Sunday, August 4, 2013
Slowly, For Ema
The obvious assertion of that silly ad was that wind is somehow going to be a major player in our energy future. That is bullshit. It is bullshit and, please, allow me to explain why. a) Wind, at its absolute peak, is only 35% efficient (in some areas it is only 9-10% efficient), ERGO it needs a back-up and generally, Ema, that is fossil fuels.......b) It takes thousands and thousands of tons to make each and every one of those windmills (it's called "high resource intensity") and where do you think the energy to make those windmills comes from, Ema? Yeah, that's right, fossil fuels (I repeat, you can make windmills out of steel but you can't make steel out of windmills)!!......c) The power density of a nuclear power plant is 56 watts per square meter. The power density of a 10 barrel a day oil stripper well is 28 watts per square meter. You want to know what the power density of wind turbines is? Try 1.2 watts per square meter (calculations from energy experts, Robert Bryce, Jesse Ausubel, and Stan Jakuba and similar to those of the Nature Conservancy). Da' ya' really want to pave entire states and chop down trees in the Alleghenies to build a bunch of fucking eye-sores that only give you a trickle of electricity (this, while not appreciably lowering our carbon footprint), continue to keep third-world countries impoverished, and which mangle by the thousands falcons, owls, and American bald eagles? I sure as hell don't.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
.
“The obvious assertion of that silly ad was that wind is somehow going to be a major player in our energy future. That is bullshit. ...”
“Da' ya' really want to pave entire states and chop down trees in the Alleghenies to build a bunch of fucking eye-sores that only give you a trickle of electricity (this, while not appreciably lowering our carbon footprint), continue to keep third-world countries impoverished, and which mangle by the thousands falcons, owls, and American bald eagles?”
There you go again. What ever is in that crack-pipe you are usin’, must be good stuff.
No one is saying, “wind is somehow going to be a _major_ player in our energy future.” and no one is saying ‘mangle bald eagles.’ Given how absolutely unhinged you become over the messenger, one does ask, “Are you even capable of hearing the message?” This is not a simple, simplistic either/or proposition.
Researching alternative non-fossil fuel energy resources (including wind) is important (and potentially very profitable). Again, getting off fossil fuels will happen (but as you will not be alive to see it - means you don’t care to see others try to work the issue). The question is when? Will USA lead in the research efforts, or follow other forward looking peoples/nations/regions?
You have the perfect game going. You’ve made it clear, your position now is don't do anything because whatever one tries is not perfect (and you can always find faults in the efforts). (Which of course then allows you to throw hissy-fits when nothing is done.)
Did I type this slowly enough for you?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
If getting off fossil fuels completely is your goal, then wind DE FACTO (man, you are dense) has to be a major player. Hello!!!! And we WILL be on fossil fuels for centuries. There is a known reserve of 30,000 trillion cubic feet of natural gas (try and get your little head around that number, Ema) in the world and that will definitely grow as technology grows. And windmills DO mangle bald eagles and other rare birds of prey BY THE THOUSANDS. In fact, the Altimont Wind Farm in CA alone kills more bald eagles in one year than the entire fossil fuel industry (again, you are ignorant). It is obvious that you haven't studied energy issues because if you had you'd know that wind energy is a scam (and as a taxpayer, I resent that) that will probably outdo ethanol eventually as a budget buster. You think that wind is great? Fine, you and your socialist cohorts invest in it then. Just don't try and make steel. LOL
.
Is it possible you could discuss issues without hysterically squawking about personal flaws you perceive in the person with whom you are conferring? You believe, "Any one who does not agree with you 100%, _MUST_ be really really really stupid." And this gives you the right to smear and insult people.
Being "dense", "ignorant", and "socialist" does allow one to stay focused on the issue _YOU_ brought up. In your original post, you became unhinged over the messenger and missed the message. Did you not soil yourself publicly using terms that the original messenger did not use?
As the world moves away from fossil fuels other areas of research will make solar, nuclear, Geo-thermal, and wind possible replacement sources of energy on earth. The questions of who lead in the fields of research rests with the people today. That was the messenger's original message.
_________~
"Just don't try and make steel."
Why should any one? Don't use steel much. Most of the world has moved on to better, lighter, stronger, and easier (and less environmentally destructive) to manufacture materials than steel.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
You accuse me of smoking crack and becoming unhinged and being simplistic (this, because I've actually had the audacity to study the subject) and incapable of hearing your message (you had one?) and throwing hissy fits (again, for actually giving facts and not opinions) and hysterically squawking and soiling myself and then you have the audacity to accuse me of ad hominem attacks Unbelievable.......Why should anyone want to make steel? If you want to make windmills you need thousands of tons of steel, Ema. Think, for Christ sakes.......And I'm in favor of nuclear (it's the only noncarbon energy source that will be capable of providing energy on a mass scale). I thought that you were against it.......And, again, you're delusional if you think that we're going to be going off of fossil fuels any time soon. The third world is in desperate need of AFFORDABLE energy and they are in no mood whatsoever to be lectured to by people like you and Al Gore.
And it would be nice if you occasionally addressed my specific points, Ema.......Wind, because of its intermittent nature, needs a backup. Like in China, for instance, those people have built thousands of windmills and their pollution levels haven't gotten any better. And that, EMA, is precisely because for every watt of wind that they built, they also had to build an additional watt of coal backup (and coal, unlike natural gas - which you're also slavishly and moronically opposed to, has to be constantly fired up - HELLO!). You really need to start thinking this stuff through, fella'.
Ema said: " Most of the world has moved on to better, lighter, stronger, and easier (and less environmentally destructive) to manufacture materials than steel."
Wow.... Ema must believe that the only industry in the world is aerospace.
I think that people like Ema, Gore, James Cameron, and Matthew Fox should only go to hospitals that are powered exclusively by green energy. I mean, if you truly want to get off of fossil fuels "completely", then you really ought to walk the walk, I think.
Post a Comment