To all the idiots who've been touting the wonders of wind and solar as long term replacements for fossil fuels or nuclear, thank you so very much from the millions of people living in actual physical danger from the recent cool weather. While wind turbines look like green renewable energy, it's amusing to watch the petroleum powered helicopter, spewing carbon into the air, to spray de icer on the blades. This ignores the fact that wind farms don't have the capability to store electricity for emergencies, and if they did it would involve batteries which contain all sorts of nasty things. It'd be amusing to watch the bird carnage spawned by these things, if it wasn't so sad and disgusting. How about those solar panels? Not so effective when they're covered with show and there's no sunshine.
The bottom line, at this point, is that all y'all who've been advocating for "renewable", wind and solar, need to be begging forgiveness from the millions of people who are literally at risk of freezing themselves, as well as massive damage to their homes. Well played, greens, well played.
38 comments:
If anyone says that wind turbines or solar panels or electric cars are perfectly clean environmental solutions to energy concerns, they are factually mistaken.
If anyone says that these are not a net benefit when it comes to creating energy with less environmental impact, they are factually mistaken.
It's important to look at the whole impact when considering alternatives to quite harmful fossil fuel dependency. But move away from a finite source of energy that is very harmful to the environment and to people in the environment (ie, fossil fuels) is something we have to do.
A "Like" button would be most convenient here.
As to your concern for birds, yes, birds are harmed and killed by wind turbines. But even more are killed by collisions with houses/buildings. Is that an argument for getting rid of houses? Additionally, birds will be/are being harmed by climate change caused by fossil fuels.
With all things, try to consider all the factors for best understanding.
https://www.sierraclub.org/michigan/wind-turbines-and-birds-and-bats
"If anyone says that these are not a net benefit when it comes to creating energy with less environmental impact, they are factually mistaken."
What in interesting comment. You are clearly making a claim of fact, yet providing absolutely zero evidence to support your claim. The evidence that electric/hybrid cars are not a net benefit has been available for years. Wind and solar are, at best, inefficient and intermittent. The millions of people freezing across the south, would probably disagree with you as well. The problem with assessing wind and solar is that I've never seen any positive assessments that include the entire lifespan of the hardware.
"It's important to look at the whole impact when considering alternatives to quite harmful fossil fuel dependency. But move away from a finite source of energy that is very harmful to the environment and to people in the environment (ie, fossil fuels) is something we have to do."
Yes, let's look at the impact of tying big chunks of our electrical grid to inefficient, intermittent, and ineffective technology that increases costs to consumers while depriving them of service when that service is most needed.
Yes it is. The problem is that much of the environmentally harmful aspects of "green" energy either happen in other countries or get ignored when assessing the options.
I agree that expending our energy sources is a good idea. I'm just not sure that investing in politically driven, inefficient, technology is the best idea.
"As to your concern for birds, yes, birds are harmed and killed by wind turbines. But even more are killed by collisions with houses/buildings. Is that an argument for getting rid of houses? Additionally, birds will be/are being harmed by climate change caused by fossil fuels."
1. As the numbers of wind turbines increase, the number of birds killed will increase as well. Pretending that the numbers are static, is ridiculous.
2. My point isn't necessarily concern for birds, as much as it is the willingness of greens to sacrifice birds on the alter of an inefficient, ineffective, overly expensive form of energy production.
3. Your concern for birds is as touching as your lack of concern for the suffering of your fellow humans.
4. Large buildings have been around for hundreds of years. If birds haven't managed to evolve enough to be able to avoid solid objects in their path, perhaps those birds just aren't the fittest and are naturally being selected out of the gene pool.
5. The current bird species that are most adaptable, will thrive during global worming, global cooling, or pretty much anything. Those that don't are obviously not the "fittest", and will be naturally selected out of the gene pool. All the while, new species will appear that are better adapted to these new conditions.
6. The hypocrisy of expressing less concern for the suffering of humans than the hypothetical death of a few birds, is simply heartless.
"With all things, try to consider all the factors for best understanding."
Yes, let's do that. Especially consider the suffering of millions caused by reliance of shitty technology.
