant wheels, etc...etc...
There are hundreds of ideas that work, pretty soon with the rise in gas prices, coal, and natural gas prices due to regulations (thanks Obama), they will all be cost effective alternatives. Go watch the second Black Mirror flick to see how one of them would work.
The only problem is if we get into any of these, then the big oil, coal, and other energy companies will lose profit and it would further destroy the economy with bail outs and government aid. Of course if they just let these companies fail (and banks) we would have a few bad years, but then recover. As it is we are just inflating a bubble and when it pops what we have now will look like a vacation...
What's the argument against tidal? From what I've heard just taking the subsidies and corporate welfare we give to big oil and putting it into tidal would solve all of our problems for the foreseeable future.
From what I've seen if we covered both coastlines with tidal generators we would produce enough energy for the entire country...
Again, it's fine for specific areas as a supplemental source of energy. And it's also stupid beyond belief to want half or more of your energy output to rely on nature when the reason you want it is because nature is changing. So ya got wind now, right? What about in 25 or 50 years? What's that global warming thing you're so skeered of gonna do to your energy source? Or, you know, is it really not something you see as changing all that much.
