The unsustainability of "green" energy

[P@triot]

Dude wanted to know what kind of pollution trees pull out of the air. I told him to google it, he'll get all the info he needs.

So to recap:

You want government to illegally subsidize a "solution" that has failed so miserably, the private sector investor wants no part of it because it costs ungodly sums of money just to generate the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. And, once this pipe dream is finally achieved, we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life.

Isn't progressivism awesome?

 

[Mudda]

You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.

Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?

Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.

And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.

Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.

What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?

Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"

People who didn't give up:
They Did Not Give Up

 

[P@triot]

If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.

You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?

The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.

 

[Mudda]

Dude wanted to know what kind of pollution trees pull out of the air. I told him to google it, he'll get all the info he needs.

So to recap:

You want government to illegally subsidize a "solution" that has failed so miserably, the private sector investor wants no part of it because it costs ungodly sums of money just to generate the energy equivalent of a AAA battery. And, once this pipe dream is finally achieved, we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life.

Isn't progressivism awesome?

It's hard to argue against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.

 

[P@triot]

You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.

Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?

Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.

And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.

Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.

What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?

Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"

People who didn't give up:
They Did Not Give Up

And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison all have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?

 

[Mudda]

If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.

You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?

The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.

So when did the oil and gas industry go out of business?

 

[P@triot]

It's hard to argue against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.

It is because I've proved the truth. And there is no arguing against the truth.

 

[P@triot]

If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.

You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?

The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.

So when did the oil and gas industry go out of business?

It hasn't because it is such an economically viable solution. Like everything else it does, the Dumbocrat policy has failed. Kind of ironic and hilarious - Dumbocrat policy fails so badly, it even fails at making industry fail...

 

[Mudda]

You have no idea what will be in 70 years, stop fooling yourself.

Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?

Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.

And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.

Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.

What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?

Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"

People who didn't give up:
They Did Not Give Up

And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?

I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.

 

[Mudda]

It's hard to argue against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.

It is because I've proved the truth. And there is no arguing against the truth.

Your "truth" is that "we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life" because of green technologies.

 

[P@triot]

Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?

Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.

And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.

Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.

What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?

Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"

People who didn't give up:
They Did Not Give Up

And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?

I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.

Well that's like pointing out that since armed robberies occur, rape is ok. You can't justify illegal activity with other illegal activity. Only a liberal would attempt to make a case that absurd

 

[Mudda]

If it needs government subsidizing, it's a failed concept and it's time to move on.

You mean like the oil and gas industry? Or the agriculture industry?

The left has created illegal "regulations" with the express purpose of making oil and gas so expensive, it puts the industry out of business. Nice try though.

So when did the oil and gas industry go out of business?

It hasn't because it is such an economically viable solution. Like everything else it does, the Dumbocrat policy has failed. Kind of ironic and hilarious - Dumbocrat policy fails so badly, it even fails at making industry fail...

The sad part is that you actually believe what you post, or well, see ya.

 

[P@triot]

It's hard to argue against nonsense. When you come up with something worth discussing, I'll respond.

It is because I've proved the truth. And there is no arguing against the truth.

Your "truth" is that "we will see all plant life die (as plants require CO2 for survival and there will be none) as well as the extinction of bird life" because of green technologies.

I've provided the links to how wind turbines are killing birds at an alarming rate. You ran from it. That's what liberals do with reality - run from it.

 

[P@triot]

The sad part is that you actually believe what you post, or well, see ya.

The sadder part is - you know I'm right but you elect ideology over reality.

 

[P@triot]

Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?

So here is the question: if this stuff is so good and you believe so strongly in it, why don't you fund the research and development of it with your money so we can return to Constitutional government? Game over.

 

[elektra]

Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?

How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels?

Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.

You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.

How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible.

So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?

You do not have a solution. We do.

It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.

How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?

 

[elektra]

Sure I do, Wind Power is essentially, "propeller" technology. We have over a 100 years developing propellers. What great technological advance do you think we missed in over a 100 years?

Solar Technology? Sure, cells can get better, maybe? There is a physical limit you will reach, but either way, they take 10's of thousands of miles, and they need to be washed with water, to keep them clean, otherwise they do not work as good, and as we know water is scarce where solar is good.

And to further throw a wrench in your dream, both technologies require Oil to be built. Wind Power requires Coal, as does Solar power. Any place you find metal, that metal is made with Coal.

Using more Oil and Coal now, to produce Solar and Wind Power, kind of shows Solar and Wind are not part of a solution, but are in fact the problem.

What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?

Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"

People who didn't give up:
They Did Not Give Up

And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?

I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.

The only subsidy is the subsidy to Wind and Solar and Geothermal. You can not count tax deductions from profitable corporations as a subsidy.

 

[Mudda]

Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?

How is using fossil fuels faster, to build wind turbines and solar panels helping, it is not, you are using more oil to produce these "power plants", Wind Turbines and Solar Panels, they are the largest Power Plants in the World, by a magnitude of 100,000:1. How is increasing the use of Fossil Fuel now, at an extreme rate to produce Wind Turbines and Solar Panels saving Oil or Fossil Fuels?

Without Fossil Fuels and Oil, you can build replacement parts for Solar or Wind Turbines, no Fossil Fuel your solution does not work.

You can not operate a Wind Farm with millions of gallons of oil as a lubricant, so without Oil the Wind Farm does not work at all.

How are you going to run industry with Solar and Wind Farms? That is not possible.

So the solution is to use more Oil now, to build batteries? Which last how long?

You do not have a solution. We do.

It is called Nuclear Power. Works perfectly. Clean, with low upfront cost of Natural Resources.

How do you build Light Bulbs without HydroCarbons, Fossil Fuels, and Petroleum?

I never said that petroleum wasn't useful, it is without a doubt very useful for things like you mention. But finding other sources to power cars and lights... is a good thing.
As for nuclear, I think that the Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns proved how dangerous it is. So it's not a long term solution.

 

[Mudda]

What is it about progress that you're against? Have 9 generations of your family all worked in coal plants or something?

Only a libtard could refer to failure as "progress"

People who didn't give up:
They Did Not Give Up

And what do Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and Thomas Edison have in common? None of them were government subsidized. What does it say that after 30 posts, you've been unable to make a single rational case?

I just pointed out to you that the energy and food sectors are HEAVILY subsidized by governments. That ship has sailed. Move on.

The only subsidy is the subsidy to Wind and Solar and Geothermal. You can not count tax deductions from profitable corporations as a subsidy.

You might not, but everyone else does.

 

[Mudda]

Ok, so you have no solution to offer, so why don't you just let those who do have an idea to go ahead with their work so your lights will stay on when the fossil fuels run out?

So here is the question: if this stuff is so good and you believe so strongly in it, why don't you fund the research and development of it with your money so we can return to Constitutional government? Game over.

I do fund it with my tax dollars. Game over for sure.