What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Green Energy

stekim

Just Plain Awesome
Joined
Apr 9, 2009
Messages
101
Reaction score
10
Points
6
Location
Atlanta
Catzmeow said:
Are you saying that the fact that China doesn't really impose enviromental controls on ANY of their manufacturing processes is not a commentary on solar power?


Sort of like the auto industry back in the day. The fact you could light the Detroit River on fire is not a commentary on the evils of the car. If silicon tetrachloride acidifies soil so it is inhospitable for effective plant growth and causes severe irritation to living tissues and is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled, then here's a thought: Let's solve the problem by not putting it in the soil, not injest it and not inhale. Goddamn am I a genius.
 

krotchdog

Rookie
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
480
Reaction score
46
Points
0
xoxtxi, spent nuke rods, have you ever seen one, I have, I have looked down at the entire core of a reactor, I have looked directly at the spent nuke rods, you know they give off an incredible, fluorescent or phosphorecent light. I have cut/pasted a technical defintion so that I can educate you. So I am not to worried about what scares you, for I have seen your fear with my own eyes. So what to do with the spent fuel, recycle it. Thats all, very simple, drop it in a breeder reactor and create more energy than you use. That is renewable energy.

Cerenkov Radiation: This effect occurs when a high energy beta emitter is submerged in a dense medium such water. High energy beta particles are able to pass through water at a speed greater than light can pass through water - although not greater than the normal speed of light in a vacuum. As the beta particles pass through the water they alter the magnetic field and displace electrons in the water. The electrons realign themselves back to the ground state as a beta particle passes. In doing so a photon is emitted from each electron. Normally these photons tend to cancel each other out and no light is seen, but when the beta particles exceed the speed of light the photons are emitted with a slight lag, allowing them to escape without interfering with each other. Most Cerenkov radiation is in the ultraviolet spectrum, but part of the energy is visible light and can be seen as a blue glow. Normally this is only visible when there is very intense radiation, such as an operating pool reactor, or a large amount of a powerful beta emitted.

STEKIM states
The fact you could light the Detroit River on fire

That is a lie, you could never ever light the Detroit river on fire. You may be thinking of the Rouge River that flows from Fords Dearborn plant into the Detroit, and even than the Rouge river was never flammable. Cleveland's Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969, so you amply demonstrate that you speak of what you feel, not what you know.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/cuyahoga-catches-fire.php

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/cwru-msc061704.php

Myths surrounding Cuyahoga River fire 35 years ago
CLEVELAND--Once upon a time, June 22, 1969, a river started on fire. So begins the historical event that has turned into the fable of the Cuyahoga River burning.
Fable? Yes, according to Jonathan H. Adler, Case Western Reserve University law pro fessor and director of the Environmental Law Center at the Case Law School, because the river portrayed as so polluted it would burn was, in fact, well on the way to improving its water quality.

And fish, a bellwether of good water quality, were reported again swimming in the river at the time of the fire.

As the 35th anniversary of the Cuyahoga River fire approaches, Adler reflects and revisits his research article, "Fables of the Cuyahoga: Reconstructing a History of Environmental Protection."

In his 57-page paper for the Fordham Environmental Law Journal in 2002, he puts to rest many of the misconceptions that have kept Clevelanders blushing over the national embarrassment of their river burning. He also sets the stage and describes what the federal government was doing at the time to clean up the environment.

"The earlier, more intense fires are symbolic of the fact that the Cuyahoga--and other industrial rivers--were at greater risk of fires in the previous decades," stated Adler.

According to the Case environmental law professor, national funding was inadequate at the time. Also hampering the clean-up process were state laws--and inaction to enforce them for decades--enabling certain industries to continue to pollute with immunity against prosecution and the less civic-minded continued to dump waste into the waterway.

Cleveland's hands had been tied where state laws overrode local authority and did not allow the city to take action against the polluters. The federal government had the River and Harbors Act of 1899 to grapple with pollution, but the general focus of the law was to keep waterways navigable for river traffic. The law barred disposal of wastes but not all liquid wastes, which comprised most of the water's pollutants.

