Scientific American, Mann hockey stick graph

[mdn2000]

You are the one who knows nothing.

Yeah ... tell me this, do you even know what a processor looks like on the inside? Much less how one works?

Do you even know what the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 is?

I sided with you chris, we are doubling the C02, green energy is doubling the C02, take the ball chris, tell everyone how much energy it takes and what types of energy it takes to make one ton of fiberglass

 

[Chris]

Yeah ... tell me this, do you even know what a processor looks like on the inside? Much less how one works?

Do you even know what the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 is?

I sided with you chris, we are doubling the C02, green energy is doubling the C02, take the ball chris, tell everyone how much energy it takes and what types of energy it takes to make one ton of fiberglass

Are you 15 years old?

 

[mdn2000]

and there you have it, chris will side with and support old crock.

Neither chrissy or old crock will answer one question I put forth, why, because they are idiots. Yes, today we cannot stop the corporations from making 100's of billions of dollars using tax payer money stolen from me. Funny how the morons chrissy and old crock un-wittingly make the same corporations they claim to hate filthy rich.

Already Califorian, Arizona, and Nevada residents must pay 300$ month in electric bill, not all the people but the majority of people pay this much in peak months. This price is now the new low, Arnold the RINO just autorized edison to raise rates, how much only time will tell but for today it will start with a 10% increase. Arnold the RINO also authorized the Dept. of Power and Water to increase rates 20%

What the twins chrissy and old crock are to dumb to know is that 80% of all of california's electricity goes toward pumping water, and 90% of all of this water is delivered at a huge discount to corporate farms and industry.

Green Energy will never supply a significant amount of energy, it simply is an excuse to raise the cost of electricity produced by the old power plants. Seeing the windmills will make the environuts feel good though and the windmills are used as a propaganda tool, very effective.

First the corporate controlled government provides studies to scare the people, than the same government officials on leaving office make speeches and work for the corporations that will produce the green energy, the same corporations own the newspapers and television stations so they broadcast the same propaganda over and over. people here it enough they beleive it.

Brainwashed, that is why you see the twins chrissy and old crock provide a source that shows the twins to be twin morons.

The windmills and solar farms can never ever supply the power we need, they are just put up to make the environuts and the suckers feel good. The idea is not to sell green energy on cost effectivness, but the corporations know they must convince the public there is a higher "value" in going green, the value of saving the planet from total destruction.

so what is the profit for corporations, I already stated the profit, the cost of electricity is going up today to pay for windmills tomorrow, its happening today in California, I have not looked into the other states. Today if you live in California you get to pay more for electricity based on thinking going green saves the planet.

Profit for the corporations is two or three fold.

1. The corporation receivves a multi-million dollar subsidy.
2. The corporation receives a multi-million dollar tax break.
3. The executives gets a million dollar bonus for negotiating these deals for the corporation.
4. The corporation also builds a 100% back-up fossil fuel plant that sells energy at the higher green cost
5. The corporation builds the power plants that produces power plants that produce raw materials needed in the production of fiberglass, steel, copper, titanium, etc, etc, used to build windmills, solar, and geothermal.
6 The corporations own the mines that produce the silca, the boron, etc, etc, etc,

I can go on and on.

Corporations are making billions thus they are able to payoff one man with 200,000,000 dollars, that man is AL GORE.

The twins chrissy and old crock are too stupid to follow the money


chrissy will never and is unable to even answer the simplist question, how much and of which types of energy is need to produce one ton of fiberglass

keep posting chrissy, I will always be here to point out how you know nothing,

 

[Charles Stucker]

Green energy is coming, and you can't stop it.

All you really need for green energy is a handful of copper salts to throw in the fire.
Instant green flames.

Green energy is nice in theory, but it still as a ways to go. You can also, theoretically, build a laser to work off the thermal energy in an insulated space to crate a kind of refrigerator, but the application would be relatively useless at this stage.
The problem which is inadequately addressed by proponents of certain solutions is the issue of total energy return. If it requires X units of energy to create a 'green source' and the green source then produces less than X units of total output energy before needing service, then the 'green source' is not very useful. The recent example of Corn based ethanol springs to mind. The energy return on the corn is so modest that the only real result of that particular 'green' fuel is to drive up the price of food.
Without the total cost of manufacture, along with a life of operation and operational energy cost analysis, any 'green energy' poses the risk that it will prove another government funded scam.
Perhaps people have forgotten the "mixed" fuel made by spraying diesel over crushed coal, which is then burned by traditional coal fired electrical plants. The whole is funded by government subsidies to create an alternative to Oil, but accomplishes precisely nothing, save to enrich a few cheats. This is why we see the insistence upon knowing the true cost of a ton of fiberglass, a bit of data which is remarkably tough to uncover, so that those calculations may be made.

