More Climate BS...

#2,776
#2,776
marcusluvsvols said:
I feel sorry for the 40% of Commiefornia that voted for Trump. You would think that any of them lucky enough to own an insanely priced home, farm, etc would sell it and move to where sanity prevails at least sometimes. Never been as thankful as I now am to live in the "Bible Belt".
Click to expand...
California is the Democratic idea of utopia. It is the Dems sincerest desire to have the rest of the country look just like it. A dump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, InVOLuntary, CagleMtnVol and 2 others
#2,777
#2,777
swampfoxfan said:
Everything said on TV shows is real
Click to expand...
The only thing I heard in that clip that may not be quite true is about running out. Have heard from some in the industry that there may be processes in the crust creating hydrocarbons.

Now it may not be anywhere enough to offset the drawdown, but if true, it is an interesting idea.
 
#2,780
#2,780
rekinhavoc said:
www.foxnews.com

Climate activists learn fate for red powder attack on US Constitution at National Archives

A pair of climate activists who defaced the National Archives Rotunda back in February where the U.S. Constitution is stored have learned their fate.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com

View attachment 700888
View attachment 700889
View attachment 700890

Dance card full at the prison dance.
Click to expand...
These dudes are the type of guys that just when you see them, you know they're democrats. If the Birkenstocks weren't a dead give away the betacuck smiles sure are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: just bob, UT_Dutchman, marcusluvsvols and 3 others
#2,782
#2,782
  • Like
Reactions: swampfoxfan
#2,783
#2,783
NashVol11 said:
Y’all really went straight to “the TV show depicting a guy working for an oil company is the truth and it’s on others to prove otherwise”? Wild. Average payback time is 7 months not 20 years
Click to expand...
If the average payback is 7 months, why is Blackrock buying private homes instead of taking all new investments …. A 7 month payback would mean if I invest $1m in 12 months I’d get more than $1.7 in 12 months.
And BTW, if I make something that offers a 7 month payback, I’m jacking up the price because you’d still buy it at an 8 or 10 month payback
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, UT_Dutchman and GroverCleveland
#2,784
#2,784
Wireless1 said:
If the average payback is 7 months, why is Blackrock buying private homes instead of taking all new investments …. A 7 month payback would mean if I invest $1m in 12 months I’d get more than $1.7 in 12 months.
And BTW, if I make something that offers a 7 month payback, I’m jacking up the price because you’d still buy it at an 8 or 10 month payback
Click to expand...
It’s about recouping the energy used to manufacture it. People do invest in wind turbines though
 
#2,785
#2,785
NashVol11 said:
Y’all really went straight to “the TV show depicting a guy working for an oil company is the truth and it’s on others to prove otherwise”? Wild. Average payback time is 7 months not 20 years
Click to expand...
I buy a lot of it because I work in an adjacent field, studied this in college under some of the OG "greenies", actually spent 2 years in school to compete in the Solar Decathlon https://www.solardecathlon.gov/past/2011/team_tennessee, and actually take the time to read some of the studies. a good bit of my issue usually comes down to "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

as a good for instance. an article on the last page said the study said it was 11 units of carbon dioxide produced by wind turbines, but yours said 9 units. the second one doesn't quote its source, and I haven't seen anything saying 9 units, all has been 11. the 9 is either undocumented (that I can find), a projection, or parsing the 11 to be more favorable. This happens quiet a bit amongst green studies, and if you get back to the methodology its not apples to apples.

the studies done on coal, natural gas, and so forth FF carbon dioxide studies were all done decades ago, and are just referenced as if nothing has changed with those. it also includes EVERYTHING, including the fuel, maintenance, and the transmission systems. The "green" studies never include EVERYTHING. they assume the existing transmission/distribution system is enough, and no upgrades are needed, and that the green system doesn't "take on" any of those carbon emissions, they were all sunk when the FF system went in.

one thing that was mentioned in the clip, but not in either article, or any study I have seen, is the maintenance costs, particularly on the wind turbines de-icing. similar with the PV panels cleaning. those chemicals/water/fuel are NOT considered as part of the regular maintenance costs for the green tech, while the comparable systems were considered for the FF sources. Does it make a huge difference? No. are the green systems still less impactful to nature? yes. but it is very rare to find an honest comparison.

