Climate Change

[SumJongGuy]

Just don’t hang around wind farms during ice storms.

LOL We lost all electricity for 10 days during/after a really bad ice storm. You think the wind turbines are loud? How about gas/propane generators? That's LOUD! And, I'll take either over no electricity for ten days.

[old goat]

LOL We lost all electricity for 10 days during/after a really bad ice storm. You think the wind turbines are loud? How about gas/propane generators? That's LOUD! And, I'll take either over no electricity for ten days.

My kid got married up in the woods in Norcal. We stayed in a cabin at the wedding venue boasting of solar and batteries, which it had, except that during the day, when it was expected the occupants would be off doing fun things, the generator was going to charge the batteries.

[xyz]

Reminds me of that dude driving a Tesla with generator tied to the back.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[AirheadD8]

LOL We lost all electricity for 10 days during/after a really bad ice storm. You think the wind turbines are loud? How about gas/propane generators? That's LOUD! And, I'll take either over no electricity for ten days.

Beware if you live near a wind turbines. Ice sheets can travel 1700’ when they come off.

[AirheadD8]

Why would birds evolve losing their ability to fly? The birds seem to be do really well, I’ve seen more birds and more variety of birds than I ever have in my 55 years.

That last paragraph is a head scratcher in regards to wind machines Don Quixote


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Facetious comment about the ones that fly being killed. Ones that walk surviving.

Last paragraph . I don’t hold out much hope for the human race.

[SumJongGuy]

Beware if you live near a wind turbines. Ice sheets can travel 1700’ when they come off.

I live in a flight path. Blue ice is more of a risk than that.. for you as well..

[raisingarizona13]

The only solution is to knock down about 80% (I'm totally making this percentage up, I have no idea what the number should actually be) of the worlds population and then curtail births from there on out. This current human population is not sustainable, bottom line.

Embrace the next pandemic my friends.

[AirheadD8]

The only solution is to knock down about 80% (I'm totally making this percentage up, I have no idea what the number should actually be) of the worlds population and then curtail births from there on out. This current human population is not sustainable, bottom line.

Embrace the next pandemic my friends.

That’s what Covid was for but government always screws up somehow. Hawaii, New Orleans ….

[SumJongGuy]

Eat the rich..

[Mofro261]

The only solution is to knock down about 80% (I'm totally making this percentage up, I have no idea what the number should actually be) of the worlds population and then curtail births from there on out. This current human population is not sustainable, bottom line.

Embrace the next pandemic my friends.

Most population science predicts peak humanity between 2050-2070, then a fairly rapid decline.

It'd be sooner but... here comes Africa.

Side note- most of the really nasty diseases originate in Africa so they've got that going for them.

But seriously, 40 yrs ago I was hoping nuclear winter might help us out, and I've been dreaming up some good combo of high virulence and high transmission for the last 20 until those assholes shut down gain of function research.

In the meantime, we just need to outlaw all buildings, windows, and cats, as they kill >1000x more birds than wind turbines.

[WMD]

Fantasy and ideological thinking are why emissions keep climbing.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Continued burning of fossil fuels may have something to do with it too. Lol.

[WMD]

It’s an improvement,just by one metric. But there are significant downsides when it’s hyped as a panacea.

My general point on wind and solar is their full story is suppressed and ultimately not a real solution. They are inefficient, unreliable and have massive footprints.

The only way out of this is nuclear power. It’s clean, reliable base load power. It has its issues too but it’s the best option.

Every dollar the world waste on virtue signal wind and solar projects is a dollar we could have spent on the real solution, nuclear. Look at Germany, they f’d up so hard by shutting down nukes in favour of wind and solar.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Wow, so much wrong here.

Why is efficiency an important metric for wind turbines? What fuel is being wasted when wind is not converted to electricity? What waste byproduct (pollution) is created when wind isn't converted to electricity?

Efficiency does matter when you are burning fuels for electricity, or using uranium. So efficiency matters for fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Yes, when renewables get more efficient we'll need fewer of them, but there is no cost to "wasted" wind or sun.