 

[Chris]

Green energy is coming, and you can't stop it.

All you really need for green energy is a handful of copper salts to throw in the fire.
Instant green flames.

Green energy is nice in theory, but it still as a ways to go. You can also, theoretically, build a laser to work off the thermal energy in an insulated space to crate a kind of refrigerator, but the application would be relatively useless at this stage.
The problem which is inadequately addressed by proponents of certain solutions is the issue of total energy return. If it requires X units of energy to create a 'green source' and the green source then produces less than X units of total output energy before needing service, then the 'green source' is not very useful. The recent example of Corn based ethanol springs to mind. The energy return on the corn is so modest that the only real result of that particular 'green' fuel is to drive up the price of food.
Without the total cost of manufacture, along with a life of operation and operational energy cost analysis, any 'green energy' poses the risk that it will prove another government funded scam.
Perhaps people have forgotten the "mixed" fuel made by spraying diesel over crushed coal, which is then burned by traditional coal fired electrical plants. The whole is funded by government subsidies to create an alternative to Oil, but accomplishes precisely nothing, save to enrich a few cheats. This is why we see the insistence upon knowing the true cost of a ton of fiberglass, a bit of data which is remarkably tough to uncover, so that those calculations may be made.

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

 

[mdn2000]

Green energy is coming, and you can't stop it.

All you really need for green energy is a handful of copper salts to throw in the fire.
Instant green flames.

Green energy is nice in theory, but it still as a ways to go. You can also, theoretically, build a laser to work off the thermal energy in an insulated space to crate a kind of refrigerator, but the application would be relatively useless at this stage.
The problem which is inadequately addressed by proponents of certain solutions is the issue of total energy return. If it requires X units of energy to create a 'green source' and the green source then produces less than X units of total output energy before needing service, then the 'green source' is not very useful. The recent example of Corn based ethanol springs to mind. The energy return on the corn is so modest that the only real result of that particular 'green' fuel is to drive up the price of food.
Without the total cost of manufacture, along with a life of operation and operational energy cost analysis, any 'green energy' poses the risk that it will prove another government funded scam.
Perhaps people have forgotten the "mixed" fuel made by spraying diesel over crushed coal, which is then burned by traditional coal fired electrical plants. The whole is funded by government subsidies to create an alternative to Oil, but accomplishes precisely nothing, save to enrich a few cheats. This is why we see the insistence upon knowing the true cost of a ton of fiberglass, a bit of data which is remarkably tough to uncover, so that those calculations may be made.

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

Fiberglass has nothing to do with green energy? What are windmills made of? These posts of Chrissy's are spam in the thread.

Dont you know any facts? Can you not even debate, there is no such thing as green energy, green energy is extremely polluting, more so than coal

 

[Chris]

All you really need for green energy is a handful of copper salts to throw in the fire.
Instant green flames.

Green energy is nice in theory, but it still as a ways to go. You can also, theoretically, build a laser to work off the thermal energy in an insulated space to crate a kind of refrigerator, but the application would be relatively useless at this stage.
The problem which is inadequately addressed by proponents of certain solutions is the issue of total energy return. If it requires X units of energy to create a 'green source' and the green source then produces less than X units of total output energy before needing service, then the 'green source' is not very useful. The recent example of Corn based ethanol springs to mind. The energy return on the corn is so modest that the only real result of that particular 'green' fuel is to drive up the price of food.
Without the total cost of manufacture, along with a life of operation and operational energy cost analysis, any 'green energy' poses the risk that it will prove another government funded scam.
Perhaps people have forgotten the "mixed" fuel made by spraying diesel over crushed coal, which is then burned by traditional coal fired electrical plants. The whole is funded by government subsidies to create an alternative to Oil, but accomplishes precisely nothing, save to enrich a few cheats. This is why we see the insistence upon knowing the true cost of a ton of fiberglass, a bit of data which is remarkably tough to uncover, so that those calculations may be made.

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

Fiberglass has nothing to do with green energy? What are windmills made of? These posts of Chrissy's are spam in the thread.

Dont you know any facts? Can you not even debate, there is no such thing as green energy, green energy is extremely polluting, more so than coal

Green energy takes a lot of forms.

Is conservation polluting?

 

[Charles Stucker]

Green energy takes a lot of forms.

Is conservation polluting?

Green Energy is typically defined as energy resources derived from renewable or non-polluting resources. If you want to use some absurd definition then you need to post that definition.
For example let us say that I define time to be the only thing worth conserving. Then conservation would involve driving at top speed or even using aircraft whenever possible, because it would conserve time. Even though the fuel cost would rise. With that definition, conservation is polluting.

 

[KittenKoder]

You are the one who knows nothing.

Yeah ... tell me this, do you even know what a processor looks like on the inside? Much less how one works?

Do you even know what the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 is?

Think you missed the point: No one does, not your scientists ... not ours.

Though I do understand (along with any half decent scientist) the critical role CO2 plays in plant growth: more is better for plants, period. Since you don't like nature ... of course you would want to starve the trees.

 

[mdn2000]

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

Fiberglass has nothing to do with green energy? What are windmills made of? These posts of Chrissy's are spam in the thread.

Dont you know any facts? Can you not even debate, there is no such thing as green energy, green energy is extremely polluting, more so than coal

Green energy takes a lot of forms.

Is conservation polluting?

Green energy is just words, they have no meaning, its a marketing gimmick used on fools. It works, look how you keep making moronic posts. The corporations are doing the marketing, first you have us beleive that oil companies are evil destroying the planet and the solution is technology developed by the same corporations you hate. Green Energy, it sounds so wonderful, lets conserve and save the earth and I will gladly pay 500$ for electricity if only I can see a windmill in a field of green. I feel so good about myself.

Yet what does it take to make a windmill, whats in a windmill, tons of copper, tons of iron, tons of steel, titanium, lithium, nickel cadium, chromoly, a radio transmitter and receiver, a computer, electric motors, miles of wire, and much, much, more.

The twins Chrissy and Old Crock are not here to debate or provide facts (old crock trys but it always back-fires and the source proves old crock is wrong). The twins Chrissy and Old Crock at best are sheeple that are dumb enough to beleive the marketing of big business. The tactics of marketing of so called "green energy" are much to complicated for the twins to figure out.

Explain how your conserving buy more than doubling the rate you are proposing to use fossil fuels as well as quadrupling the use of raw materials.

Chrissey, why dont you tell us how much energy and what types are used to make one ton of fiberglass.

 

[Old Rocks]

All you really need for green energy is a handful of copper salts to throw in the fire.
Instant green flames.

Green energy is nice in theory, but it still as a ways to go. You can also, theoretically, build a laser to work off the thermal energy in an insulated space to crate a kind of refrigerator, but the application would be relatively useless at this stage.
The problem which is inadequately addressed by proponents of certain solutions is the issue of total energy return. If it requires X units of energy to create a 'green source' and the green source then produces less than X units of total output energy before needing service, then the 'green source' is not very useful. The recent example of Corn based ethanol springs to mind. The energy return on the corn is so modest that the only real result of that particular 'green' fuel is to drive up the price of food.
Without the total cost of manufacture, along with a life of operation and operational energy cost analysis, any 'green energy' poses the risk that it will prove another government funded scam.
Perhaps people have forgotten the "mixed" fuel made by spraying diesel over crushed coal, which is then burned by traditional coal fired electrical plants. The whole is funded by government subsidies to create an alternative to Oil, but accomplishes precisely nothing, save to enrich a few cheats. This is why we see the insistence upon knowing the true cost of a ton of fiberglass, a bit of data which is remarkably tough to uncover, so that those calculations may be made.

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

Fiberglass has nothing to do with green energy? What are windmills made of? These posts of Chrissy's are spam in the thread.

Dont you know any facts? Can you not even debate, there is no such thing as green energy, green energy is extremely polluting, more so than coal

Silly ass. The tubular support is made of steel that company that I work for rolls. The turbines are made of steel and copper, the same as any other generator or motor. And the metal in the gearboxes are various alloys of steel.