"Revisiting the context and history of the legendary Cuyahoga River fire reveals a complex story about the causes and consequences of various institutions' choices in environmental law," writes Adler.

The fact is that the Cuyahoga River caught fire from debris that collected in the crooked river's bend. The short-lived fire was out before the local press reached the scene to record images of its blaze. But it was a fire that followed ones in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948 and the most devastating of all--the 1952 blaze that resulted in nearly $1.5 millions in damage.

Nor was the Cuyahoga River the only fire to burn during that era. Pollutants fueled fires on a river into the Baltimore Harbor, the Buffalo River in upstate New York and the Rouge River in Michigan.

What set the Cuyahoga apart from other fires is that the nation's attention had begun to focus on the environment, and the Cleveland fire fueled the symbolism of the earth's need for repair and the necessary federal regulation to do so, said Adler. The fire led to the passage of the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Adler also laid the historical groundwork of how Cleveland had passed a $100-million bond issue in 1968 to clean up the water (the federal government spent less than $160 million for environmental clean-ups throughout the nation), established the Cuyahoga River Basin Water Quality Committee in 1963 to deal with pollution, enlisted local industries to voluntarily curtail pollution and in early 1969 established the Clean Water Task Force to periodically sweep the river and to collect oil and debris. Cleveland also had spent $30 million to build new sewage treatment facilities from 1967-70.

"Cleveland made significant strides toward environmental improvements in 1968 and 1969," writes Adler.

Despite the Cleveland area's efforts, a 1968 federal report listed the Cuyahoga River as one of the most polluted rivers in the nation, said Adler.

Adler concludes that like all good fables, this one contains some "useful truths" that "can inform an unending search for more perfect institutions of environmental protection."

Look, its simple, I am not being an asshole but seriously, so many people hear are speaking thier emotions derived from being brainwashed by the television, the constant bombardment of propaganda.

This is what enslaves the people to the government. I am not advocating Republican is better than Democrat for both parties are getting rich from the corporations. This is all propaganda. Nothing is green, nothing is green, nothing is green.

I lived through the years of pollution, you have no idea, the Detroit river was dead, no fish, all dead, the Rouge river flows into the Detroit, killing all the fish, the Detroit flows into Lake Erie killing all the fish. That was the 70's, its been fixed, our laws started under NIXON changed all this. Now you can fish and swim in Lake Erie, we have changed, but not the corporations, they are in China destroying the land, that will come back to haunt us.

the corporations are creating more waste going "green", its all a big scam, more minerals and oil are needed to go green, more power plants for a newly created industry, a giant industry as the world has never known, Obama says he will change the world and he is telling the truth, you just have no idea the magnitude of his ideas. The pay off for Obama is seen by looking at Bill Clintons payoff, over a 100.000,000 paid to Clinton in speaking fees by huge corporations, democratic corpotations, corporations ran by democrats, executives who worked at these corporations who are now working on obama's staff.

This is about Obama, when Bush was in office, all the same bullshit was happening, Bush did not build any nukes, Bush is quiet, why, so he can get the same payoff as Clinton
 
Last edited:

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,946
Reaction score
8,278
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
And one source that many forget about:

Cars that run on Compressed Air.


Ah, we finally found subject about which you have some expertise!

There's no one who has more experience with compressed air.

I almost forgot that it was Valentine's Day. Don't you need that compressed air for your blow-up doll?

Now aren't you the sweetest little bitch.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
60,946
Reaction score
8,278
Points
2,040
Location
Portland, Ore.
The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. The Israelis are building one solar power plant which will supply 5% of their energy needs. The Germans are building homes that are so well insulated that they don't require a furnace. It can be done. All that is requred is the political will. Are the Danes smarter than us?

Tree-hugger alert:

The nation that leads the world in wind-farm development is going cool on the environmentally friendly source of power.

Since the boom year of 2000, when as many as 748 turbines were erected, the number being built in Denmark has steadily fallen. So far this year, only six new wind turbines have been put up.