Nuclear is expensive and slow to build. In the amount of time and money it takes to build one nuke plant we could build a lot of low cost wind and solar - even batteries. Land footprint of nuclear is actually much larger than just the power plant as there are secure perimeters around a site that are off limits to other uses and there and fuel supply chain land needs too. Nuclear also can't meet our peak power needs as it is difficult to ramp up and down quickly , so it is good for base load put not peaking. Batteries are great for peak power needs.

Wind gets mentioned as using lots of land, and it is true wind farms take up a lot of area. But the unusable land of a wind farm is minuscule, mostly just the tower bases. The rest of the land can still be used for whatever. In the west many fields use circular irrigation, leaving 4 corners unused. Those are ideal places to put wind turbines without affecting anything other than the farmer's pocketbook as lease payments could dramatically increase their incomes.

[up an down]

Wow, so much wrong here.

Why is efficiency an important metric for wind turbines? What fuel is being wasted when wind is not converted to electricity? What waste byproduct (pollution) is created when wind isn't converted to electricity?

Efficiency does matter when you are burning fuels for electricity, or using uranium. So efficiency matters for fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Yes, when renewables get more efficient we'll need fewer of them, but there is no cost to "wasted" wind or sun.

Nuclear is expensive and slow to build. In the amount of time and money it takes to build one nuke plant we could build a lot of low cost wind and solar - even batteries. Land footprint of nuclear is actually much larger than just the power plant as there are secure perimeters around a site that are off limits to other uses and there and fuel supply chain land needs too. Nuclear also can't meet our peak power needs as it is difficult to ramp up and down quickly , so it is good for base load put not peaking. Batteries are great for peak power needs.

Wind gets mentioned as using lots of land, and it is true wind farms take up a lot of area. But the unusable land of a wind farm is minuscule, mostly just the tower bases. The rest of the land can still be used for whatever. In the west many fields use circular irrigation, leaving 4 corners unused. Those are ideal places to put wind turbines without affecting anything other than the farmer's pocketbook as lease payments could dramatically increase their incomes.

Good info.. I used to farm..and many wind farms, and a few solar farms...have been built in Northern Illinois where I live.... Some cons but many more pros to those power sources... And one of my brothers and a close friend have worked at a nuke plant for 30 years.. Good sources of reality about some of the pros and cons of nuke power.. A needed source of power, but there are so many expenses to building and maintaining those plants.. And the mining of uranium and the disposal of radioactive debris is a decades long shit show...

[The AD]

And the mining of uranium and the disposal of radioactive debris is a decades long shit show...

This. Not to say nuclear power isn't part of the solution, but we really need to increase reliance on power sources that are non-extractive, too.

[old goat]

Wow, so much wrong here.

Why is efficiency an important metric for wind turbines? What fuel is being wasted when wind is not converted to electricity? What waste byproduct (pollution) is created when wind isn't converted to electricity?

Efficiency does matter when you are burning fuels for electricity, or using uranium. So efficiency matters for fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Yes, when renewables get more efficient we'll need fewer of them, but there is no cost to "wasted" wind or sun.

Nuclear is expensive and slow to build. In the amount of time and money it takes to build one nuke plant we could build a lot of low cost wind and solar - even batteries. Land footprint of nuclear is actually much larger than just the power plant as there are secure perimeters around a site that are off limits to other uses and there and fuel supply chain land needs too. Nuclear also can't meet our peak power needs as it is difficult to ramp up and down quickly , so it is good for base load put not peaking. Batteries are great for peak power needs.

Wind gets mentioned as using lots of land, and it is true wind farms take up a lot of area. But the unusable land of a wind farm is minuscule, mostly just the tower bases. The rest of the land can still be used for whatever. In the west many fields use circular irrigation, leaving 4 corners unused. Those are ideal places to put wind turbines without affecting anything other than the farmer's pocketbook as lease payments could dramatically increase their incomes.

You are wrong. If wind power isn't efficient we will have to build so many turbines that eventually we will stop the wind. Since wind is what makes weather, that will stop the weather. And then we will really be fucked.

[skaredshtles]

You are wrong. If wind power isn't efficient we will have to build so many turbines that eventually we will stop the wind. Since wind is what makes weather, that will stop the weather. And then we will really be fucked.

Can you imagine the effect on Wyoming??

[xyz]

You are wrong. If wind power isn't efficient we will have to build so many turbines that eventually we will stop the wind. Since wind is what makes weather, that will stop the weather. And then we will really be fucked.

Good point. A wind farm for all backcountry areas. No wind slab!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[BCMtnHound]

Can you imagine the effect on Wyoming??

All the cattle would fall over?

[SumJongGuy]

Remember how all those hydro plants stropped rivers from flowing and defeated gravity?


Too many wind turbines will stop the earth from rotating. Our days are already getting longer amirite??

[xyz]

Wow, so much wrong here.

Why is efficiency an important metric for wind turbines? What fuel is being wasted when wind is not converted to electricity? What waste byproduct (pollution) is created when wind isn't converted to electricity?

Efficiency does matter when you are burning fuels for electricity, or using uranium. So efficiency matters for fossil fuel and nuclear plants. Yes, when renewables get more efficient we'll need fewer of them, but there is no cost to "wasted" wind or sun.

Nuclear is expensive and slow to build. In the amount of time and money it takes to build one nuke plant we could build a lot of low cost wind and solar - even batteries. Land footprint of nuclear is actually much larger than just the power plant as there are secure perimeters around a site that are off limits to other uses and there and fuel supply chain land needs too. Nuclear also can't meet our peak power needs as it is difficult to ramp up and down quickly , so it is good for base load put not peaking. Batteries are great for peak power needs.

Wind gets mentioned as using lots of land, and it is true wind farms take up a lot of area. But the unusable land of a wind farm is minuscule, mostly just the tower bases. The rest of the land can still be used for whatever. In the west many fields use circular irrigation, leaving 4 corners unused. Those are ideal places to put wind turbines without affecting anything other than the farmer's pocketbook as lease payments could dramatically increase their incomes.

Outside of the noise, unrecycleable waste and footprint of wind and solar, their problems are obvious, they are intermittent. No wind, no sun, no power. Yes of course batteries can store but they aren’t scalable to provide consistent power for peak demands. Plus battery mining practices are mostly child labor in the Congo.

Wind and solar will always need backup power. Either coal, gas or nuclear. So why bother. Just go full nuclear. It has the highest capacity factor. Like 4x wind and solar. Wind and solar are site specific. You can’t put them everywhere. Theoretically, a nuclear plant can go anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Cisco Kid]

What I'm hearing expressed here has been said before. Just different words.

THE GASOLINE POWERED TRACTOR WILL NEVER TAKE THE PLACE OF THE FARM HORSE!!!

[WMD]

You are wrong. If wind power isn't efficient we will have to build so many turbines that eventually we will stop the wind. Since wind is what makes weather, that will stop the weather. And then we will really be fucked.

But if we stop weather, when will it stop? What day and time? Could that mean it will be 70 degrees and sunny forever? That sounds kind of nice.

[WMD]

Outside of the noise, unrecycleable waste and footprint of wind and solar, their problems are obvious, they are intermittent. No wind, no sun, no power. Yes of course batteries can store but they aren’t scalable to provide consistent power for peak demands. Plus battery mining practices are mostly child labor in the Congo.

Wind and solar will always need backup power. Either coal, gas or nuclear. So why bother. Just go full nuclear. It has the highest capacity factor. Like 4x wind and solar. Wind and solar are site specific. You can’t put them everywhere. Theoretically, a nuclear plant can go anywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Bwahahaha. Who did you say pays you to write this shit? Oh yeah, Exxon. I hope so because no rational person would spew this kind of bullshit of their own free will.

[romeo tango]

.... why bother. Just go full nuclear ....

we can follow Russia and dump the nuclear waste on the tundra with no containment

Perfect!

.

[xyz]

Bwahahaha. Who did you say pays you to write this shit? Oh yeah, Exxon. I hope so because no rational person would spew this kind of bullshit of their own free will.

Why would Exxon pay me to promote nuclear power?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums