You mean I'm going to beat you out? That's hard to believe.
Let me guess... E85 is going to save the planet!!!
Does Anyone Care that July Was the Hottest Month in Recorded History?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
You mean I'm going to beat you out? That's hard to believe.
Let me guess... E85 is going to save the planet!!!
LOL...I'm not in your league...I couldn't be this dumb with a lobotomy. Go drool in your oatmeal.
Awww...you mad? Come back when you have something intelligent to say. Which means we shouldn't be seeing you again. Peace.
No I'm not. You have yet to say anything intelligent. You're the one who actually believes that we have the technology to end global warming.
What technology? Solar power? E85? Electric cars? Wind turbines?
You're a damn idiot if you actually believe those are going to end global warming.
See? You came back and you said something stupid. Shoulda listened.
Well...we've identified your problem. You can't read.
Nobody said a thing about "ending global warming". The statement was we need a drastic cut in the amount of GHG's we put into the atmosphere. Massive deployment of wind and solar and a switch to electric cars will do just that. And we have those technologies RIGHT NOW.
I'm not saying you're a damn idiot...but you're a damn idiot.
Well...we've identified your problem. You can't read.
Nobody said a thing about "ending global warming". The statement was we need a drastic cut in the amount of GHG's we put into the atmosphere. Massive deployment of wind and solar and a switch to electric cars will do just that. And we have those technologies RIGHT NOW.
I'm not saying you're a damn idiot...but you're a damn idiot.
Last edited:
At least you finally admit it. That tech is neither efficient or able to produce even close to the amount of energy needed for the human race function on a daily basis. It will never come close.
JFC, you're as dense as they come.
Admit what? That you're a damn idiot?
Denmark gets >40% of it's power from wind. Nearly 30% in Germany from renewables...and Germany has had days where they were able to generate enough energy from renewables to service almost the entire country. Hell, we get >11% of our power from renewables in the good ole US of A right now and it's growing faster and faster. And the technology is improving at an exponential pace.
Please...please...don't come back until you have something intelligent to say. You don't have any f'n idea what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Admit what? That you're a damn idiot?
Denmark gets >40% of it's power from wind. Nearly 30% in Germany from renewables...and Germany has had days where they were able to generate enough energy from renewables to service almost the entire country. Hell, we get >11% of our power from renewables in the good ole US of A right now and it's growing faster and faster. And the technology is improving at an exponential pace.
Please...please...don't come back until you have something intelligent to say. You don't have any f'n idea what you're talking about.
Wow. You just proved my point smart guy. Thanks.
I guess you really don't see it. I apologize for thinking you at least had some common sense.
Ok dumbass...one more time...we need "a drastic cut in the amount of GHG's we pump into the atmosphere." How much CO2 do you suppose Germany doesn't put into the atmosphere now? Denmark? How much CO2 would be pumped into the atmosphere by US power plants if they generated >11% of our energy from fossil fuels?
Did anyone...at any time...say we need to completely replace the use of fossil fuels? Anywhere? Copy and paste it. Whatcha got?
I can't believe I have to spell this out for you but you've demonstrated that plain English isn't your strong suit. I'm tired of beating on a dumb mule. I said "Good day, sir!"
You're not spelling anything out for me you dumb ****. You keep spewing the same bullshit over and over you damn mouth breather.
Everyone already knows that if you want to stop global warming you need to remove GHG's that are being pumped in to the atmosphere. You're just to god damn stupid to understand that I never argued even that point you dumbass.
Again mouth breather, if you want people like myself to believe global warming is such a serious problem, then get off your lazy ass and really do something about it by investing in new technology and not regulation.
Here's the kicker you knuckle dragger... If you develop a new technology that is just as efficient and cost effective, then you won't need to ****ing regulate the population. People will flock to it you damn reject.
Wind and solar power are good enough, neither is the electric car.
I guess I had to spell that out for you.
You've stupidly argued that we don't have the technology to cut our emission of GHG's. Of course, we do. And it's being deployed. It needs to be deployed faster and that is going to involve putting the externalized costs of carbon back on the folks putting it into the air. No more free lunch for them. Or us. And that *gasp* will involve regulation. (cue dramatic music)
It's hard to believe an adult with even a modicum of intelligence can't understand this. But I've obviously been far too kind in my assessment of your intellect.
When you can add something of substance to this conversation...ah hell...never mind.
I can just imagine you pouring a bowl of cereal in the morning. As you pour in the milk, you notice that the level is rising too fast, threatening to run over the sides of the bowl and spill all over the table.
I envision you thinking, "I need to dramatically slow the flow of milk into this bowl if I want to avoid catastrophe." But there's already too much, and the milk slowly spills over the sides of the bowl and onto your table.
You probably should have had a different mindset. Now go get a rag and clean up your mess while you think about what you've done.
Sooooo...let me get this straight...you're saying that if you notice you're pouring too much milk on your cereal, you DON'T think that maybe you should slow down? You just...keep pouring? You...pour faster? You think "Hell, I've got towels to clean up the mess"?
That really explains a lot.
Actually, they are. The newer 400' wind towers can generate in a very large portion of the US, and can easily supply all the energy we need. Upgrading our electrical grid, and getting energy storage centers online in the right regions to smooth out the loads, and we'd have enough for all of our electrical, and would put a good dent in the transportation energy we require. And it'd mean zero oil tankers clogging up the ports, zero trucks hauling gas to stations all over the country. When you no longer have to 'transport' fuel to where it is needed, but can generate it within a few miles of where it is needed, you end up with substantial efficiency gains and lowered costs.
The technologies absolutely are there. It's just that we have a group of capitalists who have trillions invested in infrastructure that becomes worthless when we do that. They want to maintain their income bases as long as possible.
This is the exact problem you and I have had the greatest deal of disagreement... Even you would have to agree that from 1951-1980 we have a much smaller and less overall area of coverage (and less accurate) subset of data... with the advent of satellites our coverage and data points have increase 10 fold or better.
So in the end you are using superior technology to collect data and comparing it to a time with less technology and bigger areas of coverage with no data at all... and somehow that is "far less nefarious" to you.
Maybe we are just getting better at taking temperatures.
This will take TRILLIONS and will take decades to do. We have no stomach for what this will cost.
The point is, "slowing" emissions aren't going to do anything. CO2 concentrations will continue to rise.
If we want to actually do something about this crisis, we need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and reverse the damage.
This requires sequestration, not reducing emissions.
I disagree. The idea of the government injecting trillions of infrastructure spending into jobs that can't be exported makes some of us hard. We saved several trillion by not invading Syria, let's use that money.
But modernizing the electrical grid would be a great project. More practical than space travel, and it would yield numerous future economic benefits. I would compare it to having an electrical version of Eisenhower's interstate highway system which was also deemed by many to be "unnecessary and too expensive".....
You don't need to attack NASA, that's one of the few things that makes money and isn't a very big expenditure.
Yep. And we could include security safeguards to prevent hacking to take it down.
Comparing it to the freeway system investment is very much apples:apples.
We eliminate our need for MidEast oil, and we don't need to waste money on more carrier groups to play ocean policeman over there, either.
And, as noted, nearly all of those jobs will be American jobs. Many of them will be long-term jobs, as well.
I have no problem with space exploration, but sending people to Mars is a colossal waste. Use that money for major infrastructure work here at home.
Not for millions of years. How much cereal can you eat in your kitchen before you have to pee?
Well, I'm not peeing back into the cereal bowl....
I agree, this would be a valuable and worthwhile project to undertake... I'm simply saying we don't have the necessary people or resources to do this right now. It will take 20 years of people arguing over how it needs to be done before 1 shovel hit the ground.
I'll know the US Government is serious about actually doing something when they "Declare War on Global Warming." Meantime, I'll keep up my recycling and minimal energy consumption.
I heard the folks in Northern Saskatchewan were pretty excited about it!!
Oh really? Considering the current wind turbines can only produce less than 5% of the energy the US needs, I call bullshit.
Provide a link.
I don't understand your argument. Is there any reason we couldn't build out our wind infrastructure to move that 5% number higher? Is there some limit on the amount of wind or land you think would prevent us from using more? I don't see where you are really describing a technological problem, just an infrastructure one.
Again that's not really a technological problem. It seems clear we do have the technology to replace fossil fules. It's just a matter of if we wish to pay the cost to do so. Those are political and budgeting problems, not technological.
That's a red herring, coal kills more birds and other animals than windmills and birds don't vote. Go wind and you save puppies. I'll take puppies over birds all day. I can sell that.
Wind provided 30% of Iowa's electricity last year:
http://www.awea.org/MediaCenter/pressrelease.aspx?ItemNumber=8463
Over 31 percent of Iowa’s in-state electricity generation came from wind last year – marking another major milestone. This is the first time wind has supplied a state with more than 30 percent of its annual electricity. Iowa, Kansas and South Dakota all generated more than 20 percent of their electricity from wind in 2015.
100 meter towers can provide the best generation capability, with newer 140 meter towers being even better. Just looking at the install capabilities of 100 meter towers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_generation_potential_in_the_United_States
The wind generation potential in the United States far exceeds demand. There are only two states with no commercially significant wind power potential, Mississippi and Florida.
Florida has the potential to install 900 MW at 25% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines,[1] and Mississippi the potential to install 30,000 MW at 25% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines.[2] For commercial operation, a capacity factor of at least 35% is preferred. There are no locations in either state that would achieve 30% capacity factor. In contrast, North Dakota, the windiest state, has the capacity to install 200,000 MW at 50% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines.[3] Texas, although not as windy, is larger, and has the capacity to install 250,000 MW at 50% capacity factor,[4] and 1,757,355.6 MW of at least 35% capacity factor, capable of generating 6,696,500 GWh/year, more than all of the electricity generated in the United States in 2010.
The US used about 4 million GW-h of electricity in 2010. The numbers indicate that Texas ALONE can produce 1.5 times that amount.Florida has the potential to install 900 MW at 25% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines,[1] and Mississippi the potential to install 30,000 MW at 25% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines.[2] For commercial operation, a capacity factor of at least 35% is preferred. There are no locations in either state that would achieve 30% capacity factor. In contrast, North Dakota, the windiest state, has the capacity to install 200,000 MW at 50% capacity factor 100 meter high turbines.[3] Texas, although not as windy, is larger, and has the capacity to install 250,000 MW at 50% capacity factor,[4] and 1,757,355.6 MW of at least 35% capacity factor, capable of generating 6,696,500 GWh/year, more than all of the electricity generated in the United States in 2010.
Fully installed 100 meter wind turbines can produce over 100 million GW-hr, if 100 m turbines are installed (see list of capacity factors - each state can install a certain range of turbines at sites which could produce at 30%, 35% and 40% capacity factors and the sum of all of those is the amount we could generate.
That's about a factor of 25x more than we used in 2010; excess can go into transportation power, such as electric vehicles, buses or trains.
So, I call 'bullshit' on your uneducated bullshit.
Wow, u seem to know a lot about me from 1 anonymous message board post.
I could say the worst character flaw is probably someone who spends as much time as you do on a lame message board.
Time wisely spent, you must be quality.
LOL...so your plan is to keep pouring the milk as fast as you can while trying to engineer a way to suck some milk out of the bowl? Genius. Seriously.
I get the idea of removing CO2. Great idea. There's nothing out there that has the capability of doing anything meaningful in any time frame that will matter. The task at hand is to stabilize what's there now. We can NOT keep pouring CO2 into the air in the hopes that we'll develop some magic bullet that will save us. The technology exists RIGHT NOW to stabilize CO2 levels and lower the amount we're pumping into the air. The only thing lacking is the political will to deploy it. That's due - in part - to people like you who pretend there's no problem.
What's interesting about all of this is that you seem to now be on board in admitting there is a problem. I don't think you've said one time in this thread that "the beach is still there". Progress.
Similar threads