Before I look at your link, I need an answer to this question.
Are you prepared to accept links from "biased" sources as authoritative in all instances in the future?
Art,
There are a lot of things that Google should do that would be more convenient.
FYI, the notion that wind and solar don't require the consumption of large amounts of fossil fuels should be part of the discussion.
Craig... "Are you prepared to accept links from "biased" sources as authoritative in all instances in the future?"
? I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you asking if I think it's a good thing to accept links from a source that stands to profit if they "prove" their case? I'd advise being wary of such sources.
What I'm prepared to accept is legitimate data from legitimate scientists. They might be gov't scientists or environmental scientists or even oil company scientists, SO LONG as the data is legitimate and other scientists from other groups agree with the data/can replicate the data.
So far as I've read (and I've read a good bit), renewable resources have a lower impact upon the environment and are, thus, healthier and preferable. They almost all have limitations/harmful side effects (batteries that require toxic processes to create, for instance, or wind turbines that have negative impact upon wildlife/birds, for instance) and THOSE costs should be taken into account, when seeking the healthiest, wisest, most sustainable energy solutions.
While looking at the full impact of any solution (fossil fuel, renewable, batteries, etc), we need to COUNT (or strive to) the FULL cost of whatever solution as part of the cost. For instance, the wind turbines harming birds and bats has a cost and it should be counted. Likewise, fossil fuels have a cost in health loss and acquisition.
Can we agree that ALL costs should be counted when factoring such information?
Historically, we've under-counted the cost of oil because we were willing to let the earth, the sick, the poor and others pay a price that isn't counted. All costs should be counted.
"I'm not sure what you're suggesting."
Really, is comprehending a simple question in simple English too difficult for you? It seems like the problem is that you are confused by the difference between a question and a suggestion.
"Are you asking if I think it's a good thing to accept links from a source that stands to profit if they "prove" their case? I'd advise being wary of such sources."
No, I'm not asking that. I'm asking "Are you prepared to accept links from "biased" sources as authoritative in all instances in the future?".
If you can't answer that simple question, just say so.
I answered THAT SPECIFIC question, clearly and directly. And I quote:
"I'd advise being wary of such sources.
What I'm prepared to accept is legitimate data from legitimate scientists."
If you can't understand that rational answer, just say so.
I realize that, except that is simply equivocating. I'm trying to get you to agree on a standard. If you are going to offer sources that are biased then it seems reasonable that you'd accept sources that are biased. If you're going to stick with "legitimate data from legitimate scientists", the please specify exactly what constitutes "legitimate data" and "legitimate scientists".
I understand the answer, it's just so equivocal as to mean nothing in terms of establishing a standard going forward.
The standard should be VALID DATA. IF you have a cigarette company hiring "experts" to testify that smoking is okay, they're a biased source NOT operating on a data standard, but on a propaganda standard.
So, if you have an oil company source that "testifies" that wind turbines are worse environmentally than oil, I may be dubious because I'm considering the source. But this is just obvious, right?
On the other hand, if you have a Sierra Club expert testifying to that same thing because of data, I'd be more inclined to consider that.
What's hard to understand about this? Am I willing to accept testimony from "biased" sources, you ask? I'm wary of biased sources where the source stands to benefit financially from their testimony because I'm not naive.
Do you disagree?
Craig... " I'm trying to get you to agree on a standard. If you are going to offer sources that are biased then it seems reasonable that you'd accept sources that are biased."
Again, the rational standard is data (thus I'm NOT equivocating). Sierra Club does not stand to profit off wind turbines if the cite experts who say that wind turbines are cleaner than oil.
Of course.
Advocacy agencies are not a biased source, influenced by the opportunity to profit off a fossil fuel.
Just to be clear.
"What's hard to understand about this?"
Your lack of specificity. Your citation of something from the Sierra Club (an organization that is clearly biased against fossil fuels, and in favor of "green" energy) as if they are an unbiased source, indicates some willingness to accept biased sources. Historically, you've rejected "data" without even looking at it, because your perceive the source as biased. If you aren't going to actually look at data, because of the source, then how can you possibly base things on the data?
