The Anthropocene

[Crick]

Where is your link showing how a wind turbine or a solar panel is made

Crick contradicts, nothing more. As I stated before, all we get out of crick is a, "no it doesn't".

What's the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? » Yale Climate Connections

Wind energy is remarkably climate-friendly.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Fact check: Energy costs of wind turbine manufacturing recouped in months

Wind turbines quickly recoup energy expenditure from manufacturing.

www.usatoday.com

Fact-check: Do wind turbines cost more to build than the energy they produce?

A Facebook post casts wind power as a losing proposition. Most studies put the energy payback period for a wind turbine at about a year or so.

www.statesman.com

Wind Energy Pros And Cons (The Carbon Footprint Of Turbines)

Wind energy has the potential to make a positive impact on the environment, but there are still cons to consider with this renewable energy.

8billiontrees.com

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. ​

And here's one for you. It even sounds like you.

To Get Wind Power You Need Oil

Each wind turbine embodies a whole lot of petrochemicals and fossil-fuel energy

spectrum.ieee.org

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

My guess is that by getting the term Anthropocene codified into the scientific lexicon, since it is "anthro," my guess is that their aim is to use it to track and blame human activity as somehow working against nature, something to be charted and regulated, fined and taxed, instead of just PART of nature.

Hey, green is fine, just that to do green realistically, you don't wait until the crisis is upon you, they should have started thinking about this stuff in the 1950s then, you begin instituting corrective actions as the technology and budgets allow rather than throw the baby out with the bath water turning civilization on its head trying to go totally green in ten years.

Climate change or not, people can only change things as fast as budgets and technology allow, and the cure cannot be worse than the problem. If mankind actually succeeds in becoming nearly carbon neutral and almost fossil fuel product free over the next 100 years, the Earth will effect its natural balancing and correcting systems and return the planet to 19th century conditions or whatever accordingly.

The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand

Don't appease them by telling them to go slow. The Greens shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere at all with their degenerate agenda.

 

[elektra]

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. ​

Decades-long lifespan? Yet, there are no wind turbines in the USA older than 20 years old? Contradiction and obfuscation has failed again Crick. Assumptions, wind turbines last decades, not proven.

 

[Crick]

The Green New Deal Is a Dead Man's Hand

Don't appease them by telling them to go slow. The Greens shouldn't be allowed to go anywhere at all with their degenerate agenda.

That's the beauty of a democracy. Who gets to go where is determined by our votes and I got a sneaking suspicion that AGW deniers will not be doing well at all in 2024.

 

[elektra]

What's the carbon footprint of a wind turbine? » Yale Climate Connections

Wind energy is remarkably climate-friendly.

yaleclimateconnections.org

crick contradicts, nothing more, do we see crick commenting on his source? Any quote from the source? None, zero.

Crick's article is meaningless. How many wind turbines are needed to replace one coal plant. Technically, it can not be done, and in reality, wind turbines never replace a coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plant. The wind is too intermittent, random.

What the article does not state, is that we must manufacture wind turbines every day, all day, all night, forever. Wind Turbine manufacturing is a forever consumer of fossil fuels, the largest single consumer in the world.

There’s another crucial difference between fossil fuels and wind turbines. A coal or natural gas plant burns fuel — and releases carbon dioxide — every moment that it runs. By contrast, most of the carbon pollution generated during a wind turbine’s life occurs during manufacturing. Once it’s up and spinning, the turbine generates close to zero pollution.

 

[Crick]

crick contradicts, nothing more, do we see crick commenting on his source? Any quote from the source? None, zero.

Crick's article is meaningless. How many wind turbines are needed to replace one coal plant. Technically, it can not be done, and in reality, wind turbines never replace a coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plant. The wind is too intermittent, random.

What the article does not state, is that we must manufacture wind turbines every day, all day, all night, forever. Wind Turbine manufacturing is a forever consumer of fossil fuels, the largest single consumer in the world.

What YOU will not say is that every wind turbine manufactured will produce far, far more energy than the fossil fuel energy and stock material used to manufacture it.

 

[elektra]

Fact check: Energy costs of wind turbine manufacturing recouped in months

Wind turbines quickly recoup energy expenditure from manufacturing.

www.usatoday.com

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. ​

None of crick's links are quoted from. The USA makes claims on the cost, stating they pay for themselves in 15 years? But the USA today article does not explain why they are subsidized for life?

Forever subsidies, is what keeps a wind turbine turning. Cost estimates are meaningless, and based on computer models, not real life experience.

 

[Crick]

None of crick's links are quoted from. The USA makes claims on the cost, stating they pay for themselves in 15 years? But the USA today article does not explain why they are subsidized for life?

Forever subsidies, is what keeps a wind turbine turning. Cost estimates are meaningless, and based on computer models, not real life experience.

Do you not understand that your failure to make an actual argument supporting your contention despite opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to do so, does not make you look as cool and on top of things as I think you think you do.

 

[elektra]

What YOU will not say is that every wind turbine manufactured will produce far, far more energy than the fossil fuel energy and stock material used to manufacture it.

That is because that is a false premise. Every wind turbine will not last 20 years. Some don't last 20 days.

Wind turbines produce a little, intermittent, electricity. Nothing more. Hence they are subsidized for the life of the wind turbine.

Wind turbines also, can not supply the heavy industry with the energy needed to manufacture wind turbines. Wind Turbines must be build everyday, forever, increasing the use of fossil fuel.

If you built one, or a hundred, or a thousand, and we quit building them because we met our need for electricity, you might have an argument. But that is not the case.

We are manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels with heavy industry supplied with energy and chemicals that only comes from fossil fuels.

 

[Crick]

That is because that is a false premise. Every wind turbine will not last 20 years. Some don't last 20 days.

Wind turbines produce a little, intermittent, electricity. Nothing more. Hence they are subsidized for the life of the wind turbine.

Wind turbines also, can not supply the heavy industry with the energy needed to manufacture wind turbines. Wind Turbines must be build everyday, forever, increasing the use of fossil fuel.

If you built one, or a hundred, or a thousand, and we quit building them because we met our need for electricity, you might have an argument. But that is not the case.

We are manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels with heavy industry supplied with energy and chemicals that only comes from fossil fuels.

The fact that you cannot quote sources (even after I gave you one) that support your contention OUGHT to tell you something. Given the number of other posters that have jumped in here on your side [zero], its telling everyone else something. You're clinging to a sinking ship dude.

 

[elektra]

Do you not understand that your failure to make an actual argument supporting your contention despite opportunity after opportunity after opportunity to do so, does not make you look as cool and on top of things as I think you think you do.

I pointed out the fact, that wind turbines are subsidized. The USA article is propaganda, without all the facts, if they actually present any fact.

Again, you are contradicting. Crick presents a link, does not quote from the link, does not offer crick's analysis of the link, and acts as if the link alone is a trump card, drawn from the google deck of cards, being a win.

Sorry crick, you can not offer an article that does not include subsidies. It is just dishonest, a lie.

This is your link, they claim financial investors are basing their investment on the energy market, not the government subsidies. There is no mention of the government forever subsidies.

Your article is incomplete, propaganda. You are addressing me, not your link or article. I am actually using your links, to prove you as nothing but a know-nothing-contradictor

Fact check: Energy costs of wind turbine manufacturing recouped in months

Wind turbines quickly recoup energy expenditure from manufacturing.

www.usatoday.com

The social media post also alleges that a wind turbine would have to run continuously for 50 years to recoup the financial costs of manufacturing and installation.

This assertion is incorrect, Michael Howland, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told USA TODAY in an email. He noted that investors wouldn't fund wind turbine projects if this math was accurate

"The energy market is a market," he said. "Wind farms have to be financially viable."

The timeframe required to earn back the financial costs of turbine manufacturing and installation is dependent on factors such as local wind resources, the turbine model, electricity prices and the financing agreement.

 

[elektra]

Fact-check: Do wind turbines cost more to build than the energy they produce?

A Facebook post casts wind power as a losing proposition. Most studies put the energy payback period for a wind turbine at about a year or so.

www.statesman.com

another google link contradiction, no quote, no comment from crick, just a link as if that is all it takes to win an argument.

What does the link state?

"A two-megawatt windmill is made up of 260 tonnes of steel that required 300 tonnes of iron ore and 170 tonnes of coking coal, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons,"

A wind turbine is made up of over 2,260 tonnes of steel!

With such a glaring error, how accurate is the article from the statesman. I could tear that link apart for days. And it will take days to search through the thousands of google propaganda links to find the truth.

Either way, how valid is an article with such an easy to spot, lie.

 

[Crick]

I pointed out the fact, that wind turbines are subsidized. The USA article is propaganda, without all the facts, if they actually present any fact.

Again, you are contradicting. Crick presents a link, does not quote from the link, does not offer crick's analysis of the link, and acts as if the link alone is a trump card, drawn from the google deck of cards, being a win.

Sorry crick, you can not offer an article that does not include subsidies. It is just dishonest, a lie.

This is your link, they claim financial investors are basing their investment on the energy market, not the government subsidies. There is no mention of the government forever subsidies.

Your article is incomplete, propaganda. You are addressing me, not your link or article. I am actually using your links, to prove you as nothing but a know-nothing-contradictor

Fact check: Energy costs of wind turbine manufacturing recouped in months

Wind turbines quickly recoup energy expenditure from manufacturing.

www.usatoday.com

Jesus fucking christ. Your head must be a block of fucking granite.

What we need from you is a source or sources showing (with verifiable numbers) the enormous amount of fossil fuels you claim are used manufacturing these things and a little 6th grade math showing that over their lifetime, they'll use more fossil fuels than would a coal or gas planet producing the same power. IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT (as we both know you cannot), GIVE IT THE FUCK UP!!!

 

[elektra]

Wind Energy Pros And Cons (The Carbon Footprint Of Turbines)

Wind energy has the potential to make a positive impact on the environment, but there are still cons to consider with this renewable energy.

8billiontrees.com

From cricks link in which crick does not quote or comment on.

One 3mw turbine can power 500 homes? That is a lie, one turbine does not operate all day every day. At night, the wind typically is next to zero. Most people are home at night. No energy at night, no energy on windless days. This article is complete propaganda.

One 3mw turbine works sometimes, and we do not know when that will be.

The wind turbine heavy industry spews over a 100 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, forever. That is a conservative figure, a fact. The idea that we can manufacture wind turbines and that saves us from producing CO2 is pure propaganda, a complete lie.

 

[elektra]

What we need from you is a source or sources showing (with verifiable numbers) the enormous amount of fossil fuels you claim are used manufacturing these things and a little 6th grade math showing that over their lifetime, they'll use more fossil fuels than would a coal or gas planet producing the same power. IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT (as we both know you cannot), GIVE IT THE FUCK UP!!!

I am addressing the errors and lies in your links. Am I not allowed to show that you linked to bullshit!

Here is a big news flash for you crick, no amount of solar panels or wind turbines ever produce the same amount of electricity as one coal plant (you said planet, moron).

Intermittent, unpredictable, inefficient, solar and wind stand alone. Comparing something that is not working to something that is, is foolish.

 

[Crick]

From cricks link in which crick does not quote or comment on.

One 3mw turbine can power 500 homes? That is a lie, one turbine does not operate all day every day. At night, the wind typically is next to zero. Most people are home at night. No energy at night, no energy on windless days. This article is complete propaganda.

One 3mw turbine works sometimes, and we do not know when that will be.

The wind turbine heavy industry spews over a 100 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year, forever. That is a conservative figure, a fact. The idea that we can manufacture wind turbines and that saves us from producing CO2 is pure propaganda, a complete lie.

Your head IS granite. You think pulling up my link and claiming the info in it is a lie - again with no source, references, supporting documents, nothing - shows us anything but how fucking dumb you are?

 

[elektra]

How Green Is Wind Power, Really? A New Report Tallies Up The Carbon Cost Of Renewables

Building and erecting wind turbines requires hundreds of tons of materials — steel, concrete, fiberglass, copper, and more exotic stuff like neodymium and dysprosium used in permanent magnets.

www.forbes.com

Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. ​

hahahahah, again crick uses a link to contradict, does not quote or comment on said link. I will do crick's work for crick.

Another glaring error or lie. The foundation is a minimum of 1000 tons of concrete, and a 1000 tons of steel. It is impossible that the foundation's carbon impact is less than the steel tower, impossible. But hey, crick would have to read the link crick presents to see this error, but crick contradicts with links, nothing more.

with the steel tower making up 30% of the carbon impact, the concrete foundation 17%

 

[elektra]

Your head IS granite. You think pulling up my link and claiming the info in it is a lie - again with no source, references, supporting documents, nothing - shows us anything but how fucking dumb you are?

It says one wind turbine supplies 500 homes with electricity all year long. Do you really need a link to prove that a wind turbine does not spin all year?

hey, I just proved that over 2000 homes are going without electricity because of wind turbines.

 

[elektra]

Wind Energy Pros And Cons (The Carbon Footprint Of Turbines)

Wind energy has the potential to make a positive impact on the environment, but there are still cons to consider with this renewable energy.

8billiontrees.com

nice link, crick! hahahahahaha

let’s first recall what wind is and how it works.

gee, thanks, crick, I needed an article to tell me what wind is!

This is an odd statement, unlike fossil power plants, wind turbines and solar panels must be manufactured all day, every day, all night, every night, forever. Wind turbines have increased the noxious gases, not decreased them.

so many lies, so little time.

Unlike fossil fuels, harnessing energy from the wind does not generate noxious gases like nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide, nor particulate matter – all of which pollute the environment and harm human and non-human health. When we use wind power, we are not contributing to issues like smog and acid rain.

Producing wind turbines requires the energy from coal and nuclear power, hence that water usage of nuclear power and coal has increased to meet the demand of forever manufacturing of wind power.

Producing electricity from wind requires 500 and 600 times less water than from coal and nuclear power, respectively. Also, because wind turbines do not generate particulate matter, they do not contribute to the contamination of bodies of water.

yet, we are deforesting the amazon to provide balsa wood to the wind turbine heavy industry, and they fail to mention, in places, there is deforestation.

Wind power does not imply mining for resources, nor the use of any type of fuel, and usually does not involve deforestation, as clearing land to build them only adds to the cost.

 

[Crick]

Shakes head.