Quick, hook a turbine up to him so we can get some free electricity! Hell, knowing he made something that people are getting for free would only make him spin faster!
Quick, hook a turbine up to him so we can get some free electricity! Hell, knowing he made something that people are getting for free would only make him spin faster!
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...
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...
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.
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...[/quote]Coal, like all fossil fuels, is in finite supply. And even
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.
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...[/quote]Coal, like all fossil fuels, is in finite supply. And even
Wind generators require a lot of space and create noise pollution while dams can't be built everywhere.
But solar panels (though still not very efficient) and reactors, sure.
Wind generators require a lot of space and create noise pollution while dams can't be built everywhere.But solar panels (though still not very efficient) and reactors, sure.
Do you have an alternative that is plentiful, clean, proven, cost-effective, and cheap to the consumer?
Sorry, doesn't provide the energy that coal does, and it's not as cheap. I actually LOL'ed when I saw the pic of the windmill. Been drinking kool-aid lately?
[/quote]Sorry, doesn't provide the energy that coal does, and it's not as cheap.I actually LOL'ed when I saw the pic of the windmill.Been drinking kool-aid lately?
Don't forget solar, tides, thermic and biomass. And the value of reducing your energy consumption.
I said cheap and plentiful people. I didn't ask for a list of alternate energy sources.
The sun and wind are plentyful and are becoming cheaper. They are less risky for health and the environment. When talking cost we should also factor in those costs too. Coal is terrible for health and the environment.
That drought in the center of the US that is raising food prices? Thank you coal.
I said cheap and plentiful people.I didn't ask for a list of alternate energy sources.[/quote]The sun and wind are plentyful and are becoming cheaper. They are less risky for health and the environment. When talking cost we should also factor in thos
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? 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. Hideous to look at and they may interfere with migratory birds as well. Next.
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.
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.
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 :censored: :censored:. Doubt it? That drought? Yeah, imagine if we ran wholly on ethanol. Well, we'd have
Can you blame them after what happened at 3 Mile Island, and more recently in Japan?[/quote]"The average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem, and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight m
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.
A real visionary.
Good thing I didn't say that, champ.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.Ugly, but certainly
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.
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. ;)You're right, I totally fo
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.
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. ;)[/quote]The ethanol. Never
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.
Quoteratin' is huuuuuurrrrrdddd. You, sir, are a derp master when it comes to quotes. :-PThat'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. ;
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!
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!
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!
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!
It's a gift. 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
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...
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...[/quote]Coal, like all fossil fuels, is in finite supply. And even
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...
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 coa
paying hundreds of people to bike connected to generators, running horses in giant wheels, etc...etc...
What the...
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.
Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.
What the...Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.
paying hundreds of people to bike connected to generators, running horses in giant wheels, etc...etc...
What the...
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.
Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I mean they could make some low cost nuclear plants that leaked radiation and dump spent fuel into rivers and they would beat out other countries fuel costs too, but I don't see anyone advocating for that.
I'm all for the tidal generators. It can't be much worse than the over fishing we are doing to the oceans if it has any effect at all...
What the...Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.[/quote]Fraking is also making people land unlivable and
paying hundreds of people to bike connected to generators, running horses in giant wheels, etc...etc...
What the...
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.
Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
Now I have no doubt you are crazy. And you must not know much about fraking.
What the...Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.[/quote]Fraking is also making people land unlivable and
paying hundreds of people to bike connected to generators, running horses in giant wheels, etc...etc...
What the...
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.
Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
Now I have no doubt you are crazy. And you must not know much about fraking.
Damn! When even RH turns on you, you know you just went full retard.
What the...Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.[/quote]Fraking is also making people land unlivable and
paying hundreds of people to bike connected to generators, running horses in giant wheels, etc...etc...
What the...
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.
Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I agree but you didn't answer my question. Which regulations make the price of natural gas go up even if right now it is pretty low.
What the...Which regulations? Right now fraking is reducing the price of gas globally. It's even creating problems for Russia who is (was) a major gas exporter and now sees revenues going down.[/quote]Fraking is also making people land unlivable and
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I agree ...
You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.
I agree ...[/quote]You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you?:rofl:I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I agree ...
You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.
Fraking uses water mixed with chemicals pumped in the soil to fracture rock and release gas/oil. That water when it comes up is not always treated and can also contaminate water reserves in the ground. This can be a good example of privatizing profits and socializing the losses (treating contamintated sites and water, add the impact on residents and farm land).