another impact that is never mentioned are the ecological costs of the wind turbines. they absolutely have an impact on the native bird populations, and can be really problematic if in a migratory path. it would be similar type of impact to the oil spills in the ocean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, marcusluvsvols, Wireless1 and 1 other person
#2,787
#2,787
LouderVol said:
I buy a lot of it because I work in an adjacent field, studied this in college under some of the OG "greenies", actually spent 2 years in school to compete in the Solar Decathlon https://www.solardecathlon.gov/past/2011/team_tennessee, and actually take the time to read some of the studies. a good bit of my issue usually comes down to "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

as a good for instance. an article on the last page said the study said it was 11 units of carbon dioxide produced by wind turbines, but yours said 9 units. the second one doesn't quote its source, and I haven't seen anything saying 9 units, all has been 11. the 9 is either undocumented (that I can find), a projection, or parsing the 11 to be more favorable. This happens quiet a bit amongst green studies, and if you get back to the methodology its not apples to apples.

the studies done on coal, natural gas, and so forth FF carbon dioxide studies were all done decades ago, and are just referenced as if nothing has changed with those. it also includes EVERYTHING, including the fuel, maintenance, and the transmission systems. The "green" studies never include EVERYTHING. they assume the existing transmission/distribution system is enough, and no upgrades are needed, and that the green system doesn't "take on" any of those carbon emissions, they were all sunk when the FF system went in.

one thing that was mentioned in the clip, but not in either article, or any study I have seen, is the maintenance costs, particularly on the wind turbines de-icing. similar with the PV panels cleaning. those chemicals/water/fuel are NOT considered as part of the regular maintenance costs for the green tech, while the comparable systems were considered for the FF sources. Does it make a huge difference? No. are the green systems still less impactful to nature? yes. but it is very rare to find an honest comparison.

another impact that is never mentioned are the ecological costs of the wind turbines. they absolutely have an impact on the native bird populations, and can be really problematic if in a migratory path. it would be similar type of impact to the oil spills in the ocean.
Click to expand...
Citing actual studies may be a bridge to far with that guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol and GroverCleveland
#2,790
#2,790
LouderVol said:
I buy a lot of it because I work in an adjacent field, studied this in college under some of the OG "greenies", actually spent 2 years in school to compete in the Solar Decathlon https://www.solardecathlon.gov/past/2011/team_tennessee, and actually take the time to read some of the studies. a good bit of my issue usually comes down to "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

as a good for instance. an article on the last page said the study said it was 11 units of carbon dioxide produced by wind turbines, but yours said 9 units. the second one doesn't quote its source, and I haven't seen anything saying 9 units, all has been 11. the 9 is either undocumented (that I can find), a projection, or parsing the 11 to be more favorable. This happens quiet a bit amongst green studies, and if you get back to the methodology its not apples to apples.

the studies done on coal, natural gas, and so forth FF carbon dioxide studies were all done decades ago, and are just referenced as if nothing has changed with those. it also includes EVERYTHING, including the fuel, maintenance, and the transmission systems. The "green" studies never include EVERYTHING. they assume the existing transmission/distribution system is enough, and no upgrades are needed, and that the green system doesn't "take on" any of those carbon emissions, they were all sunk when the FF system went in.

one thing that was mentioned in the clip, but not in either article, or any study I have seen, is the maintenance costs, particularly on the wind turbines de-icing. similar with the PV panels cleaning. those chemicals/water/fuel are NOT considered as part of the regular maintenance costs for the green tech, while the comparable systems were considered for the FF sources. Does it make a huge difference? No. are the green systems still less impactful to nature? yes. but it is very rare to find an honest comparison.

another impact that is never mentioned are the ecological costs of the wind turbines. they absolutely have an impact on the native bird populations, and can be really problematic if in a migratory path. it would be similar type of impact to the oil spills in the ocean.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the calculations would be if the FF backup to wind/solar were included.

I think wind/solar are great alternatives for small scale projects but absolutely awful when used for large scale generation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol, UT_Dutchman, InVOLuntary and 1 other person
#2,791
#2,791
hog88 said:
I wonder what the calculations would be if the FF backup to wind/solar were included.

