Wind Turbine's CO2 Emissions increasing and largest new source of CO2

[abu afak]

The Texas GOP’s War on Renewable Energy​

What’s behind the Legislature’s relentless campaign against Wind and Solar power, which are Saving Texans Billions?
June 2023 - Texas Monthly

Greg Roach doesn’t much care for the blinking red lights atop the ninety wind turbines just outside of town. They distract from the nightly blanket of stars that’s among the benefits of life in Olney, an agricultural crossroads about a two-hour drive northwest of Fort Worth. But, says the 67-year-old superintendent of the local school district, that’s a minor quibble.

Tax payments from the Trinity Hills Wind Farm have allowed Olney ISD to remodel the junior high and the high school and to build a vocational building for classes in welding and agriculture, all without raising the Tax rate. It’s been “an absolute Home Run fiscally,” Roach says.

And those Benefits have recently gotten a whole lot Bigger. Trinity Hills enjoyed an enormous tax break when it began operating, in 2012, but that decade-long arrangement has come to an end. The wind farm now numbers among the district’s largest taxpayers. “You are looking at around one million dollars in revenue,” Roach says, for a district with a total annual budget of about $12 million. “There is absolutely no doubt they are a big boost.” He expects the extra money will help the district purchase a new school bus and upgrade classroom technology.....
[.....]

The Texas GOP’s War on Renewable Energy

What’s behind the Legislature’s relentless campaign against wind and solar power, which are saving Texans billions?

www.texasmonthly.com

`

 

[Crick]

The amount of concrete, at the minimum in the 340,000 wind turbines installed across the world

http://www.ptt-er.com/user_upload/file/HowIsCoalUsed.pdf

Coal - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

I clearly demonstrated that the amount of CO2 produced during the construction of a wind turbine will be made up in a matter of days. What is true for one wind turbine is true for 340,000 of them or 340 billion of them you stupid oaf.

61,561,500t of CO2 just for the concrete base! is that amount trivial, it stays in the atmosphere.

It appears in the post to which I'm responding that you meant to write "21,525,000 tons just for the base". If that was a change from US to global, you need to say so. This is not the first time you have miscopied a number and each time the number changed in a direction that aided your argument. Odd.

But, I am so glad that you agree CO2 is the problem. Let's compare the CO2 released by constructing wind turbines to the CO2 released generating energy. Your OP source states 241.85 tons of CO2 released per wind turbine built. I'll go with your global count on turbines. 340,000 x 241.85 = 82.229 Mtons of CO2 and, of course, the construction of those turbines took place over a couple decades. Carbon dioxide produced by all energy-related CO2 in just 2022 totaled 36.8 Gt. Let's sort of eyeball-integrate energy-related CO2 over the last 20 years. This graph is from Global CO2 emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes, 1900-2022 – Charts – Data & Statistics - IEA. I'm assuming linear growth from 26.5Gt/yr in 2002 to the 36.8Gt/yr which gives me a rough total of 533 Gt since 2002. 82.229Mt / 533 Gt = 0.0001543. The CO2 released by the construction of wind turbines - based on YOUR numbers, makes up 0.01543% of total human CO2 emissions from combustion and industrial processes.

Global CO2 emissions from energy combustion and industrial processes, 1900-2022​

Last updated 2 Mar 2023

So how, exactly, do you justify making the claim that the CO2 released by their construction makes wind turbines a bad 'investment'?

Either way, if you think that is a little or a lot, Wind Turbines also destroy trees and crops.

No they do not. People may cut down trees and crops to install them, but wind turbines harm neither. And you'd make a far better case for solar panels replacing crops than turbines. Twice each year, now, my wife and I drive almost the full length of Indiana headed to and from Chicago. On the way we pass hundreds of large windmills in the middle of healthy, active crops. The area consumed by the turbine bases is a tiny fraction of those fields and I am certain those farmers get paid more for that land than they would ever have made growing corn or the like. And I haven't seen any food shortages as a result so you can skip that ploy.

Further, Wind Turbines are a wasteful use of our natural resources. No different than giving every single person a school bus to drive to work instead of a Prius

What natural resources do you believe are being wasted building them? That IEA link above will take you to an intro page that states "Renewables met 90% of last year’s global growth in electricity generation. Solar PV and wind generation each increased by around 275 TWh, a new annual record". Would you care to calculate how much CO2 would have been produced generating 550 TWh (which is only the annual increase) of electricity using fossil fuels? And has that shift created any of those massive blackouts that you've all been warning us about? Eh?