Plus all that fractured rock can create instability in the soil. There are reason swhy Vermont, France and Québec aren't doing it.
Notice that I am careful not to say it always happen or that all corps are irresponsable. But just calling people names doesn't change the risk associated with it or the added carbon these new sources add to the atmosphere. So gas prices might be coming down, but they contribute to the drought that is striking the US and Russia and that raises food prices.
I agree ...[/quote]You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you?:rofl:I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.[/quote]Fraking u
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I agree ...
You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.
Fraking uses water mixed with chemicals pumped in the soil to fracture rock and release gas/oil. That water when it comes up is not always treated and can also contaminate water reserves in the ground. This can be a good example of privatizing profits and socializing the losses (treating contamintated sites and water, add the impact on residents and farm land).
Plus all that fractured rock can create instability in the soil. There are reason swhy Vermont, France and Québec aren't doing it.
Notice that I am careful not to say it always happen or that all corps are irresponsable. But just calling people names doesn't change the risk associated with it or the added carbon these new sources add to the atmosphere. So gas prices might be coming down, but they contribute to the drought that is striking the US and Russia and that raises food prices.
Fraking is done below the water table. And the frac water is suppose to be treated and discharged safely. If it isn't, then some fly-by-nite company is breaking the law and environmental regs. If they get caught, they suffer.
Instability in the soil? Not even as close as coal mining impact subsidence issues. But I don't expect you to know anything about that either.
I guess you want all of us to pay a carbon tax for breathing, right? You know, since we exhale carbon, and it's a pollutant...
I agree ...[/quote]You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you?:rofl:I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.[/quote]Fraking u
And with all that presure none ever goes up into water tables. And corps always follow the rules.
And the frac water is suppose to be treated and discharged safely. If it isn't, then some fly-by-nite company is breaking the law and environmental regs. If they get caught, they suffer.
Exactly the problem, and they suffer not enough.
Now lets reduce the money that goes to government agencies that monitor these activities.
Instability in the soil? Not even as close as coal mining impact subsidence issues.
So it does create instability. Always great in residential areas and farm land.
I guess you want all of us to pay a carbon tax for breathing, right? You know, since we exhale carbon, and it's a pollutant...
And the radio show BS pops up.
And with all that presure none ever goes up into water tables. And corps always follow the rules.Exactly the problem, and they suffer not enough. Now lets reduce the money that goes to government agencies that monitor these activities.So it does crea
Fraking causes less damage than coal mining. Stop reading those enviro-weenie and liberal propaganda/ dis-information sites broski. And why do you want people to pay more for power? Why do you want to keep the US from developing its own energy resources? Why do you want people to freeze in the winter?
You just hate people.
Fraking causes less damage than coal mining.Stop reading those enviro-weenie and liberal propaganda/ dis-information sites broski.And why do you want people to pay more for power?Why do you want to keep the US from developing its own energy resources
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Stop reading those enviro-weenie and liberal propaganda/ dis-information sites broski. And why do you want people to pay more for power? Why do you want to keep the US from developing its own energy resources? Why do you want people to freeze in the winter?
And senseless attacks picked up on radio shows again.
You just hate people.
Because they refuse me as their god-emperor.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-PAnd senseless attacks picked up on radio shows again.Because they refuse me as their god-emperor.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well. Try again.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-P[/quote]Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well.Try again.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well. Try again.
They can produce a majority, if you let it happen.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-P[/quote]Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well.Try again.[/quote]They can produce a majority, if you let
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well. Try again.
They can produce a majority, if you let it happen.
Right. If we let it happen... you know, after it is proven to supply the need and be cost-effective. But not if we attempt to force it to happen just because we wish it.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-P[/quote]Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well.Try again.[/quote]They can produce a majority, if you let
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well. Try again.
They can produce a majority, if you let it happen.
Right. If we let it happen... you know, after it is proven to supply the need and be cost-effective. But not if we attempt to force it to happen just because we wish it.
You mean like forcing travelling to the moon or the manhattan project?
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-P[/quote]Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well.Try again.[/quote]They can produce a majority, if you let
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well. Try again.
They can produce a majority, if you let it happen.
Right. If we let it happen... you know, after it is proven to supply the need and be cost-effective. But not if we attempt to force it to happen just because we wish it.
You mean like forcing travelling to the moon or the manhattan project?
Those worked. Right now, solar, wind, etc is not working, ie. not supplying the demand at reasonable cost.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-P[/quote]Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well.Try again.[/quote]They can produce a majority, if you let
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well. Try again.
