A beautiful sight. Wind turbines....

[Dagosa]

troll, troll, troll

Geothermal failed and you have nothing to disprove this fact

Except for your continued false claims, what makes you think it failed ? Your lack of information. Your statements are stunningly inaccurate.

 

[Dagosa]

The information that gave someone an opinion may be false. But the opinion can't be false. It's an opinion.

Why does this even need to be explained. Do you even know what an opinion is?

Really, we hadn’t seen anything but false babble from you.

 

[elektra]

Except for your continued false claims, what makes you think it failed ? Your lack of information. Your statements are stunningly inaccurate.

What makes you think they have not failed. You have not worked at one. You have not studied one. As a source of electricity it is also obvious you have no knowledge beyond a headline in a Google search.

Your side is claiming geothermal can work but you have no proof or knowledge that it actually worked, or is working now.

How about some details of your technical knowledge.

Prove what you contend. Can you even state the costs associated with geothermal?

I have pointed out facts that have been linked to by your side of the argument, you are disagreeing with what the proponents of geothermal state are problems.

You can crow all you want but that is all you are doing, I have presented facts that are linked to, you can not even comment on those facts other than simply saying a blanket statement such as, "no there not".

I would love for to step up your game and actually present knowledge and facts.

 

[Dagosa]

What makes you think they have not failed. You have not worked at one. You have not studied one. As a source of electricity it is also obvious you have no knowledge beyond a headline in a Google search.

Your side is claiming geothermal can work but you have no proof or knowledge that it actually worked, or is working now.

How about some details of your technical knowledge.

Prove what you contend. Can you even state the costs associated with geothermal?

I have pointed out facts that have been linked to by your side of the argument, you are disagreeing with what the proponents of geothermal state are problems.

You can crow all you want but that is all you are doing, I have presented facts that are linked to, you can not even comment on those facts other than simply saying a blanket statement such as, "no there not".

I would love for to step up your game and actually present knowledge and facts.

Because there are presently 7 countries that get more then 15% of their power from Geo thermal. California, the world’s 6th biggest economy has been using Geothermal for decades for 5% of its power and is adding on.

You are still under the. Illusion that one needs to use geothermal for 100% of its electric power which is ridiculous. They should try to get as close to 100% WITH A MIX. That’s sad and being uninformed. Our state gets more then 3/4 of its from renewable sources as a mix. You’re arguing against things that are ALREADY BEING DONE.

You need to do some research.

SERIOUSLY, do you know anything about electricity ? Just the fact that electric motors are 90-96% efficient ( which we use in abundance ) compared to fossil fuel motors which are just 30-40% efficient, means even if it cost more for renewables, we need to do it. I am startled why conservatives who may daily ride in electric “cars” across the nation already in our bigger cities, don’t get it. Subways have been in existence for decades and nothing is better then electricity for transportation, manufacturing and climate control. Fungibility.....look it up. It's one of the biggest reasons that supports Renewables.


It’s a stunning lack of basic knowledge for most who anti anti progress

 

[elektra]

Because there are presently 7 countries that get more then 15% of their power from Geo thermal. California, the world’s 6th biggest economy has been using Geothermal for decades for 5% of its power and is adding on.

You are still under the. Illusion that one needs to use geothermal for 100% of its electric power which is ridiculous. They should try to get as close to 100% WITH A MIX. That’s sad and being uninformed. Our state gets more then 3/4 of its from renewable sources as a mix. You’re arguing against things that are ALREADY BEING DONE.

You need to do some research.

SERIOUSLY, do you know anything about electricity ? Just the fact that electric motors are 90-96% efficient ( which we use in abundance ) compared to fossil fuel motors which are just 30-40% efficient, means even if it cost more for renewables, we need to do it. I am startled why conservatives who may daily ride in electric “cars” across the nation already in our bigger cities, don’t get it. Subways have been in existence for decades and nothing is better then electricity for transportation, manufacturing and climate control. Fungibility.....look it up. It's one of the biggest reasons that supports Renewables.


