Ah, yes, it's the evil Zionists, the Jewish Bankers.
They probably make pizza without bacon, too.
They probably make pizza without bacon, too.
How scientists got their global warming sums wrong
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Well there goes the last good bye to the concept of intelligent design...
If not for *ankind in general, then regarding posts defending child abuse and apartheid idiocy specifically.
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
happy now?
If not for *ankind in general, then regarding posts defending child abuse and apartheid idiocy specifically.
If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
happy now?
Just move the posts over to the right thread. A mental breakdown so early in the day, today will be a good day to check out my new sharp stick.
Who are you, Nancy Pelosi? :lol: Swapping CO2 for methane isn't reducing or eliminating jack-shit other than CO2.
Once again, here's the problem with your premise. Your average 2MW turbine contains about 200 tonnes of steel. Steel is produced using coal. Now, in order to meet just the annual increase in demand for power, you'd have to build about 350,000 2MW wind turbines every year. That's 70 million tonnes of steel and the associated coal burning that goes with it just to build wind turbines. Keep in mind that the 350,000 turbines per year are just to meet increasing annual demand. It does not take into account replacing current fossil fuel-powered generation.
Oh sure, the "reasoning" is you can use recycled steel to build them but at 70 million tonnes per year, that supply will dry up pretty quickly.
Each turbine also requires up to 900L of oil, and it ain't vegetable oil. That works out to 78.75 million gallons of oil every year just for new turbines.
And by the by, when spacing between turbines is taken into account, 350,000 wind turbines take up about the same land space as Great Britain, including Ireland.
Next you have the natgas issue. Natgas has been used for years now to help provide flexibility in the power supply. Coal and oil also provide that ability as well but since we want to phase those out, we're stuck with methane, a GHG that is 25X more potent than CO2.
But that's not the only problem. Mating natgas to wind power makes the natgas plants far less efficient. You're not only using it for flexibility to meet increases in demand throughout the day, you also have to constantly make adjustments in output to make up for the vagaries of wind. This becomes analogous to driving a car. You get better fuel economy and produce fewer emissions and pollution when you can drive a nice steady speed. That's why mpg ratings are always higher for the highway than the city.
Phasing out coal and oil for power generation will eventually happen. But you won't ever phase out coal and oil completely until the supply runs out. Those pesky fossil fuels will still be around for a long, long time. Especially with all those nice accessible methane deposits that are absolutely essential for making wind power even remotely viable on more than just a local scale.
Solar is certainly better than wind but it also has its limitations. It's not unusual for an area or region to have heavy cloud cover along with some rain, or snow, for 3-4 days at a time. How you gonna generate power when the solar plants can't collect it? You better hope battery storage comes along a lot further than it is right now.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely anti-wind/anti-solar. I just think they should concentrate on making it more readily available and affordable for property owners instead of trying to supply power generation with them on a commercial level and using it as a for-profit venture where consumers are forced by govt to remain hooked to the grid. And why? Because, their cronies in the green energy sector would lose out on profits while the govt would lose out on taxes from individual bills as well as the taxes on the provider's profits.
It's one thing if it's a genuine public utility. It's quite another for govt to ensure the profits of a private corporation and its shareholders by forcing people to buy their power from them even if they are fully capable of being energy independent.
It's not even eliminating any CO2, just deferring the inevitable as the carbon alters form into CO2.... The forest fires in BC are testament to that
HHO gas can be created for pennies as it uses water as the fuel source. Stainless steel and some amps can produce the heat required to melt just about anything.
How hot does an oxyhydrogen flame burn?
The amount of heat energy released is independent of the mode of combustion, but the temperature of the flame varies. The maximum temperature of about 2,800 °C (5,100 °F) is achieved with an exact stoichiometric mixture, about 700 °C (1,300 °F) hotter than a hydrogen flame in air.
Do you remember the roof that went skywards in Japan during a 'nuclear event'. It was promoted the gas was hydrogen, where did it come from?
HHO would easily sent the roof that high. Explosions have tones that vary with the rate the explosion detonates. Most chemical explosions go 'boom', an HHO explosion is a 'crack'.
How hot does an oxyhydrogen flame burn?
The amount of heat energy released is independent of the mode of combustion, but the temperature of the flame varies. The maximum temperature of about 2,800 °C (5,100 °F) is achieved with an exact stoichiometric mixture, about 700 °C (1,300 °F) hotter than a hydrogen flame in air.
Do you remember the roof that went skywards in Japan during a 'nuclear event'. It was promoted the gas was hydrogen, where did it come from?
HHO would easily sent the roof that high. Explosions have tones that vary with the rate the explosion detonates. Most chemical explosions go 'boom', an HHO explosion is a 'crack'.
The acidic ash left behind is a bigger pollution hazard than some gas that doesn't alter the O2 content by an amount that can even be measured.
You should be able to calculate how much was released by the fires and that would allow an estimation of how much carbon the trees had taken out of 'circulation' in the first place.
And you spend your time signing up for emails to get on here.
A heads-up, your Russian fake email server will be blocked shortly.
A heads-up, your Russian fake email server will be blocked shortly.
He was trying to show his intellect was higher than yours. (by speaking in riddles as you did) You obviously both belong in the lower ranks and there is no conspiracy in that assessment.
You should have stopped at the end of the 2nd line.
So it be spoke, so it be wrote, so it be done. In that order forever.
So it be spoke, so it be wrote, so it be done. In that order forever.
Zec:13:5:
But he shall say,
I am no prophet,
I am an husbandman;
for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
Zec:13:6:
And one shall say unto him,
What are these wounds in thine hands?
Then he shall answer,
Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Did your wounded heart ever heal when Kerry ignored your caring ways??
But he shall say,
I am no prophet,
I am an husbandman;
for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.
Zec:13:6:
And one shall say unto him,
What are these wounds in thine hands?
Then he shall answer,
Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.
Did your wounded heart ever heal when Kerry ignored your caring ways??