The blades are fiberglass. How much fiberglass do you suppose they use in a coal fired generation plant? In a natural gas fired plant? A lot in either place.

 

[Old Rocks]

How did electricity produce the coke to make the steel, genius?

Good God, Dooodeee......, you are truly ignorant of modern steel mills. The melting is done in 100 ton lots, by huge electrodes that are lowered down into the pots. No coke involved at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Still waiting for any of the enviro-wackaloons to point out the metals smelter that is fired on anything other than coal or gas, since the towers and armature windings are made of refined metals.

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

You know old crock, **** off, its over and over with you, you post a source and do not read your own source, you worked in two all electric steel mills, bullshit. I was not going to look at this source but I knew you were nothing but a moron. Here I go again, I will qoute Old Crock's source, Old Crock's source describes the most modern steel plant in the world. Of course the first plant using this technology was built in the USA in Indiana by Nucor steel. No one else thought the "continous roll" process would work. Check out the book "American Steel".

Now to quote Old Crock's source, showing once again that Old Crock never reads his own sources which shows Old Crock has knows nothing about energy and even less about the fairy tale "green energy".

The smelting shop
The electric arc furnace is charged with two containers of recycled steel per cycle; the
furnace needs approx. 50 minutes to convert this material into 120 metric tons of
molten steel. The furnace works on the direct current electric arc furnace principle. An
electric arc is generated between a graphite electrode with a diameter of 750 mm and
the bottom of the furnace which functions as the anode. This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

Before rolling, the beam blanks - both our own as well as those from external suppliers
- are placed in a natural gas fired pusher furnace where they are heated to a temperature
of approximately 1,200 °C.

So there you have it, no iron smelting plant exists that uses only electricity, hence the fairy tale of green energy being sustainable in the future is pure fantasy.

Stupid ass, the steel is smelted with electricy, Doooodeeee....... said nothing at all about the reheat process that is done before the rolling.

The slabs are created using electricity, the slabs are later put into a reheat furnace to be heated to the correct rolling temperature for the rolling process.

 

[mdn2000]

I have worked in two steel mills. Both were fired with electricity. In fact, most melting of the primary source, ore or scrap, or any combination of those, are done in electric furnaces today.

http://www.stahlwerk-thueringen.de/files/File/2704_besu_engl.pdf

You know old crock, **** off, its over and over with you, you post a source and do not read your own source, you worked in two all electric steel mills, bullshit. I was not going to look at this source but I knew you were nothing but a moron. Here I go again, I will qoute Old Crock's source, Old Crock's source describes the most modern steel plant in the world. Of course the first plant using this technology was built in the USA in Indiana by Nucor steel. No one else thought the "continous roll" process would work. Check out the book "American Steel".

Now to quote Old Crock's source, showing once again that Old Crock never reads his own sources which shows Old Crock has knows nothing about energy and even less about the fairy tale "green energy".

The smelting shop
The electric arc furnace is charged with two containers of recycled steel per cycle; the
furnace needs approx. 50 minutes to convert this material into 120 metric tons of
molten steel. The furnace works on the direct current electric arc furnace principle. An
electric arc is generated between a graphite electrode with a diameter of 750 mm and
the bottom of the furnace which functions as the anode. This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

Before rolling, the beam blanks - both our own as well as those from external suppliers
- are placed in a natural gas fired pusher furnace where they are heated to a temperature
of approximately 1,200 °C.

So there you have it, no iron smelting plant exists that uses only electricity, hence the fairy tale of green energy being sustainable in the future is pure fantasy.

Stupid ass, the steel is smelted with electricy, Doooodeeee....... said nothing at all about the reheat process that is done before the rolling.

The slabs are created using electricity, the slabs are later put into a reheat furnace to be heated to the correct rolling temperature for the rolling process.

Old Crock dude, you have a serious reading comprehension problem, read the first paragraph I quoted from your source, this is not the not the reheat process, this is the smelting process that must use natural gas

The furnace works on the direct current electric arc furnace principle. An
electric arc is generated between a graphite electrode with a diameter of 750 mm and
the bottom of the furnace which functions as the anode. This energy, supplemented by
natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrap

You call me an idiot, read the last line, it says "This energy, supplemented by natural gas/oxygen burners, is used to smelt the scrat."

It is no wonder you beleive in global warming and green energy, you cannot even see the truth in your own sources when I point out what you miss.

