Windmills

Last time I checked, they cause cancer as well.

They do kill birds and do damage to the environment, but why should you care, @Patooka? It goes with your ideology, so killing some birds doesn’t matter. After all, people of your stripe have long said, “You have break some eggs to make an omelette.”

Let’s cut to the chase. You are disgusted with me; I am disgusted with you. There is no middle ground. There is no center in politics any more.

Coal kills everything, not just birds.

I read that when they spin they produce thrust that is slowing the rotation of the earth too.

When Democrats spin things they quickly veer off to the left . I fear if they spin windmills the centrifical force opens a worm hole to a strange dimension where everything that’s good is called bad and everything bad is called good. Anything else that is unfathomable is called Biden Speak.

1 Like

I only opened this thread because I thought the author was referring to Joe Biden jousting windmills in the good old Don Quixote fashion.
Droll, isn’t it?

And yet you can put sequestration filters on them and keep them to a relatively small area.

Windmills have such a low energy density that they disrupt habitats for miles trying to scale them up.

It’s not the energy of the future, it’s a niche source at best.

Agreed, windmills have a place in a diverse energy portfolio.

Clean coal is a myth.

Irony alert?

It’s not a myth, but there is a question of affordability. Once you add on all of the sequestering tech and the transport, does it still have a cost advantage to other, cleaner hydrocarbons? Likely not.

At more than 20x the land use requirements? No. These strip mines hardly form a fraction by comparison.

Same to how you dispose of them. Sequestered Carbon is easier to deal with, and you can do so safely.

Ergo, the tail-end problems of Wind doom it in scaling in most applications (including a way too complicated supply chain). Solar, Nuclear, and bridging hydrocarbons are what we’re heading for. Maybe a biofuel.

If CCS had the same backing as green tech, you can make it work, and certain countries are likely to go down that path due to coal being easier to develop than other sources in their situation.

But I don’t see us doing that, because we have other affordable alternatives.

Exxon has been working on carbon capture technology for years, but the left has no interest in it. Why? Because climate change politics offers to the left a means to an end.

Finding ways to make the transition to green energy less painful are of no interest to the left. They want to destroy the capitalist order and make people poor and dependent on government. They want to power to redistribute income and wealth. And the worst of them are looking to enrich themselves in the process.

Climate change is less important that imposing top down, all powerful government control on the human race. The far left dreamers think that putting government sponsored experts in charge of everything will solve all of the world’s problems far better than the messy republican concept of having free exchanges of ideas. The far left merchants of greed, like the Biden’s, Pelosi’s and Clinton’s know it will give them power and greater wealth.

This really goes back the days when kings, queens, emperors and more recent, dictators ruled. This is why I put “progressive” in parentheses. The real word for them is “regressives.”

They want to turn back the history of human progress from the development of freedom and democracy to dictatorship and control. They need to re-write history and tear down icons because they don’t want the people to know the truth.

Check with California’s moronic P65 warnings. According to them, wood dust (no particular wood; just wood dust in general) causes cancer.

I think that already happened.

Especially if you throw a large lump of it at someone’s head.

Counter irony alert for the strip mines for lithium and/or other rare minerals for electric car batteries? (Not to mention the nightmare of disposing of them.)

If the left were planning their conversion to electric cars, they would enacting the following programs:

  • Greatly expand the electric grid so that it can refuel the vehicles. This goes well beyond greatly expanding the number of charging stations.

  • Keep electric rates down so that there really will savings for consumers after they bought the electric cars. Obama and other Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they brag about raising electric rates. On the other they tell people they will save on fuel costs with electric vehicles. Which is it?

  • Open up Federal lands to exploration for the raw earth minerals that are required for the lithium batteries. If we are totally dependent on China, we are asking for trouble.

  • Address the issue of safe battery disposal.

  • Address the issue of the cost of battery relative to the value of the car. It my understanding that once the battery goes, the car is not worth fixing.

This is only a start, but it addresses more issues than what we are hearing from the Biden administration.

Sure, but you don’t need to disrupt the environment around windmills like you do strip mining.

If it can’t be done affordably, then it’s not viable and therefore a myth.

Mines result in:

Loss of arable land

Acid mine drainage, which pollutes surface and
underground water.

Dust emissions, with dangerous particles inhaled by
surrounding communities.

Pollution from the spontaneous combustion of
discard fly ash coal stockpiles and the pollution that results

The production of 250 million tons per year of coal
requires between 42.5 million m3 (enough to fill 17
000 Olympic-sized swimming pools) and 147 million
m3 (enough to fill 58 800 Olympic-sized swimming
pools) of water.

Not to mention the hydrocarbons burned running mining equipment.

To say nothing about the burning of coal itself.

By-and-large I agree. Windmills are not going to solve our energy needs. The locations they make sense are limited and as I said, they small part of an energy portfolio.

I’m much more a fan of nuclear then wind, coal or frankly anything atm.

Sure, I wasn’t suggesting there aren’t lots of technologies that require disruption of the environment, just that calling out wind specifically is ironic.

So you misunderstood. Send was specifically pointing winds effect on the environment as if it is special in that regard.

Completely agree. The enthusiasm that left has for electric cars is going to create a serious problem in electricity generation in the near future if electric use surges unless we do more to supplement energy generation and infrastructure.

Cost=Demand/Supply.

You are, broadly speaking correct. We need more support for nuclear which, IMO is the only energy source that solves almost every problem of energy generation. Further, fracking drilling techniques create the solution of dealing with nuclear waste long term. You can dig holes (relatively inexpensively) deep enough to put 100 years of waste (the age of the plant) on site (waste does not have to be shipped) so deep it won’t affect water tables or anything else of concern.

There is hope in the future…

https://cen.acs.org/materials/inorganic-chemistry/Can-seawater-give-us-lithium-to-meet-our-battery-needs/99/i36

Not just batteries by ALL e-waste.

Nuclear power could be answer for a lot of the green energy problems, but the lead times to construct it are very long, with more regulatory problems than you could imagine.

Furthermore many in the far left would never accept it. For them, it’s as bad as coal. Far left bureaucrats in the government could kill all of the proposals even if a majority in Congress and the president supports it. It would take a super majority.

Discarded blades of the green machines!:shushing_face:

Haha, and that compares to:

(Sorry, I know not all of those are strip mines, but there are a lot.

That said, here’s what’s left after you burn the coal:

I bet all the discarded windmill blades, ever made and discarded would fit on the three hundred acres in this single coal ash disaster.

And the blades would be less toxic to the environment.

And this is just one example, I could fill pages and pages of images from unique coal ash pits.

You seem surprised. The right wing’s response to renewable energy has always been to propagaindize that perfect is the enemy of good.

That most fossil fuel and mining companies are investing heavily on such technology has escaped their notice. In their eyes being loyal to their tribe matters more.

Baffled at the goal medal level of mental gymnastics, but not surprised.

Agreed, we need a leader who will step up, call for an ethical and environmental review of those regulatory roadblocks and remove what we can. The sooner we get on it, the better.

You’re right. There are a lot or ignorant people out there that succumb to unnecessary fear.

That depends. If we had real leadership things could be different, but in this political climate, if one side takes a position, the other side, almost always takes the opposite.