Wind Watch: Danes go cold on wind farms

World Wind Energy Association - Home

Highlights of the World Wind Energy Report 2008:

· Worldwide capacity reaches 121’188 MW, out of which 27’261 MW were added in 2008.
· Wind energy continued its growth in 2008 at an increased rate of 29 %.
· All wind turbines installed by the end of 2008 worldwide are generating 260 TWh per annum, equalling more than 1,5 % of the global electricity consumption.
· The wind sector became a global job generator and has created 440’000 jobs worldwide.
· The wind sector represented in 2008 a turnover of 40 billion €.
· For the first time in more than a decade, the USA took over the number one position from Germany in terms of total installations.
· China continues its role as the most dynamic wind market in the year 2008, more than doubling the installations for the third time in a row, with today more than 12 GW of wind turbines installed.
· North America and Asia catch up in terms of new installations with Europe which shows stagnation.
· Based on accelerated development and further improved policies, a global capacity of more than 1’500’000 MW is possible by the year 2020.

Downdload pdf version of World Wind Energy Report 2008:

English 1.15 Mb, Chinese 904.29 Kb, French 1.11 Mb, (more in French: www.thewindpower.net), German 1.10 Mb, Russian 883.34 Kb, Spanish 1.07 Mb

Read more...


29% annual growth rate. Hardly shows a decrease interest in wind.
 

elvis

Rookie
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
25,881
Reaction score
4,467
Points
0
And one source that many forget about:

Cars that run on Compressed Air.


Ah, we finally found subject about which you have some expertise!

There's no one who has more experience with compressed air.

I almost forgot that it was Valentine's Day. Don't you need that compressed air for your blow-up doll?

Now aren't you the sweetest little bitch.

you're just pissed off because a republican said it to a democrat.
 

krotchdog

Rookie
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
480
Reaction score
46
Points
0
Old Rocks, 12 gwh of wind in china, how much total power does china produce? How much more energy does china need each year?
 

Seraega

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
293
Reaction score
28
Points
16
Location
Upstate NY
Old Rocks, 12 gwh of wind in china, how much total power does china produce? How much more energy does china need each year?

Why bother... it's going to be soooo hard. It's impossible. waaah waah waah.

Most people never could imagine the interstate highway system either, or sending a man to the moon, or the internet. Please leave solutions to people with foresight. Naysayers never accomplish anything.
 

KittenKoder

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
23,277
Reaction score
1,715
Points
48
Location
Nowhere
Last time I checked we have had no problems in this century with nukes, hell, THREE MILE ISLAND IS STILL RUNNING...it will take a 100 miles of solar panels to equal the Palo Verde Nuclear Power plant.

What do you plan to do with the spent nuclear rods?

There is a facility in the US built and maintained, and updated, far from any civilization and so deep NOTHING can "leak" out, it costs us a fortune to make and operate. It's almost flawless, but ignored. We have a plan in place is we use it.
 

krotchdog

Rookie
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
480
Reaction score
46
Points
0
Old Rocks, 12 gwh of wind in china, how much total power does china produce? How much more energy does china need each year?

Why bother... it's going to be soooo hard. It's impossible. waaah waah waah.

Most people never could imagine the interstate highway system either, or sending a man to the moon, or the internet. Please leave solutions to people with foresight. Naysayers never accomplish anything.

Old Rocks, 12 gwh of wind in china, how much total power does china produce? How much more energy does china need each year?

Why bother... it's going to be soooo hard. It's impossible. waaah waah waah.

Most people never could imagine the interstate highway system either, or sending a man to the moon, or the internet. Please leave solutions to people with foresight. Naysayers never accomplish anything.

I am not a naysayer, if you do not look at this intelligently than whats that say about you. You have resorted to poking fun and denigrating me. To me that means you do not care about the truth. Try to answer the question, it is very, very, hard. I want you to be right and teach me, so I will wait for your answer. You will either try which proves what you have said is true or you will come back as you have with rhetoric, hate, and name calling. I do want to be proved wrong, so do it.

On the spent fuel rod subject all the spent fuel produced in the USA, that is all the waste from the very first reactor started up and all the ones running today, if you took all that spent fuel it would fit inside one football field, not the stadium, the football field.

Unit One and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was shut down after 30 years of operation. Units One's fuel is sitting in casks, right on the beach within the confines of the owner controlled area. I have walked by it and worked within 30 feet of 30 years of spent fuel, total time spent next to the fuel, 2,000 hours.

Every plant in the USA was designed to store 20 years of spent fuel, our plants have been so good, are inspections done so well, our quaility control standards so high our plants are going to last 40 years. So thats the problem with the fuel, the plants are just not meeting the worst case scenario so we keep running them.
 

Seraega

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
293
Reaction score
28
Points
16
Location
Upstate NY
Old Rocks, 12 gwh of wind in china, how much total power does china produce? How much more energy does china need each year?

Why bother... it's going to be soooo hard. It's impossible. waaah waah waah.

Most people never could imagine the interstate highway system either, or sending a man to the moon, or the internet. Please leave solutions to people with foresight. Naysayers never accomplish anything.

I am not a naysayer, if you do not look at this intelligently than whats that say about you. You have resorted to poking fun and denigrating me. To me that means you do not care about the truth. Try to answer the question, it is very, very, hard. I want you to be right and teach me, so I will wait for your answer. You will either try which proves what you have said is true or you will come back as you have with rhetoric, hate, and name calling. I do want to be proved wrong, so do it.

On the spent fuel rod subject all the spent fuel produced in the USA, that is all the waste from the very first reactor started up and all the ones running today, if you took all that spent fuel it would fit inside one football field, not the stadium, the football field.

Unit One and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station was shut down after 30 years of operation. Units One's fuel is sitting in casks, right on the beach within the confines of the owner controlled area. I have walked by it and worked within 30 feet of 30 years of spent fuel, total time spent next to the fuel, 2,000 hours.

Every plant in the USA was designed to store 20 years of spent fuel, our plants have been so good, are inspections done so well, our quaility control standards so high our plants are going to last 40 years. So thats the problem with the fuel, the plants are just not meeting the worst case scenario so we keep running them.
I certainly do care about the truth. Please take a look at the other 2 threads where we're debating this same issue. Either you're a liar, or you're ignorantly copy and pasting your figures from someone else who is a liar. The numbers just don't add up and the talking points you're trying to push have long since been debunked.
 

krotchdog

Rookie
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
480
Reaction score
46
Points
0
Sareaga, if its right there why did you not post it here as well, you have not debunked a thing I have posted and now you refuse a simple challenge, my conversation has started here, you have refused simply because you will not be able to substantiate the claims. Point out exactly what is debunked in what I post. Dont tell me to go chase my tail, put your money where your mouth is and this is where your mouth is.
 

Seraega

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
293
Reaction score
28
Points
16
Location
Upstate NY
Sareaga, if its right there why did you not post it here as well, you have not debunked a thing I have posted and now you refuse a simple challenge, my conversation has started here, you have refused simply because you will not be able to substantiate the claims. Point out exactly what is debunked in what I post. Dont tell me to go chase my tail, put your money where your mouth is and this is where your mouth is.

Your claim that renewables cannot generate enough power to produce themselves is bunk. The pay back period on a solar cell is less than 2 years out of an average 30 year life span. Will you accept the dept. of energy as a credible source:

Solar Energy Technologies Program: Learning About PV: The Myths of Solar Electricity

The energy payback period is also dropping rapidly. For example, it takes today's typical crystalline silicon module about 4 years to generate more energy than went into making the module in the first place. The next generation of silicon modules, which will employ a different grade of silicon and use thinner layers of semiconductor material, will have an energy payback of about 2 years. And thin-film modules will soon bring the payback down to one year or less. This means that these modules will produce "free" and clean energy for the remaining 29 years of their expected life.

Add that to my australian source on the other thread. Both are in agreement that your argument doesn't hold water.

Besides that my initial reply to you was about your defeatism. You envision the problem as so big that it can have no solution. You seem to have already convinced yourself there is no way out. So tell us what happens when the coal and oil runs out? If there is no solution, that's a pretty bleak future you've painted for us.
 

krotchdog

Rookie
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
480
Reaction score
46
Points
0
yes and further, ruf, ruf, arr, ruf ruf urf ar ruf bark arh r r ruf r sniff scratch ruf ruf

(I dont care who you are, thats just plain old funny flaming).