"Am I willing to accept testimony from "biased" sources, you ask?"
Yes, I've asked multiple times.
"I'm wary of biased sources where the source stands to benefit financially from their testimony because I'm not naive."
"Do you disagree?"
Not necessarily, but I've never rejected something simply because of the bias of the source.
Are you saying that the Sierra Club doesn't benefit financially based on the materials they publish? Are you really suggesting that the Sierra Club is going to attract donations by pointing out the problems with "green energy"?
"Sierra Club does not stand to profit off wind turbines if the cite experts who say that wind turbines are cleaner than oil."
Really, the Sierra Club has absolutely zero financial incentive to push "green" energy sources over traditional energy sources?
Craig... " the Sierra Club has absolutely zero financial incentive to push "green" energy sources over traditional energy sources?"
No, not at all, not in the same sense that a fossil fuel company does.
The thing is, they're dedicated to positive environmental concerns. A non-profit. So, for instance, if wind turbines cause harm to birds, THAT IS a concern of their. And if climate change and pollution from fossil fuels cause harm to the planet, THAT IS A concern of theirs. They don't benefit or profit from identifying one solution as better than the other.
Generally speaking, I'm going to trust a non-profit and an educational source (presuming they have a legitimate history) moreso than a company dedicated to a particular revenue source, because that is reasonable.
Do you disagree?
Below is a small portion of the organizational donors to the Sierra Club in 2019 per their annual report. Are you suggesting that these organizations are not donating to the Sierra Club because they have a financial interest in the construction of "green" energy sources?
444S Foundation
501 Commons Give Big Seattle
501 Salon and Spa, LLC
A & J Saks Foundation
Adams Legacy Foundation
Steven Adrian Foundation
Agua Fund, Inc.
Albina Youth Opportunity School
Alexander Charitable Fund
Aller Giving Fund
Allyn Foundation, Inc.
Maurice Amado Foundation
The Amelia Foundation
America's Charities
American Heart Association, Inc
Andersen-Formolo Family Foundation
Angeles Chapter Foundation
Angioletti Giving Fund
Angora Ridge Foundation
Animal Agriculture Strategic Action Fund
Apex Clean Energy
Appleby Charitable Trust
Arc'teryx
Aremco Products
Arkay Foundation
Avanti Salon
The B&L Foundation
Bakalar Family Charitable Fund
The Baltoro Trust
Barr Foundation
Michelle S. Barry Charitable Fund
Bartol Charitable Foundation
Edward R. Bazinet Charitable Foundation
BBC Roseville Oaks, LLC
Chester & Marion Beals Memorial Fund
Bear Gulch Foundation
Bear Sontz Family Foundation
Paul Bechtner Foundation
Philip T. Bee Charitable Trust
The Herman Berger Family Trust
Robert B. Berger Foundation
Rosalind & Alfred Berger Foundation
Arlene and Milton D. Berkman
Although, I've indulged your penchant for pushing comment threads hither and yon, I'll point out the simple reality.
The point of this post was to highlight the suffering of millions of Americans due (at least in part) to the forced reliance on wind and solar energy, which has failed at a time of critical need.
The fact that you haven't addressed this, nor expressed sympathy for the sufferings of others, is instructive.
In the larger sense, it raises questions about what would prompt any sane human to believe that "green" energy is anything less than expensive, unreliable, and not nearly as green as it's portrayed.
The fact that you are advocating for an energy source that has failed millions over the last few days, is quite troubling.
"No, not at all, not in the same sense that a fossil fuel company does."
I's suggest that any orginization that is tax exempt and has assets of over $200,000,000 and 2019 Revenues of over $137,000,000 does indeed have a financial interest in promoting "green" energy. Of course you are correct that the don't pay as many taxes as an oil company, they don't employ nearly as many people, or support nearly as many businesses as the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club doesn't fuel virtually the entire US/world economy. They don't provide inexpensive, reliable sources of energy. No they don't. They just rake in hundreds of millions of dollars, tax free, and advocate for inefficient, unreliable, unaffordable, energy.
"The thing is, they're dedicated to positive environmental concerns. A non-profit. So, for instance, if wind turbines cause harm to birds, THAT IS a concern of their. And if climate change and pollution from fossil fuels cause harm to the planet, THAT IS A concern of theirs. They don't benefit or profit from identifying one solution as better than the other."
Really, they derive absolutely zero benefit from advocating 100% for one type of energy source? Just think about the harm that would have been caused over the last few days had they been able force the US into complete dependence on "green energy".
"Generally speaking, I'm going to trust a non-profit and an educational source (presuming they have a legitimate history) moreso than a company dedicated to a particular revenue source, because that is reasonable."
OK, if you want to trust a group that is completely dependent on convincing people to believe certain things in order to rake in $137,000,000 in tax free money every year. That's fine with me.
"Do you disagree?"
Interesting, question. I'd have to say most of the time, yes. I worked for a "non profit" and I can say without question that they slanted the data (by sourcing the data they used from organizations with similar goals, and by how and what data they used to present to their donors.).
If one look at at the partial donor list I gave you, I defy you to tell me that there aren't "green energy" companies funneling cash to TSC because it will help their businesses.
If you are going to accept data from TSC without actually vetting the data, that's your prerogative. If you really think that they don't have a $137,000,000 financial interest, then I can't help you.
Sierra Club
Total Income $147,677,959
Total Expenses $147,929,492
Total ? $70,477,891
I'm not sure about you, but out here in the business world, we call the difference between income and expenses profit. I know that in the "non profit" world, they call it something else. But, I'd say that $70,477,891 tax free left over after expenses could be considered a financial incentive.
"Sounds terrible. However, you gave no indication of HOW anyone was suffering due to a "forced reliance" on green energy."
I hardly thought it was necessary due to the intensive news coverage of the last few days. The well publicized "rolling blackouts" due in part to the inability of these "green energy" sources being unable to produce energy in certain weather conditions. I apologize, I assumed you paid attention to current events.
"You gave no support to suggest that there is any "forced reliance" on green energy."
Really, are you suggesting that injecting "green energy" into the electrical grid that people rely on has been a free market decision? That the injection of "green energy" into the electrical grid isn't driven by governmental fiat?
"Indeed, for decades, we have had a forced reliance on fossil fuels, implemented and supplemented by gov't policies."
Yes, because it has worked reasonably well in powering our economy, and because there is nothing currently capable (except nuclear) that can replace the current situation.
"There IS no "forced reliance" on green energy that I know of."
Really, are you suggesting that government mandates requiring "green energy" are not "forced"?
"Nor have you given any support to suggest that wind and solar "have failed..." So, if you'd like to provide some DATA to say who is suffering, how they're suffering, how is it caused by green energy and/or how green energy has been a forced reliance, feel free to do so. None of these were made clear in your vague and apparently hostile rant against green energy... for some unspecified reason."
Again, I'd direct you to the various media (social and otherwise) for a quick look at conditions over the last couple of days.
I just heard a point made in a discussion regarding the Texas situation...don't recall who it was who made it...regarding the foolishness (to state it mildly) of destroying or radically prohibiting the fossil fuel industry prior to installing an equally inexpensive and reliable alternative. Wind/solar comes nowhere close to fitting that bill at present. Indeed, even under the best of conditions, green energy relies upon fossil fuels for its woefully unreliable "viability".
As to sources, I fully doubt Dan's consider all the details regarding harm. That is, if green energy somehow achieved its ultimate promises, it may be easy to assert its safer, cheaper, etc. But that requires ignoring the real world.
"No, it appears that they don't have a direct financial interest in green energy."
Really, based on what data do you draw that conclusion?
"But maybe they do, I don't know anything about most of them."
Ahhhh, the appeal to ignorance. The I'm ignorant, but I'm just going to assume I can make assumptions. gambit.
"Having said that: 1. We ALL have a financial interest in the construction of green energy sources. You recognize this, yes?"
How is it in my financial interest to invest in something that is inefficient, overly expensive, incapable of providing enough energy to maintain our economy, and completely dependent on fossil fuels?
"2. I have no idea what motivations these groups hold. I don't know most of them."
No, I don't. You were quite clear that TSC (and by extension it"s supporters) have no "financial interest" in "green energy" companies, so I'm asking you to prove your claim.
"3. The first one (444S Foundation) appears to be a charitable group with concerns about the environment. I suppose that's why they give to an environmental group. Is that surprising? Are you suggesting they get some sort of direct financial kickback by promoting green energy? I have no idea since I don't know anything about them. Do you? The same is true for the second group listed. The third group is a hair salon (in Kentucky!) it appears. I have no data that makes me think they're getting any kind of direct financial kickback from "green energy." I could go on, but what's your point?"
My point is exactly what you've said, that you have absolutely zero idea what "financial interest" TSC donors have in companies that build "green energy" apparatus. You are content to assume that the TSC and it's donors are pure without actually looking at the data.
"Are you suggesting these groups and businesses are profiting directly from green energy in the same way that oil companies are when they sell more oil?"
I'm suggesting that without looking at the data (the information on the donors to TSC), that you have absolutely zero idea what financial connections exist. But yes, if wind turbine manufacturer (or it's employees, or suppliers, or stockholders) are donating to an organization advocating for more wind farms, then there's a conflict of interest. As you've admitted (with a small percentage of donors), you simply have no idea and are prepared to go on your assumptions.
"I see no reason to suspect that. They appear to be mostly charitable trust type groups that are giving to causes they think will make the world a better place, not businesses trying to improve their bottom line directly. So, my answer to your question would be, "No, it appears not." What's your point?"
My point, again as you keep demonstrating< is that you haven't looked at the data (the public donor information) in enough detail to justify your unquestioning support of TSC.
"Well, I generally support two things: 1. Living in smaller, less resource-dependent circles, consuming less and using less energy... and,"
This is really an entirely different discussion. But it's good to know that you support the scaling back of the US economy and standard of living. It's interesting that you don't see the irony in sitting in your home or office, heated by fossil fueled energy, using your computer or smart phone (again dependent on petroleum products, various environmentally unfriendly materials and practices, oppressive labor practices, and electricity) trying to advocate for some bullshit "simpler" lifestyle. Some of us like the 21st century and would prefer not to be escorted back to the 18th. What's most interesting is that there are actually places in the US where you can actually choose to lie the lifestyle you claim to want. Yet, you don't choose that for yourself, but you'd like to push it on others. If you'd live out your alleged convictions, you'd have more credibility.
Is your house connected to the electrical grid?
Do you have solar panels?
If so, did you pay 100% of the cost of them?
Is your house connected to a public water supply?
Is your house plumbed for natural gas? Gas furnace or stove?
How many computers and smart phones do you have?
What companies are they made by?
Do you ever use transportation powered by fossil fuels?
"2. When we do use energy, use energy that is clean as possible, that is renewable and that causes the least amount of harm and do so in a manner that is as clean as possible and causes the least amount of harm. I support this because it's what the experts are saying."
Yet, you've not cited any experts. Certainly none that are advocating complete removal of anything powered by fossil fuels. Of course, there are also experts that don't agree with you. Do you listen to them?
"I don't know how wind turbines have failed. Because they don't generate all the energy we need?"
How about because they can't provide consistent, reliable, affordable, fossil fuel free electricity 24/7/365. Are you aware that people actually use electricity for essential things 24/7/365?
"That's not a failure, that's just a known circumstance."
I'm sure the people suffering from rolling blackouts in below zero temperatures will be comforted to know that their electricity relies on devices that are "known" to be unable to supply the needs of those who rely on them. That's a great plan, just tell people that they're paying for a power source that is intermittent at best. FYI, installing devices that aren't capable of providing what people are paying for IS a failure. It's a failure on the part of government, the utilities, and the "green energy" advocates.
"You have not said anything about how specifically wind turbines have failed."
If they can't work in all weather conditions, that seems like a failure.
"Because they require some treatment against the snow? How is that a failure?"
That's not necessarily a failure, it's just pointing out that casting wind turbines as not requiring fossil fuels is simply a false narrative. But, it's definitely a failure. A failure to realize that people need electricity more during extreme conditions (when the wind turbines and solar panels don't work). Perhaps the failure is that they don't have a way to store the excess electricity against the periods of time when the turbines don't work. Look, you can twist and make all the excuses you want. The reality is that there are millions of people suffering because of the failures inherent in wind and solar energy.
"Have sidewalks "failed" when they get covered with ice, or is that just, you know, weather and shit?"
Nope, sidewalks work just fine even when covered with snow and ice. Of course, sidewalks don't have anything to do with preventing people from being able to heat their homes, cook their food, and various other necessities for living.
Your heartlessness is really quite impressive. As millions suffer from the cold, Dan is advocating for more of what caused the suffering, and denying the reality that's all over the news.
Art,
I fully believe that there will eventually be some technology that will supplant fossil fuels. While I'm not sure what that will end up being, I suspect that if they can improve the reliability and efficiency of wind and solar they those might be part of the solution. It's also possible that non corn based Ethanol might be part of the solution. But as things stand today, and as we've seen of late, these things are not ready to fill the needs yet. The problem is that we're making decisions based on ideological grounds, not on objective grounds. We're not adopting wind and solar because they work as well, we're adopting them because they're trendy.
While we continue to move toward clearer and cleaner energy and industry by applying technology to the existing infrastructure, we watch countries like most of the rest of the industrialized world continue to increase emissions and grow their economies.
As we've seen with so many public policy issues (energy, COVID, etc) we've given ideology more weight than efficiency, effectiveness, and affordability.
"Wait, are you trying to make an accusation that SC employees would knowingly advocate for an energy solution that they KNOW is more harmful to the world than other options purely for financial gain?"
No.
"According to USA Today: "Why is Texas having power outages, rolling blackouts? Daniel Cohan, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rice University, said that, at the most basic level, the outages have been caused because demand amid the bitter cold has outpaced supply of energy that is used to heat and power homes. A combination of mostly natural gas, some coal and a nuclear power plant failed to meet up with the demand that customers had, Cohan said. ...Some have pointed to freezing on wind turbines as a potential cause of the widespread outages, arguing the renewable energy source was not reliable, but Cohan said these arguments were "a red herring."" From what I see, there was a failure of planning and just the reality of living in a world with, you know, weather and shit, but I don't see that it should be laid at the feet of wind turbines. Sounds like you're watching too much Tucker Carlson and not listening to enough experts. Again, I always encourage listening to experts and looking at the data."
1. I've watched absolutely zero Tucker Carlson. But feel free to keep making shit up.
2. Wow, I guess this one random guy is the only credible source on the entire topic.
3. It's interesting how your one source, has chosen to ignore the fact that the failed wind turbines and solar panels contribute to the whole of the power grid.
4. Once the wind and solar couldn't keep up, the the everything else overloaded. Great analysis.
5. More BS.
"Sierra Club is a non-profit with an A rating by Charity Watch. 2. There is nothing that suggests that they're not operating in a greedy or self-centered manner. There is nothing to suggest that people who work at SC are doing so for reasons of greed or to get selfishly rich. 3. There is nothing to suggest that they somehow "profit" directly off of green energy success. 4. The intent of their non-profit organization is to inform people about environmental concerns."
These are all great opinions, but none of this is proof. Further, I was quite clear in using the term "financial interest", the fact that you chose to interpret that as something negative or untoward isn't my problem. The fact is that, they use their advocacy to raise hundreds of millions of dollars. Their very financial existence is based on their advocacy of these "green" energy alternatives.
"They appear very much to be a justice organization that works in the interest of humanity and, for all I can see and have heard, for good reason. Do you recognize all of this as rational and believable? Craig... "[I'd] suggest that any orginization that is tax exempt and has assets of over $200,000,000 and 2019 Revenues of over $137,000,000 does indeed have a financial interest in promoting "green" energy." Well, you may "suggest" that, but it doesn't make it so. When oil companies produce and sells more oil, their stockholders and owners and big bosses get richer. When green energy groups sells more energy, Sierra Club folks do not profit. Agreed?"
Yeah, that $70,000,000 of income in excess of expenses isn't really profit, because they call it something else.
"I think you are having a problem distinguishing between a non-profit that works for human and environmental interests with a company that works to improve their bottom line by providing a valued resource."
No, you'd be thinking incorrectly.
"As to your "suggestion," are you suggesting also that Focus on the Family or the Southern Baptist Convention have a financial interest (profit financially, directly themselves) when people are good or get saved?"
I have no problem that FOF or the SBC have a financial interest in convincing people to support their particular ministries. Or buy their materials, or donate to their causes. To think otherwise is naive.
"(How many millions of dollars of assets do THOSE groups hold?"
Lots. Of course, most of those assets are "hard assets" (land, buildings, hospitals, universities, soup kitchens, etc) and their value is mostly on paper, as opposed to in cash. In the case of denominations, there are probably also endowments which fund the work of the organization through passive income. FOF is different because they do a lot of selling of materials, so clearly that want people to buy their materials and have a financial interest on them doing so.
"You seem to be suggesting some nefarious self-interested money profit-interest of at least some charities... does that negative attitude extend to other charities?""
The problem is that you have imagined that I am suggesting that having a "financial interest" is a "negative", when that's your prejudice not mine. To suggest that any organization with $137,000,000 of income is free from financial interests is simply absurd, yet that's your argument. You're attempting to argue that TSC is an authoritative source because it's not biased and it has no financial interest. yet you've proven neither of those things to be objectively true.
I'd be willing to bet that if you did deep enough in the finances of TSC that they get significant funding from companies that make "green energy" apparatus. That doesn't bother me in the least, I'd just like to know it so I can take it into account.
"If they can't work in all weather conditions, that seems like a failure." ? No, of course that's not factual or rational. A sidewalk doesn't work perfectly in all weather conditions. Doesn't mean that it's a failure. A natural woodland path doesn't work perfectly in all weather conditions. Doesn't mean that it's a failure. Your argument doesn't hold up to reasoned scrutiny. It's just false."
Apples and orangutans, but I don;t expect anything more from you.
"Do you even THINK about what you're saying? Do you KNOW how many people die each and every year due to fossil fuel solutions? Do you know it's in the millions? DYING each year. Plus those harmed, sickened, put out of work due to fossil fuel pollution. "Fossil fuel pollution kills ~8 million people a year" https://www.marketplace.org/2021/02/09/fossil-fuel-pollution-killing-8-7-million-people-year-study-says/ "10,000 people a day die due to fossil fuel pollution" https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/03/10/every-day-10000-people-die-due-to-air-pollution-from-fossil-fuels/?sh=3d9de82d2b6a "Fossil fuel pollution kills 1 out of 5" https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fossil-fuel-air-pollution-emissions-1-in-5-deaths-worldwide-each-year/ By YOUR MEASURE, you are heartless. I mean, to be consistent, right? Tell me that you recognize your own argument destroys you, yes? And again, people are not suffering BECAUSE of wind turbines. That's just another stupidly false claim. Man, for someone who says you didn't like Trump, you're sure comfortable with his strategies of stupidly false claims and divisive irrational pseudo-emotional (ie, they appeal to emotions IF you are one prone to overlook the facts and data and reality and shit) attacks."
If I was suggesting that fossil fueled energy is perfect and without flaw, you might have a point, but I'm not.
Of course you're right. The inability of wind and solar to produce power 27/7/365 isn't a problem at all, and means we just need more.
Still can't bring yourself to express any sympathy to those suffering, can you.
With that, I'm simply done with this thread. Beating the dead horse seems pointless.
I'll close with this, I'm not suggesting that this is solely a failure of "green energy", what I am saying is that it's clear that "green energy" was part of the failure, and that it has flaws that make relying on it to replace other forms of energy is foolish.
Did I engage in hyperbole in my post and comments, of course I did. Am I now done with your bullshit, of course I am.
Craig... "If I was suggesting that fossil fueled energy is perfect and without flaw, you might have a point, but I'm not."
