Is there supposed to be a manufactured energy source that isn't supposed to use materials like concrete or petrol to be built and maintained? Why is concrete such a big deal?
Concrete uses huge amounts of energy to produce. It's also apparently one of the biggest man-made CO2 sources.
Most of it also has to he poured deep into the earth to keep the turbines stable. It's so hard to remove once the turbine's lifespan is over that they often just leave it in the ground.
Basically it's everything that the very same people who push for wind energy campaign against all day. It's concentrated, rock-hard hypocrisy.
Okay so does the amount of concrete used in wind turbine production increase the CO2 usage compared to production of an additional coal/oil power plant? Or overall is the pollution lessened?
Per lifetime kilowatt, wind turbines almost certainly use way more concrete, yes.
It's hard to say exactly because almost no power generating infrastructure is used so long that the foundations need replacing, so the lifetime is more of a political/economic constraint and you're just trying to predict the future at that point rather than calculate anything. But if assuming equal lifetimes wind turbines lose hard.
Considering the coal/oil are just going to be sold to some 3rd world country that doesn't care much about pollution, I doubt it.
Instead of developing cleaner power plants and exporting that technology we shut them down. Meanwhile China is building record numbers of new coal plants and they don't care much about CO2.
If CO2 is your concern the alternative should not be wind but nuclear.
That's a reasonable question and math we should be doing.
Most climate change activists and the big pushers behind sources like wind energy are screaming things like "JUST STOP OIL" and trying to take people's cars away for lithium powered battery run ones.
Which is why those questions don't matter, because the policy isn't about actually saving the planet. Its only about appearances, money loopholes, and control.
Not only that, but Canada and the United States sit on roughly one million tons of uranium. Nearly 1/8th of known reserves. Combine that with the ability to recycle your uranium as a whopping 95% is reclaimable (a program that Jimmy "History's Greatest Monster" Carter ended within the USA and one that France makes great use of), you have power for millennia without having to rely on foreign nations. You know, despite that being what our leaders want.
Nuclear energy is not only economical and environmental, it's ethical.
You want wind so you do not put more CO2 in the atmosphere so you cut down trees that not only help regulate CO2 but they are also a habitat for the wildlife the same people pretend to care about.
Not sure how much energy do windmills produce but it makes me question if anyone involved in this made any calculation on the effectiveness in reducing CO2 emissions.
There are literally people out there that think we should have 0% CO2 in the atmosphere. They aren't shitposting. They really think that anything higher than literally fucking nothing is too high.
Actually, that makes a great question for the climate alarmists: how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere?
If I recall, anything less than 200ppm means you're fast-tracking your way to extinction, and at 150 you're utterly and completely fucked. The eco-terrorists wouldn't live long enough to get it to 0%.
Trying to reason with people who think they can fly planes, or consume anything with ''carbon-neutrality because my ticket paied for planting trees'' can't work.
They didn't think to hold those beliefs. They just Listened.
There is no guarantee the planted trees won't be cut down in X years for whatever reason. There is no guarantee they won't burn in a fire. If you haden't paied to get trees planted, natural regeneration would have done it. You just added extra GHG emissions by having people produce, care-for, transport and plant those trees.
I wanna see a carbon neutral ticket where they promise "for every ticket purchased we will slaughter 300 cats and bury them in an underground anaerobic pressure vault to replace the oil used". Just to see if cultists can still get the warm and fuzzy feelings from a more direct carbon capture route.
Ruining your natural landscape for an inefficient method of power production...
It would be more effective to cut a few down just to revitalise the forests and burn the wood for power, or make something like, I don't know, whiskey barrels since that's meant to be a major export.
Speaking of whiskey barrels, The History Guy has a really good vid on the connection between old whiskey barrels made out of black oak, and the Passenger Pigeon (RIP).
Wouldn't be surprised if wind power turns out to be the most environmentally desasterous thing we could do.
There's all the deforestation, wildlife damage on birds, insects and marine life and the insane amount of unrecyclable waste.
There's also the "minor" issue of: the energy has to come from somewhere. They're extracting that energy from the wind. Thus slowing it down. There are studies that suggest this slowing down can lead to droughts because it's wind that transports water everywhere.
I doubt they will beat some of the hydro dams which have destroyed most of the world's great rivers, but yeah...
Pretty much any large-scale energy production causes significant environmental damage. Arguably nuclear and solar (and like, wave/tidal power) are the least destructive, if managed well, but for wind to be more destructive than hydro has (pretty much always) been, would take a lot...
Not that I'm some "turbine lover", but massive dams literally destroy entire ecosystems, which is slightly larger-scale than this...
LA is only green because of all the communities to the East of it that it starved of water, after all, lol... :-/
Germany recently passed a law that mandates 2% of the land surface area will have to be covered in wind turbines. The ink isn't dry yet and the Greens are already pushing for 4%.
The "environmentalists" don't give a shit about the environment anymore. It's all about political power these days.
In Germany the Greens are getting rid of nature and wildlife preserves left and right to literally pave way for their "eco-friendly" energy.
Suddenly a species being endangered is no longer an argument against destroying their habitat for a wind farm.
Oh, that nice coastal nature preserve? Let's put a giant LNG terminal right into the middle and excavate the ocean to create shipping lanes for heavy freighters!
Imgur is such a cesspit. Sidebar for 'most viral' includes hating on the GOP, and pushing abortion. Both with terribly retarded comments. 2 out of 3 of the links are political...on an image hosting site.
I've said it before whenever Imgur comes up, but I'm convinced either the feds or some well paid activist group did a big push there. It might at this point be self-propagating, but I don't think the corruption of Imgur was organic at the start.
I don't have links at hand but I thought it was well known that imgur was compromised at some point, not necessarily coinciding with reddit's downfall but we know all the stuff started getting obvious after 2016. The other image serving sites are the same, albeit without the social commentary component, but others like Giphy definitely censor and curate to push acceptable (and largely corporate-sponsored) narratives. As for imgur specifically, whatever they did certainly became "self-propagating" and its users live in a political bubble where all they do is trade left-wing memes all day.
Huh, well I'd be interested if you do remember any specifics. Because all I've ever had were suspicions, I don't think I've seen any actual evidence. Would be cool to see my suspicious backed up.
But, yeah, something was very hinky when that all went down.
nothing more environmentally friendly than giant turbine blades that require massive trucks to pull one of at a time and that have a short lifespan.
Don't forget about all the petrol that has to be used to keep everything lubricated!
Or the insane amount of concrete for foundations and the tower.
Is there supposed to be a manufactured energy source that isn't supposed to use materials like concrete or petrol to be built and maintained? Why is concrete such a big deal?
Concrete uses huge amounts of energy to produce. It's also apparently one of the biggest man-made CO2 sources.
Most of it also has to he poured deep into the earth to keep the turbines stable. It's so hard to remove once the turbine's lifespan is over that they often just leave it in the ground.
Basically it's everything that the very same people who push for wind energy campaign against all day. It's concentrated, rock-hard hypocrisy.
Okay so does the amount of concrete used in wind turbine production increase the CO2 usage compared to production of an additional coal/oil power plant? Or overall is the pollution lessened?
Per lifetime kilowatt, wind turbines almost certainly use way more concrete, yes.
It's hard to say exactly because almost no power generating infrastructure is used so long that the foundations need replacing, so the lifetime is more of a political/economic constraint and you're just trying to predict the future at that point rather than calculate anything. But if assuming equal lifetimes wind turbines lose hard.
Considering the coal/oil are just going to be sold to some 3rd world country that doesn't care much about pollution, I doubt it.
Instead of developing cleaner power plants and exporting that technology we shut them down. Meanwhile China is building record numbers of new coal plants and they don't care much about CO2.
If CO2 is your concern the alternative should not be wind but nuclear.
But you don't know. It could be less.
Yeah I think that might be part of the problem
That's a reasonable question and math we should be doing.