It’s a stunning lack of basic knowledge for most who anti anti progress

Okay. Lack of basic knowledge, 1st and foremost 5% of California's electricity does not come from geothermal. You say it does, show us where that figure comes from.

And how about all the toxic waste from California's geothermal polluting the asparagus fields. Tell us how you can call geothermal green considering the soil contamination.

How about the millions of crickets that get contaminated with the arsenic from California geothermal, tell us why nothing is done to prevent the birds from eating the contaminated crickets.

California's toxic geothermal is on the Pacific Fkyway, you do know that, correct!

I am just starting on your lack of kniwledge

 

[eagle1462010]

Because there are presently 7 countries that get more then 15% of their power from Geo thermal. California, the world’s 6th biggest economy has been using Geothermal for decades for 5% of its power and is adding on.

You are still under the. Illusion that one needs to use geothermal for 100% of its electric power which is ridiculous. They should try to get as close to 100% WITH A MIX. That’s sad and being uninformed. Our state gets more then 3/4 of its from renewable sources as a mix. You’re arguing against things that are ALREADY BEING DONE.

You need to do some research.

SERIOUSLY, do you know anything about electricity ? Just the fact that electric motors are 90-96% efficient ( which we use in abundance ) compared to fossil fuel motors which are just 30-40% efficient, means even if it cost more for renewables, we need to do it. I am startled why conservatives who may daily ride in electric “cars” across the nation already in our bigger cities, don’t get it. Subways have been in existence for decades and nothing is better then electricity for transportation, manufacturing and climate control. Fungibility.....look it up. It's one of the biggest reasons that supports Renewables.
get

It’s a stunning lack of basic knowledge for most who anti anti progress

Motors are not that efficient at all. Even at reduced loads......At best you will get 70 to 75% efficiency out of an induction motor. Motor Start up currents are the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM for any offgrid system because of HIGH INRUSH or STARTUP CURRENT. That is 250 to 300% of Rated current. It goes down with Cap Start motors and Soft Start controllers.

Now tell me the efficiency of SOLAR...........LMAO

 

[eagle1462010]

Geo thremal energy for cooling systems isn't that bad of an ideal........As you can pump water underground which is at a constant temperature to cool your house. Again........pump.....is the limiting factor.......

Heat.........well I'd have to look in further .......but if your house is freezing ass cold then water ......lol antifreeze pumping under the earth would give you some heat depending on how deep under the ground you pump it. As I said .........the temp is constant under the ground for the most part.

 

[eagle1462010]

Riddle me this..............Your power is out.............You run the Generator...........and smoke comes out of your AC unit..................What could it be.............lol

 

[elektra]

Because there are presently 7 countries that get more then 15% of their power from Geo thermal. California, the world’s 6th biggest economy has been using Geothermal for decades for 5% of its power and is adding on.

You are still under the. Illusion that one needs to use geothermal for 100% of its electric power which is ridiculous. They should try to get as close to 100% WITH A MIX. That’s sad and being uninformed. Our state gets more then 3/4 of its from renewable sources as a mix. You’re arguing against things that are ALREADY BEING DONE.

You need to do some research.

SERIOUSLY, do you know anything about electricity ? Just the fact that electric motors are 90-96% efficient ( which we use in abundance ) compared to fossil fuel motors which are just 30-40% efficient, means even if it cost more for renewables, we need to do it. I am startled why conservatives who may daily ride in electric “cars” across the nation already in our bigger cities, don’t get it. Subways have been in existence for decades and nothing is better then electricity for transportation, manufacturing and climate control. Fungibility.....look it up. It's one of the biggest reasons that supports Renewables.


It’s a stunning lack of basic knowledge for most who anti anti progress

It is obvious you have not comprehended any fact I have quoted from your sides links. I will get to that after I hammer your lack of knowledge of the toxicity of California's geothermal. A gallon of brine contains 2 lbs of toxic/radioactive pollutants. Where do you dispose of the millions tons, billions of tons of toxic/radioactive pollutants accumulated at California's geothermal plants? How is that considered clean and green? It is certainly renewable and free toxic/radioactive pollution.