And if I was saying that wind turbines were perfect and without flaw or the sole solution to energy concerns, you MIGHT have a point. But I'm not. Nor are the environmentalists you attack without just cause in your emotionally-deep, intellectually-shallow rant.
That you want to attack others for what you're doing is part of the problem of the hypocrisy of modern "conservatism."
That you want to fault me for not expressing sympathy (within the context of this conversation) towards those having power problems AND YET you have never expressed sympathy for the millions killed each year due to fossil fuel pollution... the additional ~400 people who just died in the last hour... and who will die in the NEXT hour and on and on... due to fossil fuel pollution is just another sign of your modern conservative hypocrisy and lack of adult reasoning.
Modern conservatism and conservative white Christianity has devolved to the level of a fussy toddler. To some degree, perhaps you can't help it. Science tells us that conservatives have an over-developed fear region of the brain that can lead them to make irrational and emotional attacks against the wrong target... and yet, you are able to overcome that. A tendency to be fearful and strike out emotionally and irrationally is not an unstoppable reflex.
Reason and justice CAN overcome your fear. Do it.
More fact checking...
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/17/conservatives-falsely-blame-renewables-for-texas-storm-outages?fbclid=IwAR3vPtU0KhhmXUk_FQFIdBXMFpuKP9EiJbrK3lUygOgUb9qKIW3cwa6W2E0
You can keep posting if you want. I'm done here.
Gotta disagree with you, Craig. It's absolutely a failure of green energy and it's absolutely honest to acknowledge it. Imagine wind and solar where snow and freezing is far more commonplace!
In the meantime, Dan's "sidewalk/woodland path" argument is in the running for Dan's stupidest argument of all time. Either impacted by weather and one can still travel. Wind/solar impacted by weather and one can freeze to death. Good gosh!
August 27, 2010
Antarctic Wind Turbines
Three new wind turbines located between the United States' McMurdo Station and New Zealand's Scott Base provide alternative energy for both stations. Under optimal wind conditions, the three turbines produce approximately 330 kilowatts of electricity each, for a total of 990 kw. This would power approximately 100 average American households. This may save as much as 240,000 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The construction of the turbines is a joint project shared by the United States and New Zealand. This is the first electrical grid that connects two different nation's Antarctic stations' electrical systems into one common grid.
You were done before you started: Facts don’t mean anything to you.
I know you're done. Everyone can see that you're done. Your arguments were utterly lacking in reason or consistency or facts. What would help your case would be if you just admit you were striking out blindly and emotionally and not actually looking at the facts. That you were engaging in a rant that wasn't fact-based..., that you were just venting but your facts are wrong. Being able to find it within yourself the ability to admit your mistake would help restore some sense of rationality.
Two things:
1. Dan's Guardian link does little to mitigate the problems of wind and solar and the Texas situation highlights them even if cold snap affected other power generation. The article speaks of problems with the system in its entirety...wind, solar, fossil fuel. But absent those problems, the issue of performance of windmills when there's no wind, or solar when there's no sun remains suspect. That doesn't change if Texas' system issues are resolved.
2. Dan's fossil fuel death toll is from a study that came out last week. I wasn't up to spending $45 dollars to peruse the research paper, and I doubt Dan did either. No doubt he was just so excited to see the headline that he thinks he can dump those "findings" on us and expect us to cower in its face. But as it has only come out a week ago, I would expect that we'll soon see others look it over and find that which should lessen Dan's exuberance, but won't because he likes to be Nature Boy. From what I could tell from the abstract, they're doing the typical modeling thing that never works out well. We'll see.
In the meantime, there's still the issue of expense, viability and harm to the environment Dan claims to love so much. Not to mention the source of rare-earth materials for construction of these green energy contraptions is China or China controlled...from what I've been hearing. And of course we're giving up energy independence...which we've finally achieved...over the fraud and myth of "climate change".
No Dan, I'm done because I've got a lot of crap to do before I get on a plane tomorrow afternoon. I've simply chosen not to counter your crap because I don't want to waste the time. It looks like Art will be filling that void ably. But your condescension and gracelessness are exactly what I expect from you.
Post a Comment