Every green initiative has been a disaster

Rune said:
LMFAO @TOM
Golf courses don't waste water.
Most of it returns to the aquifer.
Click to expand...
Correct. He can make an argument about runoff of fertilizer solution, which does have negative affects on nearby rivers/lakes/streams, but that was a lame comparison on his part.
 
iewitness said:
keep up the good work, mr. tom. somebody must continually fight against the fraud/ antichrist religion/ political tool which is gw/ cc; you are an important voice against the evil and delusional intents of the establishment/ globalist damned of earth. when the judgments upon earth begin there will be no more voice of reason and the damned will deny their judgment and are forever damned to unending torment. it is important. there may be a special crown for your service which you will be glad to cast at the feet of Jesus because he has given you eyes to see and ears to discern good from evil. congratulations.
Click to expand...
If God didn't want us to use alternative energy sources,why did he make the sun?
 
Milagro said:
I posted this before but it obviously needs to be seen again. There are many here that need to be confronted with reality especially the economics of wind and solar power.


"Four bottom lines up front:

It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the area of Indiana.

Or:It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia.

Or: We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles.

Or: We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel."


http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
What are the costs you cited actually for? Construction of solar/wind sites, and transmission lines?
 
Althea said:
Correct. He can make an argument about runoff of fertilizer solution, which does have negative affects on nearby rivers/lakes/streams, but that was a lame comparison on his part.
Click to expand...
You might want to read this before you go any further!!

http://www.theenergycollective.com/...ow-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume
Althea said:
If God didn't want us to use alternative energy sources,why did he make the sun?
Click to expand...
That's a pretty fatuous argument, you could say the same about Islam, oil and gas.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Milagro said:
You might want to read this before you go any further!!

http://www.theenergycollective.com/...ow-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
You might want to read other unbiased sources. Assume consumption is only half of the issue, which is why I addressed both consumption, and disposal.

If they dump the toxic water in deep wells, as the article notes, what does that do to the water table? Because that water is contaminated, and no longer 'usable' as water for golf courses and agriculture is.
If, as you did previously, want to address the treatment of fracking fluid, you should offer citations for the methods used, their cost, and their efficacy. Then add that to the cost of nat gas use when comparing to wind/solar.
 
Milagro said:
I imagine the total cost, wouldn't you?

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
We can imagine whatever we want, which is evident in most of your links.

So once wind/solar is up and running, what other costs are there for fuel in order to produce electricity? Compare that with your favored methods.
 
Althea said:
You might want to read other unbiased sources. Assume consumption is only half of the issue, which is why I addressed both consumption, and disposal.

If they dump the toxic water in deep wells, as the article notes, what does that do to the water table? Because that water is contaminated, and no longer 'usable' as water for golf courses and agriculture is.
If, as you did previously, want to address the treatment of fracking fluid, you should offer citations for the methods used, their cost, and their efficacy. Then add that to the cost of nat gas use when comparing to wind/solar.
Click to expand...
I take you to be an intelligent person but I sometimes wonder!! It would do absolutely nothing as the water would be thousands of feet below the water table. Surely you must know that already? It does beggars belief sometimes just how naive and ill informed people are about fracking.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
We can imagine whatever we want, which is evident in most of your links.

So once wind/solar is up and running, what other costs are there for fuel in order to produce electricity? Compare that with your favored methods.
Click to expand...

Oh ok so you think they just run without maintenance then!! Anyway are you saying that those figures are true or are saying you don't care? Before you fully retreat to your world of fluffy bunnies and unicorns maybe the Ontarian experience might hit home?

http://www.financialpost.com/m/wp/f.../fp-comment/hot-air-from-the-wind-power-lobby
Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Last edited:
Althea said:
We can imagine whatever we want, which is evident in most of your links.

So once wind/solar is up and running, what other costs are there for fuel in order to produce electricity? Compare that with your favored methods.
Click to expand...
Yes and you do most of the time.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
 
Cypress said:
Your link:

"CO2 is Life
The Definitive Source for Exposing the Global Warming Hoax"

Backtracking to claiming global warming is a vast hoax, perpetrated by a global conspiracy of scientists intent on fooling the public, policy makers, and hogging grant money?

You are a joke.

A link to an obscure blog that makes the case the global warming is a hoax is par for the course for you.

This is why I can not trust you to discuss science honestly. You never actually read or present links to mainstream science sources, with trained experts in climate science who conduct original peer reviewed research. I have attempted to direct you to mainstream scientific literature, but you cling like grim death to your obscure denier blogs.

You are emotionally invested in climate science denial. Not sure what your motivation is. But I think it has something to do with ego, with the fact that you would rather see harm come to your grandchildren, than admit you were wrong about global warming to anonymous internet posters you will never meet.

I guess you get something emotionally out of being a denier; a proponent of fossil fuels, and blathering on endlessly about a topic you have no expertise or training in. Sounds like a shitty gig to me, but it must float your boat!
Click to expand...

This. ^^^. He also tries some sleight of hand fallacious bullying technics, for example the laughable " you should believe what I say because I am smart as proven by my having convinced some even smarter guy once to my way of thinking about this." I almost laughed my spleen out with that shit.
 
Milagro said:
I take you to be an intelligent person but I sometimes wonder!! It would do absolutely nothing as the water would be thousands of feet below the water table. Surely you must know that already? It does beggars belief sometimes just how naive and ill informed people are about fracking.

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...
What about produced water Tom?
Let's see an actual answer to a simple direct question if you can.
 
Milagro said:
I posted this before but it obviously needs to be seen again. There are many here that need to be confronted with reality especially the economics of wind and solar power.


"Four bottom lines up front:

It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the area of Indiana.

Or:It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia.

Or: We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles.

Or: We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel."


http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear-energy-vs-wind-and-solar/

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...

Our baseload needs are already met.
Nuclear is 20% and hydro is 6%.

You are just throwing shit at a wall now, like a monkey
 
Milagro said:
You might want to read this before you go any further!!

http://www.theenergycollective.com/...ow-much-water-does-fracking-shale-gas-consume

Sent from my iPhone 10S
Click to expand...

Listen fucktard; there is no "consumption" of water.
All of the uses listed return clean or treated water to the aquifers.

This is however, contamination of water.
Water used for fracking is lost to us forever.
Even if we could recover it, (which we can't) it would be poison.

Now let's talk about the dirty secret of "produced water", the contaminated water that comes out of the well once gas production starts.
What happens to that water, in your own words, not a nebulous linl please.
Bear in mind produced water is in the order of 1.25 million gallons per frack.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top