I thought not.

Wind Turbine are dependent on increasing the consumption of fossil fuels. At that, they do not replace coal power, because they are too weak and do not work when we want.

Like I said. I think you're a stupid asshole. And you lie.

 

[elektra]

But, I am so glad that you agree CO2 is the problem. Let's compare the CO2 released by constructing wind turbines to the CO2 released generating energy.

Like I said. I think you're a stupid asshole. And you lie.

Why would you want to compare construction of wind turbines to the output of a coal power plant? Wind Turbines, do not replace coal fired power plants.

A coal plant built today, will operate over a100 years. Wind Turbines, 10 years. You will claim higher, and offer an article to state otherwise. I lived in California, I watched the companies go bankrupt and saw all the broken wind turbines torn down. Lived there, saw it.

So, you want to compare Coal to Wind? Yet you do not want to compare the construction of a coal plant to the construction of a Wind Turbine?

There is 340,000 wind turbines today, and planes to build at least as many. I will take the low number of 340,000. And I will be kind and use the higher number, of 25 years.

In the life of a coal plant, over a 100 years, we will have to build over 1,300,000 wind turbines, which is sustainable? Which makes more profit for the rich?

Now, lets look at your claims of recouping the energy used? I will use last year, the biggest wind turbine farm in the North Sea. The North Sea wind farms produced zero electricity. Zero electricity for weeks.

Wind Turbines that get replaced 4 to 5 times in the life of a coal plant, are by far a waste of money and the cost is extreme. The rich get richer and the people who pay the bill, pay that bill 1,300,000 times.

 

[Crick]

Why would you want to compare construction of wind turbines to the output of a coal power plant?

Because the title YOU gave this thread claims that CO2 emissions from wind turbines are the "largest new source of CO2"

Wind Turbines, do not replace coal fired power plants.

Of course they do.

A coal plant built today, will operate over a[sic] 100 years.

Even worldwide, new coal plants are become exceedingly rare. The last US coal-fired power plant was lit up in 2013, ten years ago. As of 2022, NO new coal plants are planned. Today's coal plants will not operate for 100 years because they are a waste of money six ways from Sunday and only getting worse.

Nearly a quarter of the operating U.S. coal-fired fleet scheduled to retire by 2029 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

www.eia.gov

Wind Turbines, 10 years. You will claim higher, and offer an article to state otherwise. I lived in California, I watched the companies go bankrupt and saw all the broken wind turbines torn down. Lived there, saw it.

Oohh... you lived in California? Cool, dude. But I hope you actually know that doesn't mean shit. And when you say I will claim higher, quoting sources, you're right.

20 - 25 years How Long do Wind Turbines Last? Can their Lifetime be Extended?.
20 years Document Display | NEPIS | US EPA
20 years Useful Life
20 years chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/277910/1-s2.0-S1876610217X00052/1-s2.0-S1876610217301789/main.pdf?X-Amz-Security-Token=IQoJb3JpZ2luX2VjEPX%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaCXVzLWVhc3QtMSJGMEQCIGVp3FLpOIbAJNSGUYh3wt5oJ9vZLstuUiS6QHK1qgI8AiAuPUh0BnxwUjK9fSQM0Zu7AiCkxk%2F88e5HwLz6Ej%2FIxCqyBQheEAUaDDA1OTAwMzU0Njg2NSIMrkMeZa65MnsBrXzkKo8FvTrj1%2BqrEasxgGbBd2shnCGrdj5VpQFXSpu6Pidry9wLbBrGJ1jqszk%2F4i2LijD95OHkeomT0czqcYGyGxR0UlWRllkBbLwBpcRg9Jyl0e%2Fh0rjtwOF01StDoz5MWhL%2FFelQHt%2F%2BQyDPK1aVTA9fSjJseIumoq2B8KDGyfgUpLI2wMU4qo4sXioFlk1pzi0K2iQwg6TDd4zSIwMAMZvb6V4u3M6KBqFvw91V2xdYSP7hT6KObPdJglrBf4eTx61lrVW45ao%2FUIAvuJay24TDJ6GfY1Qgmo7RWdjTrTlbOMK2jV25yb4v12sLlA4iWSeO5LXw4SPh%2BE0eXF4ZNQ0826vvdxCRqxPORXBZJiQbLMvYqOUkmaEPmplAILFxA7ibkRbKVHs3RJdwISE7rUBbC8AnO5e3ojS3NKmNcG0gvpFTqScVsW6y4WxxedjiNQ8lB9t7j8sn2Rs63k9pKIvQimcQWQbK%2FIvPcXAIDx%2F6KeFXWfCfEFmjNhdqr%2BfrtRD3Ehe2HARsdIPwUQmn%2FEYcd61J%2FhTPkVQLwrZTaqxUEfAE9M%2F7wM378qTjvn4b64%2Fd05wnCbN6KU2E3ugfLG3B%2BC3lpdWAdxXvpnhZQkDcTLaovoxI0SJh9vdt8giTcHtC998HI6a3spS62OrVLw1OpQdAEHVm6DLk6uXy83NhZzy8mNSqu%2F93wok%2BqxLlXoEVZANFI9w5XPOjWOBz2Fp53VQu0lmU0YMUOoiUmKxwg8Vmflm89K6bfsHH7BJBe%2ByxJbHHiUB7SdXD6WDLAwC18C5Vq%2FPWySQaGH4Hz1P2b3KBrnzYaFKSddxg4vkIZgVzx1ZqzRyxIm7OYQIspe6YFqyCWdSQLQ5%2FIeQUvbO9uzC%2BtuukBjqyAQ8iZsH1%2BXPvC5IPqjK%2B8lTEO6voJu137CE0zZqRLkYJPKYQUhKqeN2wHYa5U8mDSTv92nHPKwORAvfUuskTekt6j020xOyIoYqK7Fil0bM2Q0jn4YglhLW%2FNgajjZZmbi1NIeY4Ard4hI1QZCa4HFx2GMj2wQt62PXH01O57o4sjrxIjzIYMUqTs9rp5pq2skwUl%2F52YbCZFn%2FjwA5%2F7IHMso4%2B0haPi9vs2UftVzU3N5Y%3D&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20230627T133654Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=300&X-Amz-Credential=ASIAQ3PHCVTYY7IHVNQ3%2F20230627%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=63b61464da4f5c5275dc022bee83d070e7c9bf4e14958cf4c26e34c66ccb887b&hash=28795603cead5b06c95bfd957ffbfd00d860eaa9da74983ca98172fc86e5c693&host=68042c943591013ac2b2430a89b270f6af2c76d8dfd086a07176afe7c76c2c61&pii=S1876610217301789&tid=spdf-9338e6ed-e6fb-4b23-b31c-857732c23271&sid=f4bcd09752cc704d185b5ff5e058b7df6e1agxrqa&type=client&tsoh=d3d3LnNjaWVuY2VkaXJlY3QuY29t&ua=1015520b000750510453&rr=7dde14e11df91064&cc=us

So, you want to compare Coal to Wind? Yet you do not want to compare the construction of a coal plant to the construction of a Wind Turbine?

I never said I didn't want to. The issue is that this point of yours; that constructing wind turbines produces enormous amounts of CO2 and that, implicitly, building a coal fired power plant does not, is about as stupid as stupid can be. It is not worth a lot of effort to me. The only reason I participate is to show the audience here what a prime fool you are in hopes that you'll finally get sufficiently embarrassed to stop wasting our time with this insipid NONSENSE. But, hey, you go find a site that tells us how much CO2 is produced by building a coal-fired power plant.

There is 340,000 wind turbines today

Jeez. There ARE 341,000 wind turbines today, WORLDWIDE.

and planes to build at least as many.

It takes planes?

I will take the low number of 340,000. And I will be kind and use the higher number, of 25 years.

341,000 There are over 341,000 wind turbines on the planet: Here's how much of a difference they're actually making - Global Wind Energy Council
341,000 There are over 341,000 wind turbines on the planet: Here's how much of a difference they're actually making
400,000 The Largest Wind Farm in the World - Discovery UK

In the life of a coal plant, over a 100 years, we will have to build over 1,300,000 wind turbines, which is sustainable? Which makes more profit for the rich?

You never provided a source for your "100 years", so I went looking. I found Natural gas power plants - how they work and their efficiency.
which states that a typical lifespan for a "thermal plant" ie, one which boils water to drive a turbine, is 50 years, but that the lifespan of a natural gas plant which drives its turbines directly with the combustion products of gas and air, will only last 20. So, I reject your 100 years and will accept 50 as a theoretical lifespan. However, as stated above, no one is going to keep operating any of these fossil plants, particularly coal, because the relative costs are going through the roof. They are a waste of money.

Now, lets look at your claims of recouping the energy used? I will use last year, the biggest wind turbine farm in the North Sea. The North Sea wind farms produced zero electricity. Zero electricity for weeks.

Wind Turbines that get replaced 4 to 5 times in the life of a coal plant, are by far a waste of money and the cost is extreme. The rich get richer and the people who pay the bill, pay that bill 1,300,000 times.

From my referenced numbers, wind plants would require replacement 2.5 times during the life of a thermal plant and would match the lifespan of a natural gas plant. So, you're wrong again.

You know, if you actually looked for good sources to back up your ideas, you might figure out what's true and what's not before you post it up here for all the world to see what sort of fellow you actually are.

 

[elektra]

Because the title YOU gave this thread claims that CO2 emissions from wind turbines are the "largest new source of CO2"

Of course they do.

You have done nothing to prove otherwise.

Please do explain, how the manufacturing anything, that weighs over 2500 tons does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

Sure, you will get some website that shows some arcane study that claims that wind turbines pay back the CO2 they use. I got to wonder why that study exists? Who would of thought that there needs to be so much propaganda on the internet to sell something you claim is so wonderful.

Okay, you show how one, wind turbine pays for itself, but we are not talking about one wind turbine. We are talking about manufacturing of wind turbines, everyday, 24 hours a day, forever. Or until we run out of coal.

This really is a great way to make the rich, richer. Creating the world's largest market for the richest people in the world.

Crick, you can not explain how, the world's largest user of coal, next to coal plants, does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

 

[Crick]

You have done nothing to prove otherwise.

See post #88 in this thread fool

Please do explain, how the manufacturing anything, that weighs over 2500 tons does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

I never said anything of the kind.

Sure, you will get some website that shows some arcane study that claims that wind turbines pay back the CO2 they use.

I could get you half a dozen including several pages from the IEA and the EPA, hardly "arcane" studies. And a few pages back you made some comment about me demanding links - you said you'd saved them all but I wouldn't want to see them. Why would you go to the trouble of saving them vice simply putting them in your post? Do I have to state the first reason that will likely come to your audience's minds?

I got to wonder why that study exists? Who would of thought that there needs to be so much propaganda on the internet to sell something you claim is so wonderful.

It's not propaganda. Some of it is simply advertising and thus not completely trustworthy, but the IEA is not selling wind turbines.

Okay, you show how one, wind turbine pays for itself, but we are not talking about one wind turbine. We are talking about manufacturing of wind turbines, everyday, 24 hours a day, forever. Or until we run out of coal.

You seem like a reasonably intelligent person. How can you make such basic mistakes? Do I actually have to spell this out? If one turbine saves the fossil fuel used to make it in 5 days, two turbines will save the fossil fuel used to make THEM in... (wait for it) 5 days.

This really is a great way to make the rich, richer.

So was every Republican tax cut since Reagan. You realize that the political party with which YOU vote has been a supporter of making the rich richer for a very long time. It is the subtext of virtually every iota of their legislative platform.

Creating the world's largest market for the richest people in the world.

You've really got an obsession with this stuff. I really wish you would do us all a favor and actually look some of this stuff up.

Crick, you can not explain how, the world's largest user of coal, next to coal plants, does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

"Next to coal plants". That's a modification from all your previous claims. And if I say a wind turbine makes up for the CO2 used in its construction in 5 days, I am obviously not claiming that none is produced. This is very close to you lying once again.

You have done nothing to prove otherwise.

See post #88 in this thread you ignorant ass

Please do explain, how the manufacturing anything, that weighs over 2500 tons does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

It is not the weight that matters, it's the material. And then, of course, it is how the required energy is produced. As more wind turbines and solar panels are brought on line, the construction of these things will produce less and less CO2.

 

[elektra]

It is not the weight that matters, it's the material. And then, of course, it is how the required energy is produced. As more wind turbines and solar panels are brought on line, the construction of these things will produce less and less CO2.

For you argument, the weight cannot matter. Otherwise we must account for the world record setting amount of materials being used by Wind and Solar.

And yes, it is the materials, those 1000's of tons of material being manufactured by that dirty polluting fossil fuel industry you claim you are against, but it is okay, for inefficient wind and solar power?

Yes, of course, it is the energy required in the production, which is coal and natural gas.

And as more wind turbines and solar panels are brought online, you can not produce, manufacture the concrete, the steel, the fiberglass with electricity alone. You must use natural gas and coal.

Gee Crick, it is very easy to prove your claims false, in seconds. After you are tired of losing on this topic, we can address the rest of your opinions.

 

[elektra]

It is not the weight that matters, it's the material. And then, of course, it is how the required energy is produced. As more wind turbines and solar panels are brought on line, the construction of these things will produce less and less CO2.

Crick in complete denial. Crick never replied to my original reply so I will try again.
,
Crick, we are talking about manufacturing wind turbines by heavy industry. Just to be clear.

Crick, how can the weight of the materials not matter? Bigger and heavier takes more energy, chemicals, and raw materials, so the weight does matter. Only a person in denial, makes that statement.

And of course, it is how the energy is produced. The process takes more than 24 hours, hence you need constant energy and a large amount so that is not produced by Wind or Solar which are weak and intermittent. Some parts of the process require heat that is beyond what is created with electricity, that takes coal, coke, carbon. And all parts of the process require chemicals that only come from fossil fuels.

The funniest part of crick's stupidity is this last part;

As more wind turbines and solar panels are brought on line, the construction of these things will produce less and less CO2.

How does building more, create less CO2?

Wind turbines are built everyday, at a minimum, 22 wind turbines every day. That is over 50,000 tons of CO2 everyday, and the more you build, the larger that number becomes, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

 

[Crick]

Crick in complete denial. Crick never replied to my original reply so I will try again.
,
Crick, we are talking about manufacturing wind turbines by heavy industry. Just to be clear.

Crick, how can the weight of the materials not matter? Bigger and heavier takes more energy, chemicals, and raw materials, so the weight does matter. Only a person in denial, makes that statement.

And of course, it is how the energy is produced. The process takes more than 24 hours, hence you need constant energy and a large amount so that is not produced by Wind or Solar which are weak and intermittent. Some parts of the process require heat that is beyond what is created with electricity, that takes coal, coke, carbon. And all parts of the process require chemicals that only come from fossil fuels.

The funniest part of crick's stupidity is this last part;

How does building more, create less CO2?

Because they are replacing electrical generation systems that emit CO2

Wind turbines are built everyday, at a minimum, 22 wind turbines every day. That is over 50,000 tons of CO2 everyday, and the more you build, the larger that number becomes, the more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

You are ignoring the 19+ years when those turbines will operate in lieu of coal or natural gas fired plants.

 

[elektra]

Because they are replacing electrical generation systems that emit CO2

You are ignoring the 19+ years when those turbines will operate in lieu of coal or natural gas fired plants.

they are not replace anything, they dont work most nights, they work less in winter and summer, they are intermittent.

California, has imported coal made electricity ever since they began installing wind turbines.

After 40 years california is still installing wind turbines, which can not supply enough power to pump the water needed in the state let alone run any industry.

You are completely ignorant to how weak, intermittent, and inefficient wind turbines are.

 

[elektra]

Crick claims this replaces coal power

 

[elektra]

Because they are replacing electrical generation systems that emit CO2

You are ignoring the 19+ years when those turbines will operate in lieu of coal or natural gas fired plants.

We are building more natural gas fired plants every day, you are wrong, wind turbines have not replaced fossil fuels.

Crick is ignoring all the posts in reply to crick I have made.

Crick is trolling me in another thread of his that is as stale as week old bread, ignoring facts

 

[Crick]

Crick claims this replaces coal power

Elektra is claiming that these

aren't producing any electrical energy.

I'm having trouble keeping you and poster ding separate. You've got so many remarkable similarities.

 

[Crick]

We are building more natural gas fired plants every day, you are wrong, wind turbines have not replaced fossil fuels.

New utility-scale solar capacity – that is, not including rooftop solar – was 9,924 megawatts (MW), or 39.6% of the total. New wind capacity provided 8,512 MW, or 33.9% of the total. Solar and wind each comfortably surpassed the 6,469 MW of new natural gas capacity (25.8%).​

Renewables supplied nearly 75% of new US electrical generating capacity in 2022

Renewable energy provided 74.1% of new utility-scale generating capacity in the US last year, according to new FERC data.

electrek.co

​

 

[elektra]

Elektra is claiming that these

aren't producing any electrical energy.

I'm having trouble keeping you and poster ding separate. You've got so many remarkable similarities.

crick, how many tons of co2 were emitted manufacturing these, how may square miles land is destroyed here

This is Crick's plan, this is what crick supports

tell us, crick, how much electricity will this produce tonight. I say almost zero, wind does not blow often, at night in the summer.


Those there in the ocean, destroyed habitat for whales and schools of Tuna

Those in the desert destroyed habitat for turtles

it is a sick fuck that destroys the world and gloats over it

 

[Crick]

crick, how many tons of co2 were emitted manufacturing these [the wind turbines in the 5 photographs I posted]

That is another of your really stupid questions. If you were a normal person, I would have gotten some clue that you intended the question rhetorically. But you're not. However, just to create some semblance of an actual conversation, I fully admit that, at present, the construction of the random, unknown windmills pictured, did involve the production of CO2. I have never denied that it did. I have included the CO2 produced during construction in all the multiple presentations I've put up for you here showing that the amount produced was a tiny, tiny fraction of what would have been produced if the electricity they generated had had to be created by the combustion of fossil fuels.

how may square miles land is destroyed here

You don't really want to go there do you? I'd estimate it to be approximately 7.85/thousandsths of the amount you think was used. And I'm curious in what sense you believe the land was "destroyed". Is the land under a natural gas plant "destroyed"? How about the land occupied by oil refineries? Pipelines? Port facilities? How about the CO2 emitted by the construction of oil tankers (one of the many things on Earth bigger than a wind turbine).

This is Crick's plan, this is what crick supports

I don't actually have the fixation on wind turbines that you have. I'm happy with solar EV as well: not so visible and no moving parts. Hydroelectricity is good when the water body created doesn't flood something we'd rather not see flooded. Tidal power is good. Wave power is good. OTEC would be good. What I am really looking forward to is fusion power. As I have stated before, THAT will be the end of the use of CO2-emitting technologies to generate electricity.

tell us, crick, how much electricity will this produce tonight. I say almost zero, wind does not blow often, at night in the summer.

Then, obviously, you'd once again be wrong.

Those there in the ocean, destroyed habitat for whales and schools of Tuna

Whales and tuna? How the fuck are they doing that? They might be destroying habitat for polychaetes but, again, at about 7.85/thousandsths the rate you claim.

Those in the desert destroyed habitat for turtles

And cacti and spiders and lizards and snakes. But, once more, at about 7.85/thousandsths the rate you claim.

it is a sick fuck that destroys the world and gloats over it

It's a sick fuck that chooses to be more ignorant than they have to be and to the point where they can no longer see what's in the best interest of their own species.

 

[elektra]

It's a sick fuck that chooses to be more ignorant than they have to be and to the point where they can no longer see what's in the best interest of their own species.

It is in our best interest to not know when we will have electricity from inefficient wind turbines? Okay, explain how that is in our best interest.

 

[elektra]

It's a sick fuck that chooses to be more ignorant than they have to be and to the point where they can no longer see what's in the best interest of their own species.

How is a 100,000 times more of this, in our best interest? (I am using the pic crick posted)

 

[Crick]

How is a 100,000 times more of this, in our best interest? (I am using the pic crick posted)

That would be 100,000 times more energy with no CO2 emissions.

How is this in our best interests?

or this

or this

 

[elektra]

That would be 100,000 times more energy with no CO2 emissions.

How is this in our best interests?

View attachment 807828


or this

or this

wrong again, that would be million times less, a billion times less electricity for a trillion times the price.

the price is so high because of the amount of raw materials processed by fossil fuels to make the wind turbines and solar panels

and last but not least, it is like saying, "we can eat raw sewage because there is some nutritional value, and it is free, being thrown away"

Comparing solar and wind to anything, is like pretending wind and solar work.