Exxon accurately predicted GW in the 70s but kept casting doubt for decades

[Dagosa]

He has a very low IQ.
What is the proper way to troll him?

You have to be really stupid measuring intellect by IQ. No one uses IQ as a general intellect measure for employment, ANYWHERE. Name one.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And you don’t ? Hilarious.
The difference is your authority is composed of few nut jobs, while ours is what ? Every university in the world. You like depending upon the stupid few in favor of the educated many.

Keep spinning boi.... Its all you have...

Your failure to address the specific science presented, demonstrates that you are incapable of cognitive thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That’s hilarious. You really don’t know what your asking. That’s the rating under ideal conditions. its just a temporary operational measure. No plant operates under ideal conditions. Long term kWh is the only valid way to compare. Solar energy is cheaper then fossil fuels, nuclear energy etc.

Your inability to know anything about the topic is hilarious.

That’s hilarious. You really don’t know what your asking.

That’s hilarious. You won't answer.

That’s the rating under ideal conditions.

Of course it is.

No plant operates under ideal conditions.

I know. That's why actual is less than nameplate.

So how do they compare? Solar nameplate versus actual? Nat gas nameplate versus actual?

When you get tired of running away.......
Show how burning wood as processed fuel from a managed tree source would release less CO2 than leaving it on the ground .

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have to be really stupid measuring intellect by IQ. No one uses IQ as a general intellect measure for employment, ANYWHERE. Name one.

Sounds like something someone with a very low IQ would say.

 

[Dagosa]

Everything on this planet is renewable. It might take a million or so years, but everything will renew. Moron..

You are obviously science illiterate. ’ renewable energy’ is not waiting for a million years dufus. Look it up if you’re confused.
Get someone to read it to you if possible.

 

[Dagosa]

That’s hilarious. You really don’t know what your asking.

That’s hilarious. You won't answer.

That’s the rating under ideal conditions.

Of course it is.

No plant operates under ideal conditions.

I know. That's why actual is less than nameplate.

So how do they compare? Solar nameplate versus actual? Nat gas nameplate versus actual?

When you get tired of running away.......
Show how burning wood as processed fuel from a managed tree source would release less CO2 than leaving it on the ground .

We were talking about the cost per KWH.
A solar farm is one million per kWh.
Care to guess what a nuclear energy plant is per kWh ?

You said burning wood, I said burning processed wood from managed tree growth.
The epa certified it as carbon neutral. You want specifics….

Is biomass Carbon Neutral? YES and NO

Biomass is one of many renewable energy sources and like the others, it is an alternative to fossil fuels. Biomass is also considered as a "carbon neutral" resource, to explain its advantage over fossil fuel.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Dagosa]

Sounds like something someone with a very low IQ would say.

Only (stupid) people with diminished intellect still use“IQ”.

 

[Dagosa]

Did their "approval" support your math? Post it.

Yup.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We were talking about the cost per KWH.
A solar farm is one million per kWh.
Care to guess what a nuclear energy plant is per kWh ?

You said burning wood, I said burning processed wood from managed tree growth.
The epa certified it as carbon neutral. You want specifics….

Is biomass Carbon Neutral? YES and NO

Biomass is one of many renewable energy sources and like the others, it is an alternative to fossil fuels. Biomass is also considered as a "carbon neutral" resource, to explain its advantage over fossil fuel.

www.linkedin.com

We were talking about the cost per KWH.

No. I was talking about nameplate versus actual output.
You were running away.
Cheap solar does little good after sunset.

You said burning wood, I said burning processed wood from managed tree growth.
The epa certified it as carbon neutral. You want specifics….

No. You claimed leaving it on the ground released more CO2 than burning it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yup.

Prove it.

 

[Crick]

Attacking the persons and not what science they present.

Come on Crick, put on your big boy underwear and lose the panties... Time to grow up.

 

[Dagosa]

Prove it.

I’ll do better…..

Prove it.

+x-x =0
called carbon neutrality.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I’ll do better…..

+x-x =0
called carbon neutrality.

Processing and shipping wood pellets across the Atlantic to burn in Europe is not carbon neutral.

So you've given up on your claim that leaving the wood on the ground releases more CO2 than burning it? LOL!

Typical.

 

[Dagosa]

you've given up on your claim that leaving the wood on the ground releases more CO2 than burning it? LOL!

No. You can’t even post what I was responding to. Do that and you’ll seem like the retard you are.

 

[Dagosa]

Processing and shipping wood pellets across the Atlantic to burn in Europe is not carbon neutral.

Why is that ? You claiming Europe and the US are not on the same planet dumbo ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why is that ? You claiming Europe and the US are not on the same planet dumbo ?

It takes carbon based fuel to process the wood.
It takes carbon based fuel to ship the wood across the ocean.
It takes carbon based fuel to move the wood to the powerplant.
Durr.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. You can’t even post what I was responding to. Do that and you’ll seem like the retard you are.

if you burn wood byproducts that if left on the ground would release more co2 then burning it.

Low IQ liberal. But I repeat myself.

 

[Dagosa]

It takes carbon based fuel to process the wood.
It takes carbon based fuel to ship the wood across the ocean.
It takes carbon based fuel to move the wood to the powerplant.
Durr.

And the wood pellets that are from trees and vegetation that have spent years of recent history converting CO2 to 02…and replaced by vegetation which will continue to do so.

And the same carbon based fuel would be used to send Oil, which we should not spare.

And the oil in use over there emits more pollution then wood Pellets.

Rebewables are inexhaustableb from most forms including managed tree and vegetation

Dufus, it’s global warming not country warming.

 

[Dagosa]

if you burn wood byproducts that if left on the ground would release more co2 then burning it.

Low IQ liberal. But I repeat myself.

And do you have the post I was responding too ? Guess not.

 

[Dagosa]

Seems like Billy Bob wants to come out of the closet.