Seriously though, I am going to give you such an indepth, technical response you will think a dog ripped the rear end of your britches off.

Check that there other thread, I will post a bit, my responses do take hours despite the information I have accumlated so be patient.

What about the toxic waste, what about the petro-chemicals, I am going to the great length in the other thread we are bickering in to give you the information first hand so please if I ask for a minor specific, please save me much time. I will check your source. Still can you give me a break down of the elements that goes into silicon manufacturing, what are the elements as in from the periodic table, what is the by-product and its toxicity (that one is easy its in one of my posts), who owns the mines these elements are mined from.

Dont go to the trouble. These are in depth technical questions you have not researched, these are questions you have not thought of, I will check your link but off the top of my head I know for a fact your link will talk about the elements that are used, where they are mined, how rare they are, how they are transported, what is the enviromental damage of the mine, what is the start-up cost of the mine, how long will it take to offset the carbon foot print of the mine, how much energy is produced by other sources if said elements are used in other sources of energy.

See, this aint as simple as the link you posted and my vast, incredible intellect allows me to state this first, before I check the link.

See ya, its fun, I have spent hours on my other response to you and its only about 5% of the way finished. Fear not though, I will post it in parts.

Seriously though, my questions are important and I am attempting to answer them, my thread would be so much cooler if I won you over to my side and we worked together on this. I have spent hours on this question and I am putting a response together so perfect nobody can argue with it.

so come, luke, turn away from the darkside of the force, come, come. work with me..........

this is an edit, checked the link, sniffed around, scratch, took a dump, no technical data.

Help me, that link did suck, it tells me what to think, I posted a study, I will find it, repost it, it may be in this thread, I am just busy as a dog in heat, got to go, post, post, post, no time for dead ends.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
729
Points
0
Catzmeow said:
Are you saying that the fact that China doesn't really impose enviromental controls on ANY of their manufacturing processes is not a commentary on solar power?


Sort of like the auto industry back in the day. The fact you could light the Detroit River on fire is not a commentary on the evils of the car. If silicon tetrachloride acidifies soil so it is inhospitable for effective plant growth and causes severe irritation to living tissues and is highly toxic when ingested or inhaled, then here's a thought: Let's solve the problem by not putting it in the soil, not injest it and not inhale. Goddamn am I a genius.

ROFLMNAO... Yeah, that's on par with the genius you demonstrated where you 'guessed the odds of probability of 50/50'...

What ya are sis, is an idiot... but no more so than any other Advocate of Social Science...
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
6,805
Reaction score
729
Points
0
Old Rocks, 12 gwh of wind in china, how much total power does china produce? How much more energy does china need each year?

Why bother... it's going to be soooo hard. It's impossible. waaah waah waah.

Most people never could imagine the interstate highway system either, or sending a man to the moon, or the internet. Please leave solutions to people with foresight. Naysayers never accomplish anything.

ROFLMNAO...

Wind power is absurd... can one convert the energy stored in wind to electricity? Sure... it's just that the process of doing so is highly inefficient... and it's never going to be efficient; at least not within the scope of our present understanding of generation.

Solar has far more potential... and we're generations of design away from making that practical.

There is no state in the US which has done more damage to its own economy through the absurd pursuit of alternative energy than California; where the fruits and nuts find themselves in a contast battle between the pursuit of alternative energy systems which do not have to be actually be constructed on the ground and have absolutely NO impact on any other aspect of the environment...

They're idiots... all crying for impossible solutions and decrying the naysers who simply point out the fatal flaws in their reasoning.

What makes petroleum such a winner is the potential energy which is possesses. Solar and wind have infinitesimal values of potential energy stores...