They can produce a majority, if you let it happen.
Right. If we let it happen... you know, after it is proven to supply the need and be cost-effective. But not if we attempt to force it to happen just because we wish it.
You mean like forcing travelling to the moon or the manhattan project?
Those worked. Right now, solar, wind, etc is not working, ie. not supplying the demand at reasonable cost.
The bomb and going to the moon didn't happen in a overnight, sweety.
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-P[/quote]Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well.Try again.[/quote]They can produce a majority, if you let
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere.
Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well. Try again.
They can produce a majority, if you let it happen.
Right. If we let it happen... you know, after it is proven to supply the need and be cost-effective. But not if we attempt to force it to happen just because we wish it.
You mean like forcing travelling to the moon or the manhattan project?
Those worked. Right now, solar, wind, etc is not working, ie. not supplying the demand at reasonable cost.
The bomb and going to the moon didn't happen in a overnight, sweety.
But those didn't put undue cost and hardship on the general populace, did they? Your energy prices didn't escalate because of those, did they? Those things didn't take what is available and cheap, turn it into harder to get and expensive, and then offer another way that is even more expensive and less reliable, did they?
Something solar, tides, wind, etc, won't do and won't releae carbon in the atmosphere. :-P[/quote]Too bad those can't produce a fraction of the energy we need and cost quite a bit more as well.Try again.[/quote]They can produce a majority, if you let
But they did cost the general pulbic something. Lots of tax money.
As for hardship, well there is that argument you've been ignoring for the entire thread. That is that climate change causes and will cause hardship. There is a cost to those cheap energy sources. The problem is just seeing one column, price of coal for example, and not seeing how a lot of stuff is interelated.
Think of your family tree to understand.
But they did cost the general pulbic something. Lots of tax money. As for hardship, well there is that argument you've been ignoring for the entire thread. That is that climate change causes and will cause hardship. There is a cost to those cheap ene
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I agree ...
You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.
Naw, you just need to look into it and stop drinking your companies kool-aid. There are documented cases and lawsuits. Seriously youtube flaming tap water...
Edit: here let me save you the trouble
I agree ...[/quote]You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you?:rofl:I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.[/quote]Naw, you
We'll be burning money for warmth soon. You realize they just announced QEUnlimited right? In other words an inflationary spiral that will continue as long as the banks keep buying toxic derivatives and the private Federal Reserve run by the banks keep giving those same banks money...
We'll be burning money for warmth soon. You realize they just announced QEUnlimited right? In other words an inflationary spiral that will continue as long as the banks keep buying toxic derivatives and the private Federal Reserve run by the banks ke
So which regulations? You still haven't answer, Loki.
And out of curiosity, how much gold to you have?
I don't have any gold. If I did I would sell it and live like a king for awhile...
If you are talking about the coal regulations it has to do with carbon footprints and the inability to build new coal plants and in fact shutting old ones down because they don't meet the carbon regulations. Its pretty simple math. If you have two coal plants supplying energy to the same area and one shuts down, your energy costs double...
I don't have any gold. If I did I would sell it and live like a king for awhile...If you are talking about the coal regulations it has to do with carbon footprints and the inability to build new coal plants and in fact shutting old ones down because
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I agree ...
You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.
Naw, you just need to look into it and stop drinking your companies kool-aid. There are documented cases and lawsuits. Seriously youtube flaming tap water...
I could go on, but I think you have enough to choke on right here.
Care to try again?
I agree ...[/quote]You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you?:rofl:I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.[/quote]Naw, you
Fraking is also making people land unlivable and contaminating ground waters that everyone use. In fact YouTube flammable tap water and see what fraking is doing.
I agree ...
You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you? I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.
Naw, you just need to look into it and stop drinking your companies kool-aid. There are documented cases and lawsuits. Seriously youtube flaming tap water...
Forcing pressure into the ground couldn't possibly have anything to do with forcing out flammable substances into a person well water could it? I mean even if there was some naturally occurring stuff in the well, it was forced out under pressure from the fraking...
Also the author of the first link is clearly biased.
I like how the second article talks about 'state and federal officials' without naming any agencies or studies.
The third article is a repeat of the first. So I'll repeat what I said. The problem may have existed before the fraking, but the fraking most certainly made it worse...
In other words the refutations are about as believable as the guy doing the documentary. Of course they won't touch the list of chemicals that the documentary talks about that get into the ground water and saturate the ground. Why don't the articles actually touch on the facts presented?