Most climate change activists and the big pushers behind sources like wind energy are screaming things like "JUST STOP OIL" and trying to take people's cars away for lithium powered battery run ones.
Which is why those questions don't matter, because the policy isn't about actually saving the planet. Its only about appearances, money loopholes, and control.
So why aren’t people doing it and instead insisting that wind energy must be bad?
If you take them at their word it is. Truthfully their just campaigning against government not having complete control over the people.
Does the amount of concrete used in wind turbines create more pollution than current traditional methods of energy production overall?
And the amount of birds they kill.
Well there are certainly a lot of things less environmentally friendly
Nuclear puts out the same amount of gas emission over it's life cycle while also scaling a lot better.
And since I know exactly what you're about to say (since losers are predictable): nuclear waste is already a solved issue; Chernobyl was multiple, deliberate actions involving a design that never considered failure, Three Mile Island resulted in no deaths; and the tsunami that took out Fukushima killed more people than the reactor ever did (at about 19k dead or missing) and they warned multiple times that the exact thing that ended up happening could happened.
Not only that, but Canada and the United States sit on roughly one million tons of uranium. Nearly 1/8th of known reserves. Combine that with the ability to recycle your uranium as a whopping 95% is reclaimable (a program that Jimmy "History's Greatest Monster" Carter ended within the USA and one that France makes great use of), you have power for millennia without having to rely on foreign nations. You know, despite that being what our leaders want.
Nuclear energy is not only economical and environmental, it's ethical.
I’m in favor of nuclear energy so I’m not sure why you’re so hostile about that…
You want wind so you do not put more CO2 in the atmosphere so you cut down trees that not only help regulate CO2 but they are also a habitat for the wildlife the same people pretend to care about.
Not sure how much energy do windmills produce but it makes me question if anyone involved in this made any calculation on the effectiveness in reducing CO2 emissions.
There are literally people out there that think we should have 0% CO2 in the atmosphere. They aren't shitposting. They really think that anything higher than literally fucking nothing is too high.
Actually, that makes a great question for the climate alarmists: how much CO2 should be in the atmosphere?
Having more CO2 in the atmosphere promotes plant growth. You're literally increasing their food supply.
0% CO2 in the atmosphere sounds like the fastest way imaginable to kill all life on the surface of the Earth.
Almost like that's the goal of the left...
Reminds me of the 90s movie, The Arrival, except with the political slant of the Useful Human Idiots flipped.
If I recall, anything less than 200ppm means you're fast-tracking your way to extinction, and at 150 you're utterly and completely fucked. The eco-terrorists wouldn't live long enough to get it to 0%.
You could ask this of +90% of "climate experts," and they wouldn't even understand the question. It's depressingly retarded.
Okay but there are also literally people out there who believe they can communicate with bugs.
Don't lump crazies in with regular people, it only gives weight to their beliefs
About 350ppm
And that number is based on, what?
Understood data of the effects of carbon concentration
Understood by who?
Those who study the effects of carbon concentration in the atmosphere
Holy fuck, give me a study/name or shut the fuck up.
Trying to reason with people who think they can fly planes, or consume anything with ''carbon-neutrality because my ticket paied for planting trees'' can't work.
They didn't think to hold those beliefs. They just Listened.
There is no guarantee the planted trees won't be cut down in X years for whatever reason. There is no guarantee they won't burn in a fire. If you haden't paied to get trees planted, natural regeneration would have done it. You just added extra GHG emissions by having people produce, care-for, transport and plant those trees.
I wanna see a carbon neutral ticket where they promise "for every ticket purchased we will slaughter 300 cats and bury them in an underground anaerobic pressure vault to replace the oil used". Just to see if cultists can still get the warm and fuzzy feelings from a more direct carbon capture route.
Ruining your natural landscape for an inefficient method of power production...
It would be more effective to cut a few down just to revitalise the forests and burn the wood for power, or make something like, I don't know, whiskey barrels since that's meant to be a major export.