Sure if you wrap the planet in solar panels or dot the entire midwest with wind-generators you could realize a fair amount of generated power... but piss little in exchange for the unspeakable offense which doing so would provide in every facet of human existance.
 

krotchdog

Rookie
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
480
Reaction score
46
Points
0
There is no state in the US which has done more damage to its own economy through the absurd pursuit of alternative energy than California; where the fruits and nuts find themselves in a contast battle between the pursuit of alternative energy systems which do not have to be actually be constructed on the ground and have absolutely NO impact on any other aspect of the environment...

I just read an article in the Monterey times that supports this comment. The farmers in the central valley of California, where tons of produce is farmed, where tons of beef is farmed, are not going to get water because they are diverting water for fish and because of drought. Seems unrelated, the farms besides getting water from the Aquedect have wells. They can use the wells but its too expensive to buy the electricity. Green Energy is now directly responsible for the increase in the price of food. Lack of inforcing our borders has allowed 32,000,000 illegal aliens in the country, many on food stamps, higher food prices means higher amounts paid to illegals for food stamps. The entire nation will pay for the water and electricity shortage in California, California lead the nation in polluting, non-renewable so-called Green energy.

I am in Madrid Spain, butter costs about 1.60 a pound here, California supermarkets 4.50 a pound. A French bread in Spain is 65 cents, California 2.00$

It is nothing less than to be a complete moron to support a windmill, a solar farm or geothermal energy.

Southern California Edison just announced they are raising the rates they charge.

Greenies are meanies, we got I work with, she is from Washington, she always tells me how terrible the people on earth are, how we destroy everything, how there should much less people, she could eliminate herself from the equation but its everyone else that is the problem, not her.

See the Green folk are all good, they care so they hurt nothing. Every person who is for green energy posting is a hypocrite, thats right, I called you all hypocrites, I will do it again, watch, HYPOCRITES. If you are posting you are creating carbon, how do you justify creating carbon by posting on the internet. Its because the greenies believe they are better than everyone else and thus deserve life, in thier eyes earth would be better without everyone except themselves. Take a look at the titles of the books they read, "what would earth be like without man". Point out the pollution they will create makeing windmills and thats good, it will kill the unwanted people and the greenie meanies will live on a better earth, because they know so.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
110,876
Reaction score
45,610
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
What can President Obama do about the use of petroleum, natural gas and coal, and their replacement with alternative forms of energy?

What are the choices for replacing these resources? Hydropower? No, it floods lands. Biomass? Nope, burns wood and produces waste. Ethanol uses food crops.
Heres what is left: geothermal, solar and wind.

If all the current and planned geothermal plants make it to production we would double geothermal energy production all the way up to two thirds of one percent of Americas usage!

The total amount of energy produced by all of the solar energy collection equipment produced since 1974 is about 0.8% of Americas energy use.

The combined power-generating capacity of every single windmill (and there are thousands), every photovoltaic solar cell on every rooftop, and every thermal solar energy plant across America equals 0.4 percent of Americas energy consumption.

On June 29, 1979, President Obama called for a national commitment to solar energy. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nations energy from various solar sources by the year 2000. Oops! Did I say President Obama? I meant President Carter, but Im sure that you can see how easy it is to make that mistake.

Read the full article at The Green Energy Dream | theTrumpet.com



Liberals.....one great idea after another.

Now....about wind power................

"Energy Prices in Europe Hit Records After Wind Stops Blowing

Heavy reliance on wind power, coupled with a shortage of natural gas, has led to a spike in energy prices​

Natural gas and electricity markets were already surging in Europe when a fresh catalyst emerged: The wind in the stormy North Sea stopped blowing.

The sudden slowdown in wind-driven electricity production off the coast of the U.K. in recent weeks whipsawed through regional energy markets. Gas and coal-fired electricity plants were called in to make up the shortfall from wind.

Natural-gas prices, already boosted by the pandemic recovery and a lack of fuel in storage caverns and tanks, hit all-time highs. Thermal coal, long shunned for its carbon emissions, has emerged from a long price slump as utilities are forced to turn on backup power sources.
The episode underscored the precarious state the region’s energy markets......."


Brilliant ideas from Democrats.

Kinda goes with Biden, huh?
 

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2011
Messages
104,790
Reaction score
14,784
Points
2,180
Isn't green energy what made the Hulk?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top