|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Well that's a bummer /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1568248768 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 17:39:28 |
|
Title: Well that's a bummer Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/11/19 at 17:39:28 https://www.theblaze.com/news/retiring-worn-out-wind-turbines-is-a-wasteful-process |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by verslagen1 on 09/12/19 at 07:58:19 I think they would make great pilings. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by Serowbot on 09/12/19 at 08:30:03 I guess they're working on it. https://www.harvestpublicmedia.org/post/wind-energy-thrives-so-does-its-waste-problem Quote:
|
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/12/19 at 08:44:46 Here is a idea, Plant the blades in the ground, to make a really tall fence, with pointy ends !!!!!!!!! What we see now with the problem of dealing with wind turbines, is just the tip of the iceberg. When it comes to dealing with disposal of inefficient Photovoltaic Cells, make sure you are on high ground. Cause the melting Snowflakes, sure are going to create a flood !!!! (This Drive By brought to you by; MinBotInk) |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by Serowbot on 09/12/19 at 09:09:43 At least they're not radioactive. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by Eegore on 09/12/19 at 10:46:29 If millions of cars, planes and trains on the road makes no difference to the environment, why would a lower amount wind turbines? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/12/19 at 12:31:59 4767656D7067020 wrote:
Once again - well put Eegore. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by verslagen1 on 09/12/19 at 13:28:43 01221F3C3E25222B4C0 wrote:
So recycle them for the border wall... cool. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/12/19 at 16:40:55 48686A627F680D0 wrote:
Looks like you didn't read the problem. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by Serowbot on 09/12/19 at 16:49:45 They last 20 years, and will improve in the future. How much coal ash does that equate to in 20 years? More than 100 million tons of coal ash and other waste products are produced by coal-fired power plants in the United States every year After coal is mined, it is typically washed with water and chemicals to remove impurities before it’s burned. The resulting coal slurry must then be stored, often with coal ash or in improvised ponds that can leak, spill, or fail. In 2000, the bottom of a Kentucky coal slurry impoundment gave way, contaminating more than a hundred miles of rivers and streams with more than 300,000,000 gallons of thick black sludge—30 times larger than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/coal-water-pollution |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/12/19 at 18:37:29 5543544951444952260 wrote:
Valid question. But don't ASSume the wind Kilowatts generated from wind power, are the same as Coal power. Find the number of Kilowatts produced by Wind, in the last 20 years. AND, the 'Carbon Footprint', created by that wind power. AND the Carbon Footprint the, up keep, repair, removal is. THEN, compare that with the SAME Kilowatts produced by Coal, and that Carbon Footprint, (Divided so the numbers are Equal) Now, ask the question. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by verslagen1 on 09/13/19 at 07:55:36 Quote:
Quote:
600 MW / 3 MW = 200 wind mills per coal plant Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
800 lbs = 1 MWh So 1 wind mill is worth 2400 lbs of coal (per hour) or 400 lbs of coal ash of which 2/3 is recycled. Blades aren't recycled as yet but they are trying. Quote:
How much co2 in a blade? :o |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by Eegore on 09/13/19 at 08:04:41 How much co2 in a blade? But you forget, co2 isn't a problem so that data is not to be applied. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by Serowbot on 09/13/19 at 08:32:38 I'm sure coal is much more efficient today than it used to be. Imagine how efficient wind will be in 25 years. The major difference is coal will run out,.. wind won't. You can poo poo wind and solar all you want, but you'll lose in the long run... Oil and coal will eventually become cost prohibitive, so we are smart to develop alternatives. Given that reality, I can't see why there is even an argument here. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/13/19 at 09:23:44 0F2F2D25382F4A0 wrote:
Whoa - Eegore snapping it back! Yes!! ;D |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/13/19 at 09:40:15 4553445941545942360 wrote:
Because most of those on the right can't see beyond immediate profit. The future simply does not matter. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/13/19 at 09:45:47 584E59445C49445F2B0 wrote:
A-Yep ! Wind/Solar/Geothermal power all needs to be explored, and one day they all will become useful. But that is NOT today ! They need BIG time refining. Not put into wide spread use, because of FEAR, which the UL, FDS Socialists are so fond of doing. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/13/19 at 09:48:45 03201D3E3C2720294E0 wrote:
A-Yep ! Wind/Solar/Geothermal power all needs to be explored, and one day they all will become useful. But that is NOT today ! They need BIG time refining. Not put into wide spread use, because of FEAR, which the UL, FDS Socialists are so fond of doing. [/quote] So the tell us mn - how do you "refine" them without implementation and finding out how to make them better? It's like building a motorcycle from scratch, but not starting or testing it before you sell it. Oh wait - are you afraid of the wind cancer?...... |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/14/19 at 08:30:15 Lovely.. Pirate's Cove If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all Good News: Green Energy Boom Leads To Massive Release On Most Powerful Greenhouse Gas September 14, 2019 – 10:30 am Obviously, we could solve this with a tax World’s most powerful greenhouse gas on the rise ‘due to green energy boom’ The most powerful known greenhouse gas has been leaking into the Earth’s atmosphere due to the green energy boom, it was reported on Friday night. Sulphur hexafluoride, or SF6, is widely used in the electrical industry to prevent short circuits and accidents. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2), and just one kilogram warms the Earth as much as 24 people flying London to New York return. The drive to use mixed sources of power, including wind, solar and gas, rather than coal as fuel has resulted in a rise in the number of electrical devices that use SF6, the BBC said. A study from the University of Cardiff found that across all transmission and distribution networks, the amount used was increasing by 30-40 tonnes per year. Emissions of the gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3million cars on the road. “As renewable projects are getting bigger and bigger, we have had to use it within wind turbines specifically,” Costa Pirgousis, an engineer with Scottish Power Renewables, told the BBC. And it’s only going to get worse. Good job, Warmists! And, there is no replacement for SF6. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/14/19 at 10:06:27 “… leaks of the little-known gas in the UK and the rest of the EU in 2017 were the equivalent of putting an extra 1.3 million cars on the road…” “…It is widely used across the industry, from large power stations to wind turbines to electrical sub-stations in towns and cities. It prevents electrical accidents and fires…” “…the significant downside to using the gas is that it has the highest global warming potential of any known substance. It is 23,500 times more warming than carbon dioxide (CO2)…” "..."As renewable projects are getting bigger and bigger, we have had to use it within wind turbines specifically"..." "..."What we've seen is that the levels have increased substantially, and we've seen almost a doubling of the atmospheric concentration in the last two decades."..." (In a Soap Opera Announcers Voice, with organ music playing in the background) tt has, ignored, the FACT that today's electric cars are Not as, ‘Green’, as today's Gas/Diesel cars. Will tt also IGNORE, these Facts ? Tune in tomorrow to find out if tt stills buys the, Electric Car ! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D (This Drive by brought to you by Mnink) |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by batman on 09/14/19 at 16:47:02 It may be true that Gas and oil could run out ,but their are MUCH larger deposits of coal. the problem is burning it cleanly . |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/14/19 at 17:33:09 Bill Clinton made getting the cleanest coal in America Off Limits.. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/15/19 at 19:51:04 4C6F527173686F66010 wrote:
Sorry mn, but you're wrong - again. We've already proved that. The entire lifecycle of a fossil fuel car uses fossil fuel. The production chain is the same for both. Therefore, the electric car is FAR MORE GREEN than a gas/diesel car. Next. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/15/19 at 19:51:33 233C3A3D20271626162E3C307B490 wrote:
There is no such thing as "clean coal". |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by justin_o_guy2 on 09/15/19 at 23:00:09 You don't read well at all. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/16/19 at 06:05:33 534C4A4D50576656665E4C400B390 wrote:
"Bill Clinton made getting the cleanest coal in America Off Limits.." You wrote that, not me. There is no such thing as "clean coal". You righties use that term to describe anthracite - and it's completely misleading. Again, there is no such thing as "clean coal". The only "clean" part of the coal burning process comes at the stack and how the power companies trap or dump the gasses. So, thanks for your concern jog - but I can read and comprehend just fine. You may want to actually learn something instead of verbal vomiting out right wing talking points and calling them gospel. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 09:40:06 7B656A6B667B607D0F0 wrote:
Please explain what a 'elect' car uses it's, entire lifecycle ?, Also please explain How is the, electric, that elect car uses, made ? Also please explain, what happens to the old battery in that Elect car ? Also explain, what materials are needed to go into making the 'huge' battery ? Also explain how those materials are gathered. Also explain how the, 'Plastic' which encompasses far more on a elect car is made ? Etc,etc,etc, Point is, Not in 1883, not in 1920, not in 1970, and not Today ! However tomorrow, could be. If the UL FDS Socialists stop, SCARING everybody. So the people that do the research, can actually get some work done. Instead of defending the, UL FDS Socialists, who are, JUST, SCARING everybody, to Benefit their OWN pocket. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/16/19 at 10:21:52 61427F5C5E45424B2C0 wrote:
Please explain what a 'elect' car uses it's, entire lifecycle ?, Not sure about "elect car, but an electric car uses electricity for its power. Also please explain How is the, electric, that elect car uses, made ? In many ways - coal, natural gas, solar, wind. Whereas a gasoline powered car only uses gasoline. Also please explain, what happens to the old battery in that Elect car ? It can be refurbished, recycled. (can you recycle gas after it's burned?..lol) Also explain, what materials are needed to go into making the 'huge' battery ? The minerals used are nickel, lithium, lead, cobalt and cadmium. Also explain how those materials are gathered. Mining, recycling. Also explain how the, 'Plastic' which encompasses far more on a elect car is made ? There are no more plastics in an electric car than a conventional car - especially in late model cars. Etc,etc,etc, Point is, Not in 1883, not in 1920, not in 1970, and not Today ! However tomorrow, could be. If the UL FDS Socialists stop, SCARING everybody. So the people that do the research, can actually get some work done. Instead of defending the, UL FDS Socialists, who are, JUST, SCARING everybody, to Benefit their OWN pocket. [/quote] I'm well aware of what you're trying to prove - and you ain't gonna do it. Here you go, genius: http://electrek.co/2019/04/22/study-electric-cars-dirtier-diesel-debunked/ http://medium.com/predict/electric-cars-are-they-actually-cleaner-99c184cd5dfa http://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/19/electric-car-well-to-wheel-emissions-myth/ Those who oppose electric cars like to say that electric cars create more emissions during manufacturing than conventional cars do. And you know what? They’re right! The UCS found that “Manufacturing a midsized EV with an 84-mile range results in about 15% more emissions than manufacturing an equivalent gasoline vehicle. For larger, longer-range EVs that travel more than 250 miles per charge, the manufacturing emissions can be as much as 68% higher.” Wow! 68% higher. That’s a lot, huh? So, it’s true, electric cars are dirtier than conventional cars, right? Well, actually, no. The UCS report goes on to say, “These differences change as soon as the cars are driven. EVs are powered by electricity, which is generally a cleaner energy source than gasoline. Battery electric cars make up for their higher manufacturing emissions within eighteen months of driving — shorter range models can offset the extra emissions within 6 months — and continue to outperform gasoline cars until the end of their lives.” That brings us to emissions created by driving. For more information on that, we turn to a report from the Vehicle Technologies Office of the US Department of Energy. It says: “An all-electric vehicle (EV) does not produce emissions from the tailpipe, but there are upstream emissions (also called well-to-wheel emissions) of greenhouse gases from electricity production. Using electricity production data by source and state, the Alternative Fuels Data Center has estimated the annual carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent emissions of a typical EV. “EVs charging in Vermont are estimated to produce the fewest emissions – oil and gas make up only 1.2% of the electricity sources in the state while cleaner sources such as nuclear, hydro, biomass, wind, and solar make up the rest. West Virginia’s electricity production is 95.7% from coal, making it the state with the most well-to-wheel CO2-equivalent emissions. “The national average is 4,815 pounds of CO2-equivalent emissions for a typical EV per year as compared to the average gasoline-powered car which produces 11,435 pounds of CO2-equivalent emissions annually.” So, there it is. On average, a conventional car creates more the twice as much carbon pollution as an electric car. Even in the state that gets almost all of its electricity from burning coal, an EV still pollutes less than a typical conventional car. Assuming a 10 year useful life, an average conventional car will spew out 66,000 pounds more carbon pollution than an average electric vehicle. That’s 33 tons, folks. When either a conventional car or an electric car reaches the end of its useful life, both require about the same amount of energy to dispose of. But electric car batteries can be repurposed for other non-automotive uses like residential and commercial electrical storage, or the materials inside can be recycled for new batteries or other uses, which means the batteries will continue to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere long after the car they started out powering is no longer on the road. It’s been said that 95-99% of the material in EV batteries can be recycled. Tesla plans to take back batteries, take them apart, and use the materials to create new batteries all in the same factory. Well-to-wheel emissions studies pretty much never take this reuse or recycling into account. Another important point to remember is that many drivers can put solar panels on their roof to power their electric cars. In fact, CleanTechnica research has found 28–42% of electric car drivers have rooftop solar, and another newer report of ours pinned it down to 32%. Of course, it all depends on regional and individual factors (YMMV), but a large portion of today’s electric car drivers are indeed driving on sunlight, not coal. So, where do these myths come from? A lot of them can be traced directly to Charles and David Koch, the dynamic duo of disaster who like to use their considerable wealth to buy Congressmen and governors who will do their bidding. Those fun-loving Koch boys are the same people funding the war on climate science. But now that you have the necessary information, you don’t have to fall for their tricks anymore. The truth of the matter is that electric cars pollute far less than conventional cars over their lifetime. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/16/19 at 16:11:29 637D72737E637865170 wrote:
From places that are very will known for utilizing loaded words, and making attempts to influence an audience by using emotion and stereotypes, to favor liberal causes. Talk about 'Spewing' ! Regurgitating 1/2 truths, and garbage ! |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/16/19 at 16:16:09 785B6645475C5B52350 wrote:
From places that are very will known for utilizing loaded words, and making attempts to influence an audience by using emotion and stereotypes, to favor liberal causes. Talk about 'Spewing' ! Regurgitating 1/2 truths, and garbage ! [/quote] mn - you go ahead and say what you want - but you're wrong. 100% wrong. I present facts, not emotions. You got schooled. Move on. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/16/19 at 17:44:32 mn - you go ahead and say what you want - but you're wrong. 100% wrong. I present facts, not emotions. You got schooled. Move on. Says the guy who believes anything negative he reads about Kavanaugh based completely on emotions and ignores all the facts. You've been schooled so many times on the Kavanaugh, you'd think you would have graduated by now. Move on. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/17/19 at 04:55:39 714344555243546B47544D260 wrote:
Care to comment on this actual thread? You gonna try and tell me that a conventional car is cleaner than an electric? Now stop crying about your boyfriend brett. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/19 at 08:03:16 Care to comment on this actual thread? You gonna try and tell me that a conventional car is cleaner than an electric? Why would I do that? Facts don't matter to you. Now stop crying about your boyfriend brett. What are you trying to say? Are you judging my sexual orientation? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/17/19 at 08:35:36 5D6F68797E6F78476B78610A0 wrote:
Not at all - why are you so touchy about it? Man-crush much? LOL |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/19 at 08:44:40 Care to comment on this actual thread? You gonna try and tell me that a conventional car is cleaner than an electric? Why would I do that? Facts don't matter to you. LOL - oh really? Tell me mark - how is it that electric cars are "dirtier" than gas cars? I'd love to see your "facts". I think it's well known that the infrastructure required to support a world with electric vehicles has an unknown X-factor in play. You and AOC may think electricity just magically appears, but the realities behind charging the billions of batteries required to move vehicles is a bit more complicated. If anyone tries to tell you a world of electric vehicles guarantees a cleaner world, they're lying. Man-crush much? LOL Are you saying there's something wrong with a man-crush? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/17/19 at 09:04:30 370502131405122D01120B600 wrote:
|
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/19 at 09:15:06 Would you like to respond to the many scientist and engineers who project that switching tailpipe emissions to powerplants and the very dirty industry of battery manufacturing is basically even at best and a net loss at worse? How would you store energy generated during off peak hours for use when demand increases? Do you have a storage technology that is effective, carbon neutral and able to be located in high use areas? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/19 at 09:15:43 Man-crush much? LOL Are you saying there's something wrong with a man-crush? . Nope - You do you mark. Something you want to tell me.... |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/17/19 at 09:25:47 6F5D5A4B4C5D4A75594A53380 wrote:
Today, not really. Although Musk put a battery array in Australia that worked wonders. http://www.sciencealert.com/remember-the-giant-tesla-battery-in-australia-it-just-marked-its-first-year But there ain't anything like that on the fossil fuel side either. And before you raving about nuclear - it's trade-offs with waste are a game killer. I can do this all day.... |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/19 at 09:36:54 Have you ever been in any large manufacturing plant? Have you ever been to a power generation facility of any kind, coal, gas, etc... Do you know how power is really generated and transported to dissemination points? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/17/19 at 09:51:23 7F4D4A5B5C4D5A65495A43280 wrote:
Manufacturing plant - yep. Power generation plant - nope. What difference does that make? Why does my presence affect the reality we live in? Is that a reason to dispute the fact that renewables are now accounting for over 17% of all power generation in the US? (nuclear is only about 19%.) |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/17/19 at 10:07:44 Tell you what, I'll do you a favor you don't deserve. I'll let you off the hook on this topic. This is a field I lived and breathed in for a number of years. I've dealt with many people and companies in this area of power generation and dissemination. I don't need to do a Google search. For years and years to come, if not generations, switching to electric powered vehicles will be a net gain for greenhouse gases in general. You can't comprehend the vastness of the manufacturing base required to produce these vehicles which will operate using current technology for their energy source. A single example. Electric vehicles demand low weight. Aluminum will become a much more common building material. Unfortunately aluminum does not grow on trees. The energy required to produce the extra aluminum required is enormous. You are not going to mine aluminum, transported to a smelting operation, produced the material and transported to the converters who will produce usable component pieces for automobiles from electricity generated by windmills. Likewise with carbon fiber. Yes, it's a very lightweight and strong material but an extreme energy hog to produce. Do you have any idea of the temperatures involved to convert acrylic to carbon fiber? And that's only half the battle because you still have to put it into some usable matrix form which involves a whole other series of manufacturing techniques that require enormous energy. There are hundreds of such challenges in the manufacturing chain required to make this switch. You and AOC can talk all day and you'll get all the publicity but at the end of the day it's not going to happen. Not without nuclear anyway. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/17/19 at 15:23:05 736D62636E736875070 wrote:
WOW, are YOU ever RACIST ! Being such a lover of AOC & BS, one would think you would NOT be so Racist ! Words from a Socialist, who believes everybody that is not, LOCK STEP, with a Socialist view, is a hypocrite. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 09:56:57 102225343322350A26352C470 wrote:
For Christ's sake mark - we went from the first powered flight to the Moon in 70 years - you honestly think the difficulty in getting off oil is technological??? That's hilarious! It's 100% political and you know it. And if you don't, then that's pretty f-ing sad. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 09:57:34 65467B585A41464F280 wrote:
WOW, are YOU ever RACIST ! Being such a lover of AOC & BS, one would think you would NOT be so Racist ! Words from a Socialist, who believes everybody that is not, LOCK STEP, with a Socialist view, is a hypocrite. [/quote] zzzzzzzzzz |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 10:09:23 LOL - "let me off the hook"? What you actually mean, is that you'll concede that I'm right. Thanks. I was letting you off the hook because you have a child-like(AOC) level of comprehension on this topic. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 10:11:32 142621303726310E223128430 wrote:
I accept your concession, mark - thanks. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 10:26:59 Hey mark - um, ALL cars, whether gas or electric will need these metals. Duh. So here's an idea - let's use a fuel in those cars that DOESN'T require more fossil fuels. Yeah - again, see above.... This is my point, you're world revolves around driving a car or getting on a bus or plane now and then. You're not realizing the energy required to power the infrastructure for all those items to be possible. And you're not considering the energy needs of the near future. At least 25% of the world's population do not have access to electricity. There are numerous write ups on this topic and one I read recently was pointing out something related to your powered flight to moon analogy. The maximum energy efficiency that can be captured by wind blade is 60%. That's it, can't go any higher. Today's blades are at 45%. The maximum energy for photovoltaic in solar panels is 33%. That's it. Right now we're at 26%. Yea, we went to the moon in 70 years. And we can go to a few planets over a very long period of time, but that's it. We'll never, ever travel to a star. We simply cannot travel fast enough. There is a limit that we'll reach and that will be it. The fuel to power a rocket into orbit weights many times more than the rocket itself meaning we have nearly, if not already, reached the limit of what we can launch into orbit. Now, apply that to energy generation using wind and solar. It can't be done. Physics are a b!itch but they are what they are. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 11:46:35 360403121504132C00130A610 wrote:
Wow, you are so clueless on this mark... Now - here's my point that you missed completely. The example I give about going to the Moon has NOTHING to do with rocket velocity or distance or anything of the sort. It's about the technology that we developed - solely to beat the Russians - to get to the Moon. The advancements in computing, fuel cells, robotics, communications, etc. In those 7 decades we traveled not only to the moon, but also into a new era - thanks solely to the practically unlimited budget of Nasa to defeat the Russians during the Cold War. Like I said - 100% political. That's a fact. As to your failed point about energy requirements - how is it you don't understand that any - repeat ANY type of transportation requires manufacturing. In essence, the SAME manufacturing goes into an electric car as does a gasoline one. The same. Further, the electric car will never directly burn a fossil fuel, use any engine oil or require filters over its lifespan (which is getting longer every year, due to refinements in efficiencies and software). Couple that fact to this - today, the US produces over 17% of its electricity from renewables. That's double in just the last 9 years. You're gonna sit there and tell me that just because wind can only be 60% efficient that we should quit and count our losses? Meanwhile, now at their peak technology, coal is topping out at 37% efficiency and natural gas/combined are at 55 - 60%. That's as good as they'll get. Wind, solar and other renewables are in their infancy comparatively. Face it mark - there is simply no argument against electric cars - other than it'll help put the oil companies out of business. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by Serowbot on 09/18/19 at 12:06:16 635156474051467955465F340 wrote:
It sounds like you're saying,.. because we can't use renewable energy for everything, we shouldn't use it at all... How about the opposite logic,.. because we will always need fossil fuel for some things, we shouldn't squander it on those things that we don't. As far as wind energy being 60% efficient,... does that even make sense, being that the wind is blowing whether we use it or not? Whatever amount we capture is 100% more than nothing. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by verslagen1 on 09/18/19 at 12:30:13 7C6A7D60786D607B0F0 wrote:
I'm totally for the "don't squander it" thought. Solar is equivalent in cost with fossil fuel. Every house in a sunny zone should be covered in panels. To bad water can't sent from wet zones to dry as easily. Wind, I'm not convinced. New tech is needed. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 12:39:43 Wow, you are so clueless on this mark... Now - here's my point that you missed completely. The example I give about going to the Moon has NOTHING to do with rocket velocity or distance or anything of the sort. It's about the technology that we developed - solely to beat the Russians - to get to the Moon. The advancements in computing, fuel cells, robotics, communications, etc. In those 7 decades we traveled not only to the moon, but also into a new era - thanks solely to the practically unlimited budget of Nasa to defeat the Russians during the Cold War. Like I said - 100% political. That's a fact. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about. Seriously. Read up on the Laws of Thermodynamics and get back to me. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 12:49:57 You're gonna sit there and tell me that just because wind can only be 60% efficient that we should quit and count our losses? Meanwhile, now at their peak technology, coal is topping out at 37% efficiency and natural gas/combined are at 55 - 60%. That's as good as they'll get. Wind, solar and other renewables are in their infancy comparatively. And this is why you should stop talking. 37% efficiency of coal with a power density which is at least one multitude higher than wind at 60%. Think for a minute, look at it this way, 37% of a 500 watt lightbulb vs 60% of a candle flame. It is impossible to supply the earth's current and more importantly, future energy needs with wind and solar. It cannot be done. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 12:57:18 It sounds like you're saying,.. because we can't use renewable energy for everything, we shouldn't use it at all... Not at all. I'm just say stop fooling yourself into thinking renewables are a solution. They are not. They are just one component of energy production. How about the opposite logic,.. because we will always need fossil fuel for some things, we shouldn't squander it on those things that we don't. All for it. I'd love the option of an electric motorcycle. Just don't force me to get rid of an SUV or turn my AC up in the winter because you think you're going to save the planet. You're not. As far as wind energy being 60% efficient,... does that even make sense, being that the wind is blowing whether we use it or not? Whatever amount we capture is 100% more than nothing. It makes a great deal of sense if you're operating under the delusion that wind and solar are viable sources to replace our current sources. Like I mentioned elsewhere, 60% of 10 is a hell of a lot smaller than 37% of 100. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 13:30:11 7A484F5E59485F604C5F462D0 wrote:
LMAO - you don't know too much, do you? EVERY SINGLE FEMTO-WATT OF ENERGY THAT THIS PLANET HAS HAD OR WILL EVER HAVE, COMES (directly or indirectly) FROM THE SUN. FACT. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 13:55:04 You are mind numbingly ignorant. EVERY SINGLE FEMTO-WATT OF ENERGY THAT THIS PLANET HAS HAD OR WILL EVER HAVE, COMES (directly or indirectly) FROM THE SUN. That statement means nothing. It's like saying everything on the earth comes directly or indirectly from cosmic events. Yea, so? I think I read once that the sun produces more energy in one second than mankind has used during it's entire existence. Seriously, stop talking. Or better yet, stop googling terms and posting stuff you just read. You don't know what you're talking about. You never heard of the term femtowatt until you read it earlier today. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 14:00:12 5D6F68797E6F78476B78610A0 wrote:
Hey mark - another fun fact for ya.... Australia is one of the largest producers of aluminum, something like 11% of the world total, right? Get this - the energy consumption of all manufacturing in Australia uses about 20% of the electricity there. Guess what produces over 17% of all the electricity in Australia? Renewables. Womp womp.... Go ahead and tell us again how it can't be done..... Go ahead. Renewables across the board are on a steep rise. Hell, Tesla's battery in South Australia can produce 100MW and it took them less than 100 days to construct it. I love these fun facts!! |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 14:02:23 4B797E6F68796E517D6E771C0 wrote:
OK professor - prove that I'm wrong on anything I posted. ANYTHING. I dare you. Not my fault you don't like to be schooled. :D (btw, "femto" is a term I've used on here many times before - you need to pay better attention - that's why you got schooled) |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 14:29:17 Guess what produces over 17% of all the electricity in Australia? Renewables. And when Australia's energy needs grow by 2% every year and renewables hit their maximum contribution cap and are unable to keep up, what then? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 14:32:09 OK professor - prove that I'm wrong on anything I posted. ANYTHING. As I've indicated, you don't really understand much at all on this topic as indicated below. You're gonna sit there and tell me that just because wind can only be 60% efficient that we should quit and count our losses? Meanwhile, now at their peak technology, coal is topping out at 37% efficiency and natural gas/combined are at 55 - 60%. That's as good as they'll get. Wind, solar and other renewables are in their infancy comparatively. And this is why you should stop talking. 37% efficiency of coal with a power density which is at least one multitude higher than wind at 60%. Think for a minute, look at it this way, 37% of a 500 watt lightbulb vs 60% of a candle flame. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 15:02:17 btw, "femto" is a term I've used on here many times before I'll take your word for it, I'm not looking. I don't recall any topic I've seen you comment on where it would fit but if you say so.... |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 15:14:35 0E3C3B2A2D3C2B14382B32590 wrote:
I have to wonder if you even know what thell you're talking about..... You do realize that the whole 60% efficiency of wind (Betz Limit) has nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of power a turbine creates, right? That 60% is a physical limit in how much air needs to pass the blade in order to turn it, regardless of blade size. Therefore, a larger blade will create more power it the same velocity of wind. Any of this sinking in? But seriously, WTF does that have to do with the FACT that the US is now producing over 19% of its TOTAL ENERGY via RENEWABLES. And again, that's nearly double from just 9 years ago. Your analogy is meaningless. Pointless. Holds no water. Is nothing. Take your pick. Get the point? Couple other facts for ya mark - there's been some progress in solar - to the tune of 44% efficiency in the last year or so. Also, turbine technology is getting returns on the mid 40% - way higher than fossil fuels. How about that? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 15:16:08 053730212637201F332039520 wrote:
I have - I don't lie. Femtosecond - in that - "I'd vote for a dirty sock against trump in a femtosecond." You just don't pay attention. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 15:32:30 Couple other facts for ya mark - there's been some progress in solar - to the tune of 44% efficiency in the last year or so. Also, turbine technology is getting returns on the mid 40% - way higher than fossil fuels. How about that? Do you not get the concept that the 44% of 10 is a much smaller number than 25% of 100? |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by WebsterMark on 09/18/19 at 15:33:08 4F515E5F524F54493B0 wrote:
I have - I don't lie. Femtosecond - in that - "I'd vote for a dirty sock against trump in a femtosecond." You just don't pay attention.[/quote] You are finally right, I don't pay attention to you all the time. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by T And T Garage on 09/18/19 at 15:33:56 5A686F7E79687F406C7F660D0 wrote:
Thanks, and I accept your concession. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by verslagen1 on 09/18/19 at 15:48:08 Quote:
Quote:
3*5=15 sq ft USA = 3.8 million sq miles ~1/3 is the sun belt states about 1 10^14 sq ft or about 2 10^15 watts Quote:
fW, a really small value... kinda like TandTgarbage. Quote:
Quote:
1400 10^12 vs 317 10^12 Looks promising, on 23% of every roof need to be covered in panels. That's more percentage than is covering my own roof. The greens will need to legislate away otherwise it'll never be done. |
|
Title: Re: Well that's a bummer Post by MnSpring on 09/18/19 at 17:36:03 Photovoltaic cells & LED lights, are proving to do the job. First because LED's take 90% (+/-) less power than incandescent. And, people are realizing the night does not have to be lit up like it is day. Yet I wonder why, Minnesota has 95 days of sunlight, (+/-) And, more Solar Farms, than AZ, a State that has 210 (+/-) days of sunlight. Could it have anything to do with, a certain President, and Governor, getting together and handing out, 'Subsidies', like candy canes at Christmas ? Which has NOTHING to do, with advancement of technology. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |