Don Trump-Quixote

originally posted by: TinfoilTophat
Let's just give up on a new technology because it's too hard to figure out and too expensive.

If that's the mentality you want to have when it comes to embracing new technology then go back to incandescent and flourescent light bulbs.

In 1962, LED's were too expensive and they couldn't figure out how to make them show blue light.

After many years of refining, LED'S are affordable and save you money and electricity.

Also look at TPTB.
Most of their money and power comes from old money like oil. That old money then elects corrupt politicians in office to continue business as usual.

Calling new technology a scam is like calling the gym a scam after going for only a week.

With that being said, wave technology would better suit offshore endeavors over wind technology.

So basically you are approving of the government shoveling money into these projects and getting rich for their insider trading! If the amount of energy that the windmills produces was compared to say gas mileage a car is required to achieve you would be shocked. They are not efficient at all, they can not be allowed to turn beyond a certain speed. The reason is more lubricant to keep it turning cleanly. So they are not preforming optimally.

a reply to: TinfoilTophat

What about the hundreds of people that were killed by LED traffic lights?

The incandescent bulbs kept the housings warm to melt the snow off them. The LEDs did not. Lots of traffic accidents before they started installing heaters in the new traffic lights.

Now they are much safer with electric heaters. Oh, but what did that do to the energy efficiency? The farther north they are, the more electricity they take to heat them.

a reply to: Degradation33

Building Windmills on the Jersey Coast is an Insane Idea . It Only takes One Fairly Sized Noresaster Storm to Crash them All to the Ground .

a reply to: Degradation33

In the USA, from January through December 2023, 425.2 terawatt-hours were generated by wind power. According to the LCOE report 2023, this cost about $21,260,000.00

Producing the same by burning oil would require 250,117,647 barrels of oil. This according to the 2023 Crude Oil Spot Price average would cost about $22,012,854,112.47 (crude was expensive in 2023).

(The costings of these were just pulled off online sources I could find at the top of a search).

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

In the USA, from January through December 2023, 425.2 terawatt-hours were generated by wind power. According to the LCOE report 2023, this cost about $21,260,000.00

Producing the same by burning oil would require 250,117,647 barrels of oil. This according to the 2023 Crude Oil Spot Price average would cost about $22,012,854,112.47 (crude was expensive in 2023).

(The costings of these were just pulled off online sources I could find at the top of a search).

Here in the U.S. We Generate Electricity with " Coal " , not Oil .

a reply to: hangedman13

Well..Ill say...they look awful along the blue waters of the Det River and Lake Erie. Standing like those Imperial Walkers from Star Wars.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

In the USA, from January through December 2023, 425.2 terawatt-hours were generated by wind power. According to the LCOE report 2023, this cost about $21,260,000.00

Producing the same by burning oil would require 250,117,647 barrels of oil. This according to the 2023 Crude Oil Spot Price average would cost about $22,012,854,112.47 (crude was expensive in 2023).

(The costings of these were just pulled off online sources I could find at the top of a search).

Here in the U.S. We Generate Electricity with " Coal " , not Oil .

So coal is a bit cheaper than oil, but more polluting, and still way more expensive than wind, and its a non-renewable!

The point is that wind and tidal energy is occurring if you capture it, or not. It's cleaner and relatively cheap in direct one-for-one energy/cost comparison, though, than fossil fuels.

a reply to: chr0naut

" but more polluting "

Ever hear about " Clean Coal " ? .......Yawn

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

" but more polluting "

Ever hear about " Clean Coal " ? .......Yawn

Yeah low carbon, carbon.

How to greenwash the dirtiest industry on the planet.

The 7 Biggest Polluters by Industry in 2022, as Ranked in New Research

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Degradation33

In the USA, from January through December 2023, 425.2 terawatt-hours were generated by wind power. According to the LCOE report 2023, this cost about $21,260,000.00

Producing the same by burning oil would require 250,117,647 barrels of oil. This according to the 2023 Crude Oil Spot Price average would cost about $22,012,854,112.47 (crude was expensive in 2023).

(The costings of these were just pulled off online sources I could find at the top of a search).

Here in the U.S. We Generate Electricity with " Coal " , not Oil .

Natural gas is the main fuel for generating electricity.


www.publicpower.org...

www.eia.gov...

a reply to: chr0naut

I am Convinced you are Not as " Learned " as you Think . I Caught you a Few Times Over Time here on ATS just Talkin' Smack when Confronted with FACTS .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

I am Convinced you are Not as " Learned " as you Think . I Caught you a Few Times Over Time here on ATS just Talkin' Smack when Confronted with FACTS .

So, I can't possibly be right in this particular instance, because I may have been mistaken in the past?

I'll admit I'm not perfect, but also have you considered that I may actually have been correct in those particular instances where our opinions differ, and that you have been the one who was wrong?

I think I can state fairly definitely that "clean coal" is purely a marketing term because you can't 'decarbonize' something that is almost pure carbon. You burn it (oxidise it) and oxygen atoms bond to carbon atoms, making either Carbon Dioxide or Carbon Monoxide.

a reply to: chr0naut

" I'll admit I'm not perfect, but also have you considered that I may actually have been correct in those particular instances where our opinions differ, and that you have been the one who was wrong? "

Ah............No .

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

" I'll admit I'm not perfect, but also have you considered that I may actually have been correct in those particular instances where our opinions differ, and that you have been the one who was wrong? "

Ah............No .

Well, you seem to believe that there is "clean coal".

LOL

a reply to: chr0naut

And No , that's Not an Oxi Moron like " Green Energy " Created by " Dirty " Fuels........

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

And No , that's Not an Oxi Moron like " Green Energy " Created by " Dirty " Fuels........

No mass energy system is without environmental consequence. None.

However, different technologies have varying degrees of environmental impact. Some are intrinsically less environmentally damaging than others.

originally posted by: Boomer1947

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: FlyersFan

They also have a very large "carbon footprint" to manufacture, transport, and maintain.

.....

No they don't. The manufacture, transport, and maintenance of a wind turbine, per ton, is in line with any other heavy industry product (natural gas power station, pipeline, steel mill, etc.), and they all currently consume some fossil fuel. The difference with renewable sources like wind, solar, and hydro is that they consume no fossil fuel when they are actually providing the energy that shows up on the grid. Fossil fuel plants emit greenhouse gases every second they are operating. Most wind turbines pay back the amount of fossil fuels consumed in their production by savings during operation in less than a year of operation and most of them are designed to last 25 years. The amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by a wind turbine over its lifetime is only 1 to 2 % of the amount released by a fossil fuel plant producing the same amount of energy.

Besides, why would you care about the carbon footprint of any power generating plant? Are you implicitly admitting that fossil fuel CO2 is causing climate change?

Wow!! That was one the lowest IQ explanation of carbon footprints and green energy I have ever read...almost as bad as AOC.

I know you are old but seriously stop drinking the cold aid. Do some real research and understand the fallacies of your way..or dont...because you probably have better things to do with the small amount of time you have left.

It's ok...we will "humor" you... is this Robert Deniro?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

" I'll admit I'm not perfect, but also have you considered that I may actually have been correct in those particular instances where our opinions differ, and that you have been the one who was wrong? "

Ah............No .

Well, you seem to believe that there is "clean coal".

LOL

Read it and Weep ..............


Fact Sheet: Clean Coal Technology Ushers In New Era in Energy

www.energy.gov...

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: chr0naut

" I'll admit I'm not perfect, but also have you considered that I may actually have been correct in those particular instances where our opinions differ, and that you have been the one who was wrong? "

Ah............No .

Well, you seem to believe that there is "clean coal".

LOL

Read it and Weep ..............

Fact Sheet: Clean Coal Technology Ushers In New Era in Energy

www.energy.gov...

The new plant might remove a lot of sulphates, nitrates and heavy metals, but it's still made of carbon and produces CO2 and CO when burned. And they might capture 90% of the carbon, but they will actually burn more than 10 times as much as they have in the past so emissions will increase.

But what is this new technology that turns ordinary coal into clean coal?

Tax credits. Yup, Tax credits!

Read it.

a reply to: chr0naut

The American People in Nov. 2024 Will have to Decide in which Direction this Great Nation should Head . Who in Your Own Personal Opinion should they Choose ? One Could Lead to National Destruction , the Other a Possible Prosperity Our Founding Fathers Envisioned for America in the Far Future . Choose Mr. Foreign National .........)