Gone with the wind: England’s most important coastline

PostmodernProphet said:
everyone knows what the cliffs of Dover look like.....but do you know what the ocean looks like from the cliffs of Dover?

251a.jpg
Click to expand...

That's a very beautiful view, why would anyone want to ruin it?
 
it obviously an ocean.....and it looks like every other view of an ocean, regardless of what's over the horizon......so if you don't like the view of windtowers eight miles away, go look at the view of the ocean five miles further away......it will look exactly the same as the picture above.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it obviously an ocean.....and it looks like every other view of an ocean, regardless of what's over the horizon......so if you don't like the view of windtowers eight miles away, go look at the view of the ocean five miles further away......it will look exactly the same as the picture above.......
Click to expand...

You must live in a cave. If you think you can't see 8 or 13 miles distance over water, you really haven't been out much.

So what is it about this antique form of inneficient power generation you seem so enamoured with?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it obviously an ocean.....and it looks like every other view of an ocean, regardless of what's over the horizon......so if you don't like the view of windtowers eight miles away, go look at the view of the ocean five miles further away......it will look exactly the same as the picture above.......
Click to expand...

I also don't like that they are incredibly inefficient, expensive and hazardous to migrating birds.
 
Abraxas said:
Is that your argument, who said otherwise? As has been pointed out to you previously, wind does not add a single watt of extra power it only supplants existing power generation capacity and still needs it as a reliable backup. It is a simple enough concept but one that seemingly escapes you. It doesn't save oil because that is not used for power generation except in places like Hawaii.
Click to expand...


How much existing power generation capacity can Nuclear Fusion supplant?
 
Truth Detector said:
You must live in a cave. If you think you can't see 8 or 13 miles distance over water, you really haven't been out much.

So what is it about this antique form of inneficient power generation you seem so enamoured with?
Click to expand...

/shrugs.....I live three miles from Lake Michigan.....I know very well what you can see from a boat that is 9.1 miles off shore.....which basically is nothing but water......granted, height above water is going to change that somewhat, but as the picture of the Danish windfarm shows, its hardly obtrusive or ugly.....and, if a handful of windtowers over on your left bother you that much, look over on the right, where you won't see them......

I wouldn't go so far as to say enamored, but I do think windfarms are cool.....when I go back to Iowa I go out of my way to drive through a wind farm....they give me a sense of "that's the way its intended"......even if they were less efficient (which I do not believe to be true), at least its energy we didn't ship here from somewhere like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or somewhere else that wishes us no good.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....I live three miles from Lake Michigan.....I know very well what you can see from a boat that is 9.1 miles off shore.....which basically is nothing but water......granted, height above water is going to change that somewhat, but as the picture of the Danish windfarm shows, its hardly obtrusive or ugly.....and, if a handful of windtowers over on your left bother you that much, look over on the right, where you won't see them......

I wouldn't go so far as to say enamored, but I do think windfarms are cool.....when I go back to Iowa I go out of my way to drive through a wind farm....they give me a sense of "that's the way its intended"......even if they were less efficient (which I do not believe to be true), at least its energy we didn't ship here from somewhere like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or somewhere else that wishes us no good.....
Click to expand...

So you are happy about the extremely polluting and energy intensive extraction techniques used for neodymium in China? Those wind turbines would be screwed, pun intended, without it and China has a near monopoly of rare earths. Yes of course you are because you can't see it so who cares?? So long as you get a warm fuzzy feeling when passing them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...er-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
/shrugs.....I live three miles from Lake Michigan.....I know very well what you can see from a boat that is 9.1 miles off shore.....which basically is nothing but water......granted, height above water is going to change that somewhat, but as the picture of the Danish windfarm shows, its hardly obtrusive or ugly.....and, if a handful of windtowers over on your left bother you that much, look over on the right, where you won't see them......

I wouldn't go so far as to say enamored, but I do think windfarms are cool.....when I go back to Iowa I go out of my way to drive through a wind farm....they give me a sense of "that's the way its intended"......even if they were less efficient (which I do not believe to be true), at least its energy we didn't ship here from somewhere like Venezuela or Saudi Arabia or somewhere else that wishes us no good.....
Click to expand...

I do the same thing here whenever I travel through West Texas.

They can stretch for miles along the tops of buttes. I was driving west, just west of of Amarillo one night, came over a hill and off in the distance to the right of the highway, I spot this ENORMOUS field of blinking red lights, they went on for MILES, but I couldn't tell what they were. On the way back through I discovered it was this massive windfarm.
 
It gets boring trying to drill any sense into these people, they are just impervious to reason and logic. Here are twenty reasons why wind turbines are bad, I think it covers all the angles.

Trying to pin down the arguments of wind promoters is a bit like trying to grab a greased balloon. Just when you think you’ve got a handle, it morphs into a different shape and escapes your grasp. Let’s take a quick highlight review of how things have evolved with wind merchandising.
Click to expand...

Twenty Bad Things About Wind Energy, and Three Reasons Why
See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/10/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/#sthash.H2gUa0Av.dpuf
 
Abraxas said:
It gets boring trying to drill any sense into these people, they are just impervious to reason and logic. Here are twenty reasons why wind turbines are bad, I think it covers all the angles.