I think wind/solar are great alternatives for small scale projects but absolutely awful when used for large scale generation.
Click to expand...
the issue is that what makes them "renewable" resources means they aren't "reliable", or convenient resources.

the other problem is the people who push the bs aren't actually serious about it. It became just another political issue. I am pretty sure I have said it before, but the worst thing to happen to the "green" movement in this country was Barack Obama. particularly because he politicized it.

without his mouth most of the people who are the biggest critics of it, would be the biggest supporters of it. you tell a bunch of redneck rubes they can have access to free energy, get off the government power lines, water lines, and overall be more self supportive every farm out there would be near net zero, at least when it comes to energy consumption. same for every backwoods, swamp, mountain etc folk who just want to be left alone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, SpaceCoastVol and marcusluvsvols
#2,792
#2,792
LouderVol said:
the issue is that what makes them "renewable" resources means they aren't "reliable", or convenient resources.

the other problem is the people who push the bs aren't actually serious about it. It became just another political issue. I am pretty sure I have said it before, but the worst thing to happen to the "green" movement in this country was Barack Obama. particularly because he politicized it.

without his mouth most of the people who are the biggest critics of it, would be the biggest supporters of it. you tell a bunch of redneck rubes they can have access to free energy, get off the government power lines, water lines, and overall be more self supportive every farm out there would be near net zero, at least when it comes to energy consumption. same for every backwoods, swamp, mountain etc folk who just want to be left alone.
Click to expand...

Agreed, Obama’s green energy push is an example of how not to do things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and marcusluvsvols
#2,794
#2,794
volfanhill said:
I'm all in on nuclear
Click to expand...
Me too. Especially the newer small scale portable reactors that can be set up just about anywhere. Support large scale also though, and both will be needed to ever stop driving ICE powered vehicles entirely...unless we finally figure out cold fusion or a similar transformative technology.


LouderVol said:
the issue is that what makes them "renewable" resources means they aren't "reliable", or convenient resources.

the other problem is the people who push the bs aren't actually serious about it. It became just another political issue. I am pretty sure I have said it before, but the worst thing to happen to the "green" movement in this country was Barack Obama. particularly because he politicized it.

without his mouth most of the people who are the biggest critics of it, would be the biggest supporters of it. you tell a bunch of redneck rubes they can have access to free energy, get off the government power lines, water lines, and overall be more self supportive every farm out there would be near net zero, at least when it comes to energy consumption. same for every backwoods, swamp, mountain etc folk who just want to be left alone.
Click to expand...

LouderVol said:
green tech was tailor made for those who want to self support. and so much that happened in Obama's tenure ruined that. to the point of where it almost has to be intentional.
Click to expand...

2 great posts i hadnt considered. I have driven across idaho, iowa, nebraska etc...those states are flatter than asian buttcheeks and the wind is constant. Zero trees etc to block sun either. Those HUGE farms that are thousands of acres are the perfect use case for wind and solar. These are the places that would benefit most. Instead the leftists try and force a square peg into the roumd hole that is the rest of America as they line the pockets of themselves and their buddies with billions of taxpayers money.
 
#2,795
#2,795
marcusluvsvols said:
Me too. Especially the newer small scale portable reactors that can be set up just about anywhere. Support large scale also though, and both will be needed to ever stop driving ICE powered vehicles entirely...unless we finally figure out cold fusion or a similar transformative technology.






2 great posts i hadnt considered. I have driven across idaho, iowa, nebraska etc...those states are flatter than asian buttcheeks and the wind is constant. Zero trees etc to block sun either. Those HUGE farms that are thousands of acres are the perfect use case for wind and solar. These are the places that would benefit most. Instead the leftists try and force a square peg into the roumd hole that is the rest of America as they line the pockets of themselves and their buddies with billions of taxpayers money.
Click to expand...
most green techs don't scale very well either. if you want more green power you need proportionally more equipment and area. with FF you can increase production a little easier with better equipment without the space conflicts.

Granted the green techs are still developing, and will get more efficient but at some point you can't stack solar panels on solar panels to collect light twice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wireless1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top