You cannot make steel with windmills.

So Old Crock, do you really think you know anything or appear intelligent. I see your support in these threads limited to your twin, chrissy (chris).

 

[mdn2000]

Green energy is coming, and you can't stop it.

All you really need for green energy is a handful of copper salts to throw in the fire.
Instant green flames.

Green energy is nice in theory, but it still as a ways to go. You can also, theoretically, build a laser to work off the thermal energy in an insulated space to crate a kind of refrigerator, but the application would be relatively useless at this stage.
The problem which is inadequately addressed by proponents of certain solutions is the issue of total energy return. If it requires X units of energy to create a 'green source' and the green source then produces less than X units of total output energy before needing service, then the 'green source' is not very useful. The recent example of Corn based ethanol springs to mind. The energy return on the corn is so modest that the only real result of that particular 'green' fuel is to drive up the price of food.
Without the total cost of manufacture, along with a life of operation and operational energy cost analysis, any 'green energy' poses the risk that it will prove another government funded scam.
Perhaps people have forgotten the "mixed" fuel made by spraying diesel over crushed coal, which is then burned by traditional coal fired electrical plants. The whole is funded by government subsidies to create an alternative to Oil, but accomplishes precisely nothing, save to enrich a few cheats. This is why we see the insistence upon knowing the true cost of a ton of fiberglass, a bit of data which is remarkably tough to uncover, so that those calculations may be made.

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

That political will is called Marxism, the governor of michigan says they will remake michigan energy, that is Marxism, dictating what industry will be hence forcing workers to do jobs they do not want to do, reeducating everyone at the same time, Marxism, Marxist dictate the jobs, the industry, what type of energy we will use, who gets how much, Marxism

 

[Oddball]

You cannot make steel with windmills.

Nor can you cook up the coke you need to make steel with anything but coal.

 

[Chris]

All you really need for green energy is a handful of copper salts to throw in the fire.
Instant green flames.

Green energy is nice in theory, but it still as a ways to go. You can also, theoretically, build a laser to work off the thermal energy in an insulated space to crate a kind of refrigerator, but the application would be relatively useless at this stage.
The problem which is inadequately addressed by proponents of certain solutions is the issue of total energy return. If it requires X units of energy to create a 'green source' and the green source then produces less than X units of total output energy before needing service, then the 'green source' is not very useful. The recent example of Corn based ethanol springs to mind. The energy return on the corn is so modest that the only real result of that particular 'green' fuel is to drive up the price of food.
Without the total cost of manufacture, along with a life of operation and operational energy cost analysis, any 'green energy' poses the risk that it will prove another government funded scam.
Perhaps people have forgotten the "mixed" fuel made by spraying diesel over crushed coal, which is then burned by traditional coal fired electrical plants. The whole is funded by government subsidies to create an alternative to Oil, but accomplishes precisely nothing, save to enrich a few cheats. This is why we see the insistence upon knowing the true cost of a ton of fiberglass, a bit of data which is remarkably tough to uncover, so that those calculations may be made.

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

That political will is called Marxism, the governor of michigan says they will remake michigan energy, that is Marxism, dictating what industry will be hence forcing workers to do jobs they do not want to do, reeducating everyone at the same time, Marxism, Marxist dictate the jobs, the industry, what type of energy we will use, who gets how much, Marxism

Horseshit.

No one is taking over energy companies.

Why do you want America weakened by a dependence on foreign oil?

 

[Sinatra]

None of which has anything to do with green energy.

The technology is here.

All it takes is the political will to put it into practice.

That political will is called Marxism, the governor of michigan says they will remake michigan energy, that is Marxism, dictating what industry will be hence forcing workers to do jobs they do not want to do, reeducating everyone at the same time, Marxism, Marxist dictate the jobs, the industry, what type of energy we will use, who gets how much, Marxism

Horseshit.

No one is taking over energy companies.

Why do you want America weakened by a dependence on foreign oil?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSvHpvHFXU0]YouTube - George Michael - Faith[/ame]

 

[Chris]

Useless response.

The technology exists today, and it can be done.

Why wait?

 

[Oddball]

The "technologies" (a misnomer if there ever was one) need scores of billions of dollars in subsidies because they're inherently inefficient.

If they were economically viable, they'd sell themselves.