The only thing they pick out is the flammable water part and a possible misunderstanding or cover up of a fish killing. Do you have any articles that actually have studies listed and/or deal with the actual facts presented in the documentary?
I agree ...[/quote]You guys have no idea what you are talking about, do you?:rofl:I work in that industry, sort of. And what you guys are saying/ implying is ridiculous propaganda started by enviro-weenies and communist sympathizers.[/quote]Naw, you
Do you have any articles that actually have studies listed and/or deal with the actual facts presented in the documentary?
Do you? And if I did, you would just dismiss them.
Yes I would dismiss them with facts and logic.
You talking about facts and logic! That's rich!
At any rate, I just posted 4 articles that demonstarte your belief about fraking is wrong... and you dismissed them out of hand because they don't fit what you want to be true. *shrug*
Do you?And if I did, you would just dismiss them.[/quote]Yes I would dismiss them with facts and logic.[/quote]:rofl:You talking about facts and logic!That's rich!At any rate, I just posted 4 articles that demonstarte your belief about fraking is wro
You realize that personal attacks are against the CoC right?
Has that ever stopped me before?
Stopped? No. Slowed down? Pfft, it's barely a speed bump.
You realize that personal attacks are against the CoC right?[/quote]Has that ever stopped me before?[/quote]Stopped? No. Slowed down? Pfft, it's barely a speed bump.
You realize that personal attacks are against the CoC right?
Has that ever stopped me before?
Stopped? No. Slowed down? Pfft, it's barely a speed bump.
I will take that as a compliment.
And I'm surprised lokiare hasn't been back, trying to convince me that his "documentary" contains "facts"...
You realize that personal attacks are against the CoC right?[/quote]Has that ever stopped me before?[/quote]Stopped? No. Slowed down? Pfft, it's barely a speed bump.[/quote]I will take that as a compliment.:-DAnd I'm surprised lokiare hasn't been bac
You realize that personal attacks are against the CoC right?
Has that ever stopped me before?
Stopped? No. Slowed down? Pfft, it's barely a speed bump.
I will take that as a compliment.
And I'm surprised lokiare hasn't been back, trying to convince me that his "documentary" contains "facts"...
It does. While the film maker might have been wrong on a few counts, that's what you get when you don't have professionals telling the truth...
The documentary does provide facts, including where they have fraked, what chemicals are used in fraking, and several people with complaints about fraking (whether they know what they are complaining about or not). I'm sure there's more but its been a awhile since I've seen it. There are other legitimate concerns about fraking not covered in the documentary like what happens to the ground water when several tons of chemicals are pumped into the ground?
I like how 2 of your links were nearly identical (looked like copy and paste jobs to me) and the other one only had one topic to nit pick at, one which while they were right wasn't known to the film maker because they are not a professional researcher, just a concerned citizen with a camera and some cash to burn...
Once you realize the guy wasn't a professional film maker, reporter, or researcher, maybe you can put what he showed in perspective.
Its also interesting to note that some fraking operations coincide with earthquakes, but there isn't any solid evidence that they cause them...
Start showing some facts to counter facts and maybe we can talk...
You realize that personal attacks are against the CoC right?[/quote]Has that ever stopped me before?[/quote]Stopped? No. Slowed down? Pfft, it's barely a speed bump.[/quote]I will take that as a compliment.:-DAnd I'm surprised lokiare hasn't been bac
The documentary does provide facts, including where they have fraked, what chemicals are used in fraking, and several people with complaints about fraking (whether they know what they are complaining about or not).
Really? I thought those chemicals were industry/company secrets. Haven't they been fighting having to disclose what chemicals and how much of each chemical they use?
Really? I thought those chemicals were industry/company secrets. Haven't they been fighting having to disclose what chemicals and how much of each chemical they use?
The documentary does provide facts, including where they have fraked, what chemicals are used in fraking, and several people with complaints about fraking (whether they know what they are complaining about or not).
Really? I thought those chemicals were industry/company secrets. Haven't they been fighting having to disclose what chemicals and how much of each chemical they use?
Yes, they have, but you can find out in the patents and various white papers they are required to release as well as samples of the chemicals that they use having been analyzed...
Really? I thought those chemicals were industry/company secrets. Haven't they been fighting having to disclose what chemicals and how much of each chemical they use?[/quote]Yes, they have, but you can find out in the patents and various white papers
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.