Speaking of whiskey barrels, The History Guy has a really good vid on the connection between old whiskey barrels made out of black oak, and the Passenger Pigeon (RIP).
Wouldn't be surprised if wind power turns out to be the most environmentally desasterous thing we could do.
There's all the deforestation, wildlife damage on birds, insects and marine life and the insane amount of unrecyclable waste.
There's also the "minor" issue of: the energy has to come from somewhere. They're extracting that energy from the wind. Thus slowing it down. There are studies that suggest this slowing down can lead to droughts because it's wind that transports water everywhere.
The blades also shed pounds of plastic over their lifespan, spreading it all over the countryside or ocean.
I doubt they will beat some of the hydro dams which have destroyed most of the world's great rivers, but yeah...
Pretty much any large-scale energy production causes significant environmental damage. Arguably nuclear and solar (and like, wave/tidal power) are the least destructive, if managed well, but for wind to be more destructive than hydro has (pretty much always) been, would take a lot...
Not that I'm some "turbine lover", but massive dams literally destroy entire ecosystems, which is slightly larger-scale than this...
LA is only green because of all the communities to the East of it that it starved of water, after all, lol... :-/
Are they really larger scale?
Germany recently passed a law that mandates 2% of the land surface area will have to be covered in wind turbines. The ink isn't dry yet and the Greens are already pushing for 4%.
2% of land surface seems like a lot already.
This creates a very powerful confused anger in me. There is stupidity, and there is evil. This is the arrogance of both.
I remember when the environmentalists cause du jour was stopping rainforest deforestation. Hypocrites, each and every one.
The "environmentalists" don't give a shit about the environment anymore. It's all about political power these days.
In Germany the Greens are getting rid of nature and wildlife preserves left and right to literally pave way for their "eco-friendly" energy.
Suddenly a species being endangered is no longer an argument against destroying their habitat for a wind farm.
Oh, that nice coastal nature preserve? Let's put a giant LNG terminal right into the middle and excavate the ocean to create shipping lanes for heavy freighters!
Spoiler Alert; they NEVER gave a shit about the environment.
Can't have those trees blocking the wind, y'know xD
On encroach on the service roads to the wind turbines. Gotta trim that pesky vegetation with a team using trucks and energy-consuming equipment.
Same issue with their pushes towards veganism over livestock. "Oh, whoops, we had to cut down huge swathes of trees for more soy farms."
And set fire to countless orangutans.
So whatever little power they output costs about 113.6 million tons of CO2 per year, using their moronic standards.
Sounds like someone needs a refresher course on the carbon cycle, photosynthesis, carbon sinks, and the like.
What are they doing with the wood?
The real future of "green space"
https://imgur.com/a/oO3bmhM
Imgur is such a cesspit. Sidebar for 'most viral' includes hating on the GOP, and pushing abortion. Both with terribly retarded comments. 2 out of 3 of the links are political...on an image hosting site.
I've said it before whenever Imgur comes up, but I'm convinced either the feds or some well paid activist group did a big push there. It might at this point be self-propagating, but I don't think the corruption of Imgur was organic at the start.
I don't have links at hand but I thought it was well known that imgur was compromised at some point, not necessarily coinciding with reddit's downfall but we know all the stuff started getting obvious after 2016. The other image serving sites are the same, albeit without the social commentary component, but others like Giphy definitely censor and curate to push acceptable (and largely corporate-sponsored) narratives. As for imgur specifically, whatever they did certainly became "self-propagating" and its users live in a political bubble where all they do is trade left-wing memes all day.
Huh, well I'd be interested if you do remember any specifics. Because all I've ever had were suspicions, I don't think I've seen any actual evidence. Would be cool to see my suspicious backed up.
But, yeah, something was very hinky when that all went down.
OG link didn't work for domevreason (Twitter) and i didn't know where else to put it.
I wasn't complaining, for the record. Just ranting.
I just hate Imgur.
Is it possible for archive to grab the comments on these articles?
They might be getting paid extra to put these up in the first place Ironically there's also a carbon credits scheme for planting trees.