So how does California regulate and dispose of this toxic/radioactive pollution from "clean" energy????

 

[eagle1462010]

It is obvious you have not comprehended any fact I have quoted from your sides links. I will get to that after I hammer your lack of knowledge of the toxicity of California's geothermal. A gallon of brine contains 2 lbs of toxic/radioactive pollutants. Where do you dispose of the millions tons, billions of tons of toxic/radioactive pollutants accumulated at California's geothermal plants? How is that considered clean and green? It is certainly renewable and free toxic/radioactive pollution.

So how does California regulate and dispose of this toxic/radioactive pollution from "clean" energy????

They export it to China and India.

Riddle me this............to the othes not you electra.........How do they get the Silica in China for Solar Panels.......and while we are at it........do old Solar panels have toxins in them..........

 

[elektra]

Because there are presently 7 countries that get more then 15% of their power from Geo thermal. California, the world’s 6th biggest economy has been using Geothermal for decades for 5% of its power and is adding on.

You are still under the. Illusion that one needs to use geothermal for 100% of its electric power which is ridiculous. They should try to get as close to 100% WITH A MIX. That’s sad and being uninformed. Our state gets more then 3/4 of its from renewable sources as a mix. You’re arguing against things that are ALREADY BEING DONE.

You need to do some research.

SERIOUSLY, do you know anything about electricity ? Just the fact that electric motors are 90-96% efficient ( which we use in abundance ) compared to fossil fuel motors which are just 30-40% efficient, means even if it cost more for renewables, we need to do it. I am startled why conservatives who may daily ride in electric “cars” across the nation already in our bigger cities, don’t get it. Subways have been in existence for decades and nothing is better then electricity for transportation, manufacturing and climate control. Fungibility.....look it up. It's one of the biggest reasons that supports Renewables.


It’s a stunning lack of basic knowledge for most who anti anti progress

Why is geothermal in California thee most expensive form of energy? I stated this and you disagreed yet you could not comment other than to say, " you lack knowledge" , or something else that had zero relevance.

Geothermal in California requires drilling wells. They drill every day of the year to get a new source of geothermal. It takes a rig that is the same rig used to drill for oil except at the end of the well is not a pot of gold, it is a cesspool of toxic waste in any other industry. But green energy gets to call pollution, green?

Drilling for oil is not cheap. It requires pipe made if steel every day. Geothermal consumes miles and Mike's of pipe just to constantly drill for new sources of brine.

And why do they need new sources. As I already stated and you seem to disagree with every source loses pressure, heat, energy as soon as it is opened. Just like a tea pot.

In addition to the miles of pipe used for wells the well head is miles from the plant. They use 48 inch pipes to transfer the brine from the well to the plant.

All pipes used once then they are garbage. Contaminated and corroded.

That is why geothermal begins to be thee most expensive form of energy. It is also why the links given by the proponents state new materials need to be invented.

 

[Dagosa]

Why is geothermal in California thee most expensive form of energy? I stated this and you disagreed yet you could not comment other than to say,

After all the inaccurate things you’ve posted, you think I‘m to believe you just because you stated something ? ? That’s like Trump on his 1000 th lie wants you to believe him on the next.

 

[Dagosa]

Why is geothermal in California thee most expensive form of energy? I stated this and you disagreed yet you could not comment other than to say, " you lack knowledge" , or something else that had zero relevance.

Geothermal in California requires drilling wells. They drill every day of the year to get a new source of geothermal. It takes a rig that is the same rig used to drill for oil except at the end of the well is not a pot of gold, it is a cesspool of toxic waste in any other industry. But green energy gets to call pollution, green?

Drilling for oil is not cheap. It requires pipe made if steel every day. Geothermal consumes miles and Mike's of pipe just to constantly drill for new sources of brine.

And why do they need new sources. As I already stated and you seem to disagree with every source loses pressure, heat, energy as soon as it is opened. Just like a tea pot.

In addition to the miles of pipe used for wells the well head is miles from the plant. They use 48 inch pipes to transfer the brine from the well to the plant.

All pipes used once then they are garbage. Contaminated and corroded.

That is why geothermal begins to be thee most expensive form of energy. It is also why the links given by the proponents state new materials need to be invented.

Oh, all of a sudden the right cares about pollution ? Nuclear waste and fossil fuels are not pollutants when burned ? You have to be kidding us.

 

[elektra]

Oh, all of a sudden the right cares about pollution ? Nuclear waste and fossil fuels are not pollutants when burned ? You have to be kidding us.

The right has always cared, just because you are a bigot that stereotypes the right (cause african americans are no longer politically correct for democrats to destroy) does not mean your ignorance is true.

It was the right that started the EPA to clean up the mess the Democrats began. And that mess is Nuclear waste. Let us not forget it was Truman and Roosevelt that built the first nuclear reactors and created Hanford which is the biggest toxic, radioactive, mess in the USA.

Fossil Fuels, you use those, you increase the rate of consumption of fossil fuels to give us the short lived weak electricity producing Wind Turbine and Solar Panels.

If you denigrate Fossil Fuels, you must account for the massive waste it is to use them to build something that gives almost nothing in return, Green Clean Renewable Alternative fake farce energy.

 

[elektra]

Oh, all of a sudden the right cares about pollution ? Nuclear waste and fossil fuels are not pollutants when burned ? You have to be kidding us.

Nuclear waste is not burned? What are a mental midget.

You know what is burned and called Green Energy, Medical waste, Biological Medical waste.
Wood is also burned and called Green Energy.

The Democrats have demonstrated they care less for the environment than the Republicans.

 

[Dagosa]

Nuclear waste is not burned? What are a mental midget.

You know what is burned and called Green Energy, Medical waste, Biological Medical waste.
Wood is also burned and called Green Energy.

The Democrats have demonstrated they care less for the environment than the Republicans.

You’re reading comp skills are limited I see.
Look up what a “ ?” means.

 

[Dagosa]

Wood is also burned and called Green Energy.

All your statements are falsified.
Take this one.. Only when waste wood or bio mass which emits as much co2 when it rots, can it be turned into pellets and burned. So yes, substituting pellets for oil which doesn't emit any where near the pollutants from burning oil if left buried Is a temporary solution to reducing CO2 emmisioms, just like Nat gas is a temporary substitute for oil. I’m to going too fast ?

 

[elektra]

You’re reading comp skills are limited I see.
Look up what a “ ?” means.

your reading skills are less
How is nuclear waste burned? It is not, but hey, try to make something of my style of righting while ignoring the substance of my comment. It is all you got.

 

[elektra]

All your statements are falsified.
Take this one.. Only when waste wood or bio mass which emits as much co2 when it rots, can it be turned into pellets and burned. So yes, substituting pellets for oil which doesn't emit any where near the pollutants from burning oil if left buried Is a temporary solution to reducing CO2 emmisioms, just like Nat gas is a temporary substitute for oil. I’m to going too fast ?

Thank you, for highlighting your ignorance and stupidity.

CO2 is not pollution, it is actually needed for life to exist on earth.

Wood does not substitute for oil? Wood does not reduce our use of oil at all. Burning of oil is not how we produce electricity.

Pollution from burning wood, particulates.
Pollution from burning wood, carbon monoxide
Pollution from burning wood, nitrogen oxides
Pollution from burning wood, methane
Pollution from burning wood, sulfur oxides

Pollution from a rotting tree, zero

And yes, you are, "I'm to going too fast?", for yourself

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

 

[Dagosa]

CO2 is not pollution, it is actually needed for life to exist on earth.

Your ignorance is stunning. To be expected. Tucker doesn’t know either.
You‘re not much into science are you ? This is what happens when you watch Fix News