wind...waste of land...

[ABikerSailor]

You know..................back in the 50's and 60's, that might have been true, that there is no environmental impact.

But..................that's when they were using actual water to frack the gas fields. Matter of fact, my room mate and I had a long discussion on that, because she knew that in her time (which was a few years back) that they used regular water to do the fracking.

However.................they have added chemicals to the formula, and are currently trying new methods which put the local wells at risk.

And no..................the water didn't start catching fire until the fracking started.

Wind and Solar are the ways to go, but big oil and the gas companies are scared of it because they didn't have the foresight to invest in what was going down.

 

[Shanty]

"Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking"

Lol. Pointless argument.

No, it's not.


Outside of Palm Springs CA.

And what are you gonna grow there anyway?

Worm farms, to dispose of bird carcasses.

Which one does more environmental damage?

That may depend on how responsible the fracker is.

I agree. With fracking happening in Pennsylvania, there have to be tough regulations, and site inspections, to keep the environmental damage to a minimum. The history of coal companies causing environmental disasters should be a warning, but also a roadmap to doing it responsibly

 

[ABikerSailor]

You DO realize that wind farms are a whole lot less detrimental to the environment than coal mines, right?

At least the wind farms don't decimate the landscape with noxious fumes, all that happens is a few birds dive into the blades and are killed.

More birds are killed by cars. I've see it, and I live in a small city called Amarillo TX.

 

[Agit8r]

They interfere with agriculture and they may actually be altering wind patterns

Wha... human activity can affect weather?

 

[eagle1462010]

Energy production is big business............It should come down to the bang for the buck............

Alternate energy simply doesn't have the bang for the buck yet, and until it does dependable fossil fuels will rule the day.

That's the nature of the beast. In the pictures already posted I choose frack..............

 

[RGR]

Wind power doesn't set your household water on fire.

Correct. Natural gas from coal seams acting as a natural charcoal filtering system for fresh water aquifers do.

Not the natural gas coming from Pinedale.

Fracking will.

No it won't. Hasn't over 60+ years anyway. But then, if you only get your information from the propaganda anything is possible I suppose.

If I had a choice between fracking and wind power? I'd choose wind power any day of the week.

You undoubtedly already use both. If you have the courage of your convictions, you could always demonstrate it, but stopping your use of what you supposed would stop? Otherwise you are just another hypocrite, complaining about something you have no intention of giving up the benefits of, only complaining about imagined costs.

Fracking harms the environment, I've yet to hear where the wind caused people to have their water set on fire.

People set their well water on fire by not using settling tanks to get the natural occuring biogenic, or coalbed methane out of it. Their ignorance on what fresh water aquifers are, and the organic and inorganic material contained within it, has nothing to do with the conversation on hydraulic completions. But you wouldn't know that now would you, because the propaganda you derive your information from isn't designed to educate you, only make you afraid of something they don't like.

 

[RGR]

You DO realize that wind farms are a whole lot less detrimental to the environment than coal mines, right?

depends on your units of measure. If they consist of dead raptor count, then the answer is no...coal mines are much better.

At least the wind farms don't decimate the landscape with noxious fumes, all that happens is a few birds dive into the blades and are killed.

You are yourself producing noxious fumes every time you exhale, the EPA says you are. I've got no objection to you advocating the cessation of noxious fumes as long as you also have the courage to apply the same rule to yourself.

 

[Political Junky]

"Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking"

Lol. Pointless argument.

No, it's not.


Outside of Palm Springs CA.

Jonah natural gas field near Pinedale, WY

Which one looks like shit? Which one does more environmental damage? Which one kills raptors?
The answer is the wind farm in all cases.

Now the Right is concerned about the environment, and wild life? Oil pollutes the environment and has killed countless wildlife from spills.

 

[Mr. H.]

"Wind Power Requires 700 Times as Much Land as Fracking"

Lol. Pointless argument.

No, it's not.


Outside of Palm Springs CA.

Jonah natural gas field near Pinedale, WY

Which one looks like shit? Which one does more environmental damage? Which one kills raptors?
The answer is the wind farm in all cases.

Now the Right is concerned about the environment, and wild life? Oil pollutes the environment and has killed countless wildlife from spills.

 

[Old Rocks]

You DO realize that wind farms are a whole lot less detrimental to the environment than coal mines, right?

depends on your units of measure. If they consist of dead raptor count, then the answer is no...coal mines are much better.

At least the wind farms don't decimate the landscape with noxious fumes, all that happens is a few birds dive into the blades and are killed.

You are yourself producing noxious fumes every time you exhale, the EPA says you are. I've got no objection to you advocating the cessation of noxious fumes as long as you also have the courage to apply the same rule to yourself.

Even for raptors, the road kill exceeds that of the wind mills.

 

[RGR]

Now the Right is concerned about the environment, and wild life? Oil pollutes the environment and has killed countless wildlife from spills.

Funny how those complaining about oil are just as happy to keep right on using it though, isn't it?

Regardless of what political affiliation they claim to be. Seems to me that oil users don't have any particular political affiliation…as you so aptly demonstrate.

 

[RGR]

You know..................back in the 50's and 60's, that might have been true, that there is no environmental impact.

Learn some history. Of course there was environmental impact, back in the 50's and 60's, and earlier.

But..................that's when they were using actual water to frack the gas fields.

You mean…like is being done today? And for the record, hydraulic fracturing back then tended to be gels or diesel fuel, not water like they do today. I recommend learning.

Matter of fact, my room mate and I had a long discussion on that, because she knew that in her time (which was a few years back) that they used regular water to do the franking.

And your roommate has done as many hydraulic completions as I have? Or did they just watch the same propaganda films you have?

However.................they have added chemicals to the formula, and are currently trying new methods which put the local wells at risk.

You really don't know dick, do you? NOW we use water, way back when we used cross linked gels and diesel fuel. Get a clue. Tell your roommate to get a clue.

And no..................the water didn't start catching fire until the fracking started.

You are wrong. Have you ever heard the term "Burning Springs"? There is a reason why..and it existed before hydraulic fracturing was invented. Go get another clue.

Wind and Solar are the ways to go, but big oil and the gas companies are scared of it because they didn't have the foresight to invest in what was going down.

Says who? The same half wits that think fracking caused methane to exist in freshwater aquifers because they watched a movie? Watch Star Wars, and then complain about why we can't all move to Hoth and move all the ice from there to here we'd like, to cool down the planet. Your idea has about the same comprehension of reality.

 

[Shanty]

You DO realize that wind farms are a whole lot less detrimental to the environment than coal mines, right?

At least the wind farms don't decimate the landscape with noxious fumes, all that happens is a few birds dive into the blades and are killed.

More birds are killed by cars. I've see it, and I live in a small city called Amarillo TX.

How many birds a day? What species? And what is the ratio of car strikes to wind turbine blade strikes? And what is the methodology?

 

[mamooth]

A fracking site only lasts a couple years, while wind turbines are forever. Therefore, the logic behind the OP is stupid.

Fracking will go on for 30 years in some area IIRC Mr. H. Wind turbines are clapped out within 25 years. They require extraordinary amounts of maintenance after 5 years so admiral.....you're just plain old wrong.

That's right Westwall, a wind turbine site becomes unusable after 25 years. It must use up all the wind.

This is a commonality you see in most far-right cultists, that inability to grasp basic logic. Whether a particular windmill wears out has no bearing on the windmill site being usable for wind power, but poor Westwall is just unable to grasp something as basic as that.

 

[Old Rocks]

A fracking site only lasts a couple years, while wind turbines are forever. Therefore, the logic behind the OP is stupid.

Fracking will go on for 30 years in some area IIRC Mr. H. Wind turbines are clapped out within 25 years. They require extraordinary amounts of maintenance after 5 years so admiral.....you're just plain old wrong.

That's right Westwall, a wind turbine site becomes unusable after 25 years. It must use up all the wind.

This is a commonality you see in most far-right cultists, that inability to grasp basic logic. Whether a particular windmill wears out has no bearing on the windmill site being usable for wind power, but poor Westwall is just unable to grasp something as basic as that.

Yep. Pull the blades, lift the turbine off, put another one on, and send the old one out for recylcling, or rebuilding. Such an infernally complicated process for a mind like Walleyes.

 

[Shanty]

Fracking will go on for 30 years in some area IIRC Mr. H. Wind turbines are clapped out within 25 years. They require extraordinary amounts of maintenance after 5 years so admiral.....you're just plain old wrong.

That's right Westwall, a wind turbine site becomes unusable after 25 years. It must use up all the wind.

This is a commonality you see in most far-right cultists, that inability to grasp basic logic. Whether a particular windmill wears out has no bearing on the windmill site being usable for wind power, but poor Westwall is just unable to grasp something as basic as that.

Yep. Pull the blades, lift the turbine off, put another one on, and send the old one out for recylcling, or rebuilding. Such an infernally complicated process for a mind like Walleyes.

It is simple. But the maintenance costs per megawatt produced is expensive.