Twenty Bad Things About Wind Energy, and Three Reasons Why
See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/10/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/#sthash.H2gUa0Av.dpuf
Click to expand...


WOW...got exactly ONE reason in and came across this:

1 – Wind energy was abandoned well over a hundred years ago, as even in the late 1800s it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning, more modern needs for power. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on – 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to EVER do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the dust bin of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate energy sources as horse and oxen power).

NOBODY is talking about using wind power BY ITSELF to power our lights.

NEXT...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
WOW...got exactly ONE reason in and came across this:

1 – Wind energy was abandoned well over a hundred years ago, as even in the late 1800s it was totally inconsistent with our burgeoning, more modern needs for power. When we throw the switch, we expect that the lights will go on – 100% of the time. It’s not possible for wind energy, by itself, to EVER do this, which is one of the main reasons it was relegated to the dust bin of antiquated technologies (along with such other inadequate energy sources as horse and oxen power).

NOBODY is talking about using wind power BY ITSELF to power our lights.

NEXT...
Click to expand...

I doubt you even got as far as two and three, you just went orgasmic at finding that 'gotcha'. Yet you are the one that is always railing about the lack of serious debate on here. Care to tackle the vexing problem of how this 'green energy source is causing catastrophic pollution in China? Pretty funny really when you get scientifically illiterates moaning about fracking!!

18 – The claim that wind energy is “green” or “environmentally friendly” is laugh-out-loud hilarious – except for the fact that the reality is not funny at all. Consider just one part of a turbine, the generator, which uses considerable rare earth elements (2000± pounds per MW).
The mining and processing of these metals has horrific environmental consequences that are unacknowledged and ignored by the wind industry and its environmental surrogates. For instance, just the rare earths of a typical 100 MW wind project would generate approximately:

a) 20,000 square meters of destroyed vegetation,
b) 1.2 million pounds of CO2,
c) 6 million cubic meters of toxic air pollution,
d) 29 million gallons of poisoned water,
e) 600 million pounds of highly contaminated tailing sands, and
f) 280,000 pounds of radioactive waste. (See this, and this, and this.)
.
​
- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/10/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/#sthash.H2gUa0Av.dpuf
 
Last edited:
Abraxas said:
I doubt you even got as far as two and three, you just went orgasmic at finding that 'gotcha'. Yet you are the one that is always railing about the lack of serious debate on here. Care to tackle the vexing problem of how this 'green energy source is causing catastrophic pollution in China?

18 – The claim that wind energy is “green” or “environmentally friendly” is laugh-out-loud hilarious – except for the fact that the reality is not funny at all. Consider just one part of a turbine, the generator, which uses considerable rare earth elements (2000± pounds per MW).
The mining and processing of these metals has horrific environmental consequences that are unacknowledged and ignored by the wind industry and its environmental surrogates. For instance, just the rare earths of a typical 100 MW wind project would generate approximately:

a) 20,000 square meters of destroyed vegetation,
b) 1.2 million pounds of CO2,
c) 6 million cubic meters of toxic air pollution,
d) 29 million gallons of poisoned water,
e) 600 million pounds of highly contaminated tailing sands, and
f) 280,000 pounds of radioactive waste. (See this, and this, and this.)
.
​
- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/10/20-bad-things-wind-3-reasons-why/#sthash.H2gUa0Av.dpuf
Click to expand...


You're right...I didn't get to 2 or 3 because when the first "fact" you linked me to right out of the gate is based on a FALSE premise, then the rest is a waste of time.

And if this "master resource" website can't get the very first "fact" right in their little list, then why should I believe anything else they try to foist on me?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
You're right...I didn't get to 2 or 3 because when the first "fact" you linked me to right out of the gate is based on a FALSE premise, then the rest is a waste of time.

And if this "master resource" website can't get the very first "fact" right in their little list, then why should I believe anything else they try to foist on me?
Click to expand...

Yes of course I am right, you are incapable of understanding the issues preferring instead to come out with some bullshit excuse instead. I will not waste any more time with you, debate is a foreign concept to you. :palm:
 
Abraxas said:
Yes of course I am right, you are incapable of understanding the issues preferring instead to come out with some bullshit excuse instead. I will not waste any more time with you, debate is a foreign concept to you. :palm:
Click to expand...


Then I must conclude that honesty is a foreign concept to you.

You don't say word one about the INACCURACY of the info at the link you provided, but deride me for not accepting the false premise from which the claim was derived.

You then use this as an excuse to stamp your feet and run away.
 
The French are rather enamored with it, and believe it can pretty much fuel their energy demands, outside of cars and appliances.
 
Joseph Plunkett said:
The French are rather enamored with it, and believe it can pretty much fuel their energy demands, outside of cars and appliances.
Click to expand...


And I have no doubt that one day it will prove to be an amazing source of clean energy.

But the fact remains that right now...TODAY...it isn't providing even a SINGLE WATT of energy.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Apparently debate is a foreign concept to you also.

I've asked you the above question three different times and you've yet to answer it.
Click to expand...

I assumed it to be a rhetorical question and treated it as such, however it is noted that your debating technique consists mostly of evasion and obfuscation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top