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!

Power the U.S. With Solar Panels!

OP
myself

myself

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2021
Messages
578
Reaction score
206
Points
143
I have an assignment for you dumbass.

Go get any kind of fossil fuel. Gas, oil, coal, it doesn't matter. Ignite it. Put your hand over it. Record the number of seconds it takes for you to remove your had because of the heat intensity.

After your hand heals go and put your hand in direct sunlight. Record how long it takes you before the heat intensity requires that you remove your hand, if ever,

Then go take a college class in thermodynamics. Then report back to me as to why that difference is relevant to energy production in the US.

No need to do a do a an extensive analysis. One or two sentences will be suffienct.

Sun, good. Fossil fuel, bad.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,338
Reaction score
16,535
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
You're the idiot. You GET energy from green energy. You don't lose energy from green energy. And if they shut down any coal or nuclear power plants, it is because they don't need the electricity from them any more. Otherwise, they wouldn't have shut them down, now would they.


You GET energy from green energy.

Obviously. More expensive, less reliable energy.

And if they shut down any coal or nuclear power plants, it is because they don't need the electricity from them any more.

If they didn't need the electricity from the nuclear plants, why did they need more windmills and solar, after they shut down the nuclear plants?
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
46,855
Reaction score
29,219
Points
2,645
Location
Florida
Good news Environmental Wackos!!!!

The moon is going to have a wobble that will produce higher than normal tides for a while. It is normal and happens periodically.

Now you stupid Moon Bats can claim that the flooding because of the high tides are a direct result of higher sea levels caused by man made global warming.

It will be a lie but that won't stop you fuckers from telling the lie. You are never honest about anything.

Have fun!



"High tides get higher, and low tides get lower. Global sea-level rise pushes high tides in only one direction – higher. So half of the 18.6-year lunar cycle counteracts the effect of sea-level rise on high tides, and the other half increases the effect," NASA explains.

Scientists say there’s nothing new or dangerous about the wobble. In fact, the first report of a moon wobble dates back to 1728.

"What’s new is how one of the wobble’s effects on the Moon’s gravitational pull – the main cause of Earth’s tides – will combine with rising sea levels resulting from the planet’s warming," NASA says.

According to a new study by the NASA Sea Level Change Science Team from the University of Hawaii, every coast in the United States will see an increase in high tides because of a "wobble" in the moon's orbit. The team goes on to say that those high tides will kick off a "a decade of dramatic increases in flood numbers" in the 2030s.

1632008026007.png
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
View attachment 540956
And further declines since 2017.

View attachment 540957

And the cost will continue to decline.

No, price will start to increase as rare earth elements become a more valuable commodity.
The changes needed to adapt can't easily be done is 40 or even 100 years.

How many new nuke plants could we build in the next 40 years?

And no, fracking may not be a good idea at all, since it tends to easily contaminate the water table with cancer causing oil chemicals.

Liar.

If left to a few greedy people to decide, they won't care about what is best for the whole country.

If left to green idiots, pretty much the same thing, except more expensive and less reliable.

Nuke plants is not a solution.
We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
You're the idiot. You GET energy from green energy. You don't lose energy from green energy. And if they shut down any coal or nuclear power plants, it is because they don't need the electricity from them any more. Otherwise, they wouldn't have shut them down, now would they.

Going solar or wind is too unreliable.
If they use batteries for lows, they are just guessing they have enough, and likely won't, because batteries will wear out.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
You only have about 30 years of survival, period. Unless something drastic is done. Like being all racist and limiting population growth. Along with switching completely to solar energy.

Solar is not efficient enough.
And because solar needs huge amounts of batteries, pollutes more than coal.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
There are many other ways to store energy than with batteries.

There are only a few means of storing energy.
Pumping water up to a reservoir is one.
Cracking water to make hydrogen is another, but not very efficient.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,338
Reaction score
16,535
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
No, price will start to increase as rare earth elements become a more valuable commodity.


Nuke plants is not a solution.
We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.

Nuke plants is not a solution.
We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.


If only we had a way to make electricity with nuke plants.
We could use that electricty to heat homes, power vehicles and create fertilizer.

Crazy, I know.........
 

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,490
Reaction score
1,999
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Wrong.
When they say the US has 10 years worth left and Venezuela has 370, they are obviously projecting based on opinions.
And whether that opinion is 30 years or 70 years does not matter much or is much different.
The point is there is 10 times more coal than gas/oil, and gas/oil is going to get expensive soon, as it starts to run out.
If the US only has 10 years of gas/oil left, then obviously fracking to extract it all early, when the price was low, as stupid.
We should have imported gas and oil while the price was low, and save our gas and oil for when the price is at its maximum.
Yet, we have a forever suppy of oil. 70 years? ha.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Nuke plants is not a solution.
We need a means of heating homes, powering vehicles, creating fertilizers, etc.


If only we had a way to make electricity with nuke plants.
We could use that electricty to heat homes, power vehicles and create fertilizer.

Crazy, I know.........

Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.
And if you tried to do those things with electricity, you would need more than 10 times the electrical power we have now with cheap coal.
Fertilizers need the phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc. from fossil fuel.
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,464
Reaction score
7,363
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
Were to bulldoze Southern California flat and cover it in solar panels it would be progress toward energy independence in oh so many ways!

Hungry work, though......
 

HenryBHough

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
31,464
Reaction score
7,363
Points
1,140
Location
Oak Grove, Massachusetts
Were we to cut down every sequoia tree, burn the "biomass" to make electricity we still wouldn't have enough to make the glass needed to cover the barren land and produce more than 100,000 unicorn farts.

Which is why liberals on this board aren't hear right now.

They're searching under their beds for unicorns.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Yet, we have a forever suppy of oil. 70 years? ha.

Don't know what you mean, because I just looked it up and the experts say the US only have 10 years worth of domestic oil/gas.
Were to bulldoze Southern California flat and cover it in solar panels it would be progress toward energy independence in oh so many ways!

Hungry work, though......

Since CA is a desert and does not have sufficient water, that is likely the best use for CA.
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
70,338
Reaction score
16,535
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.
And if you tried to do those things with electricity, you would need more than 10 times the electrical power we have now with cheap coal.
Fertilizers need the phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc. from fossil fuel.

Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.

Ummmmmm.....why not?

And if you tried to do those things with electricity, you would need more than 10 times the electrical power we have now with cheap coal.

When was the last time coal was used for any of those things?

Fertilizers need the phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc. from fossil fuel.

Ummmmmm.....fossil fuels don't contain any of those things.

You're talking out of your ass again.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Were we to cut down every sequoia tree, burn the "biomass" to make electricity we still wouldn't have enough to make the glass needed to cover the barren land and produce more than 100,000 unicorn farts.

Which is why liberals on this board aren't hear right now.

They're searching under their beds for unicorns.

Sequoia do not grow rapidly enough.
But you could do a bio fuel economy if we cut our consumption by about half.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
15,618
Reaction score
4,689
Points
265
Location
New Mexico
Electricity does not work for heating homes, powering vehicles, or making fertilizers.

Ummmmmm.....why not?

And if you tried to do those things with electricity, you would need more than 10 times the electrical power we have now with cheap coal.

When was the last time coal was used for any of those things?

Fertilizers need the phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc. from fossil fuel.

Ummmmmm.....fossil fuels don't contain any of those things.

You're talking out of your ass again.

Electricity is only used to warm homes in hot climates because it costs about twice what oil or gas does.

Electric vehicles need to double their weight from the additional batteries, they are very slow and inefficient to charge, batteries very expensive, and batteries do not have much capacity or longevity.
Fertilizers need the chemicals from fossil fuels, like nitrates and phosphorous.

Currently coal is the main source of electrical power, but can be converted to oil or gas.
Since fossil fuels come from decomposed plants containing phosphorous, nitrates, potassium, etc., fossil fuels are loaded with what fertilizers need.

{...

Nitrogen fertilizer component

Ammonia is one nitrogen fertilizer component that can be synthesized from in-expensive raw materials. Since nitrogen makes up a significant portion of the earth's atmosphere, a process was developed to produce ammonia from air. In this process,
natural gas and steam are pumped into a large vessel. Next, air is pumped into the system, and oxygen is removed by the burning of natural gas and steam. This leaves primarily nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide is removed and ammonia is produced by introducing an electric current into the system.
...}
Read more: How fertilizer is made - material, production process, making, history, used, components, composition, product
 

Death Angel

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
39,691
Reaction score
23,397
Points
1,915
The problem with asking that question is we don't ask the follow-up question of how do we power the US when there is no sun available? Which is something we can't currently do.
There are many ways besides batteries.
1. Gravity.
2. Convert solar electric to hydrogen

Those are just 2 ways

Also, I'm for INDIVIDUAL energy independence. Solar can provide that

 
Last edited:

elektra

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
10,490
Reaction score
1,999
Points
255
Location
Temecula California
Also, I'm for INDIVIDUAL energy independence. Solar can provide that
Yet, someone else has to manufacture the solar panel, so you mean after you uses thousands fo tons of fossil fuels to manufacture the solar panels and you are successful enough to afford and maintain and replace them, you can be energy independent?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$132.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top