|
itsSIRtou -> RE: So.. what moron said... (3/25/2016 9:06:41 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tkman117
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874
I am interested to know how solar power cells create a problem for aviation ? Also interested to know how those same cells fry 28,000 birds a year. Those cells GATHER solar energy and they radiate nothing. NOTHING at all, so how can they perform these anti-miracles ?
How do they cost more than any other power source (natural gas or coal )? They are passive and once installed, just need cleaning once a year or so.
How do they cost more than a regular power plant to build ? And even if there is a truthful answer for this, what are the running costs of solar power cells, compared to the running costs of those power plants ?Those cells gather power for about 12 hours a day (That's a half a day in my part of the world) and the storage facilities are expensive at the present time but getting less expensive by the month. But even with another form of backup power for the times when the sun don't shine, free energy is surely a lot cheaper than energy one has to pay for ? Our electricity bill is less than 25% of what it was before we had solar panels installed.
It DOES require more space for a solar field than a regular power-plant but once in place it is ecologically neutral.
Name calling rarely accomplishes anything but I have to say Ron, I think you have labelled fido totally correctly; in fact, maybe just a touch conservatively.
Well asshole, because, if you knew a damn thing about solar power plants you would know this ISN'T a powercell application. They take a few hectares of land - cover them with heliotropic mirrors, and then focus sunlight on a tower, which typically uses pressurized water or molten salt to then generate power via a turbine.
But of course, you'd rather call names rather than actually read an article.
As for "those cells gather power".. reiterating - pv cells are not in use here, and if there isn't adequate power to pressurize the water, or superheat the molten salt - no power gets generated...
And yet the number of solar generators such as the one you're referring to are in the minority, there are less than 100 of these power stations worldwide. Smaller scale and localized solar panels are a much bigger market in the first place, not to mention the kind of solar factories you mention are typically located in locations with high levels of solar activity. I.E. deserts and other locations where avian acitivity is minimal when compared to other locations. Environments where the impact of these "solar factories" have a minimal impact on the local environment. Plus why are you so concerned about environment impacts when you're defending the use of fossil fuels which are warming the atmosphere and oceans and are causing a greater overall impact on various forms of life in general? Seems rather hypocritical to claim one impacts organisms and the other doesn't. But, oh wait, you don't care about facts. You just love the fact that oil is rather cheap right now and you don't want things to change. Pathetic.
Oh, by which you are conceding that you were completely incorrect in your original post. And rather than admitting it you engage in further character assassination.
So, brilliant birdman - do you understand that chinese companies were dumping solar panels in the US market far below price to produce? That the US opened a trade dispute vs china on this very matter?
Do you know that no such a luminary as Warren Buffet (liberal icon) has said - that if it were not for tax incentives, solar and wind farms would make no sense whatsoever?
Why am I concerned about environmental impacts? Because unlike you, I actually care about actual science, and actual wildlife.
For example - your beloved windfarms are killing more than a million golden eagles a year in the US. The fine to kill one is $10K. For killing 38 of these protected species - as well as 336 other protected species - and oregon wind farm will be paying 2.5 million. And its only just starting.
http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/new/us-windfarms-kill-10-20-times-more-than-previously-thought.html
http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2015/01/09/wind-power-co-pay-25-million-killing-golden-eagles-other-protected-birds-158633
3) Solar is advancing year by year and to demonize it is arrogant and ignorant of the progress it has been making.
4) To ignore the impacts climate change has had on worldwide ecology in exchange for the localized impacts of renewables is so hypocritical it shouldn't even need to be pointed out. Urban sprawl aside, climate change is one of the largest contributors to the planet's newest major extinction event. To ignore it is to literally be the right wing partisan hack you claim not to be.
Tkman,
Do you know what the improvement was in field delivered solar over the last three years? Of course not. But I do. Standard grade solar cells went from 19.5% to 22%.
Do you know what the maximum theoretical efficiency is? Of course not.
Do you know how much power is delivered at ground level? Of course not.
Do you know the average nameplate utilization figure for solar power? Of course not. But its 17%. So when you install 1 GW of solar power - you get on average 170 MW of power. Mind you - you're still paying for that whole GW installed.
Once again - most of what you talk about is absolute bullshit. I've already posted the satellite temperature data that shows statistically there has not been any global warming over the last 20 years over 96% of the planet. Where there has been disting warming is in the north polar region.
Show me a keystone species in that area that is facing an extinction event. You can't. And just to save you some time, there are more polar bears now than there has been in 30 years.
If you can't demonstrate extinction events in the one area showing warmng- why in the world do you think climate is driving extinction events.
More to the point - the left is ALWAYS making dire catastrophic predictions. No snow in the USA. No glaciers in the himalayas. They weren't true - and they still aren't true. But the point is - we have now had, putatively, 42 years of global warming.
How much damage can you demonstrate- in billions of dollars. The simple fact is - the economic benefit of cheaper power has vastly outwayed the remediation cost. And every single study that has looked at that - including the seminal work in the field, the Yale report - has found the same thing.
I don't ignore a damn thing - I read on this subject way more than you do. But I can tell you this - if the science were true, it would'n't need to be falsified.
Now, by the way - I actually have found one paper, whose science isn't falsified and it suggests that we now have had one year of warmer temperatures, and it suggests some reasons to think that this trend may continue for awhile. I agree with his science, and his conclusions. However the idea that climate will be ever warmer is simply false.
Again, I have quoted you the actual words of the IPCC where they admitted the contribution by CO2 was logarithic. It now takes a 10 fold increase in co2 - according to the ipcc - to result in a .3 degree increase in temperature. It simply is not the emergency you make it out to be. Since 1880 we have had (using falsified data) a .4 degree increase in temperature.
This is .04 degrees per decade - as compared to the IPCC prediction of 1.2 degrees per decade.
You ignore the simple melting of ice in a full glass will overflow it.
Man, do you not get that it is absolute science that ice melting in a glass of water will NEVER overflow it? I explained it to you before. Go google archimedes principle to find out why its still true.
You anti-science people are scary.
quote:
You ignore the melting of global ice that if all that were to melt it would put the Oceanside low-lying cities of the world underwater, endanger, displace, or cause to become extinct numerous species.
And you ignore that Greenland and antartica add net something like 186 billion tons of ice last year. Nasa paper, I previously posted here. And if Greenland and Antartica are adding ice - there is no current threat of the cities submerging.
quote:
You sit there and chicken fight the facts when the simple fact is the indiscriminate dumping of chemicals into the atmosphere is just plain fucking wrong.... period.
No, actually, I am quite strong - stronger than you actually, in working against dumping pvoc's, or hexavalent chrome, or Nox, or MTB, or any of a number of things into the atmosphere. Science is strong on those.
In general, I am against dumping anything into the air, or water.
However, where you or I part company, is that the predominance of actual science shows that gain to humankind to be able to have power, to allow people to live better lives, is incontrovertible. And the benefits vastly outway the costs.
quote:
And Phydeaux, even if all the denial bull shit were true,
It is.
Have you notice that not a single one of the numerous posts that I have made on this topic gets contradicted - except by personal attacks?
The news headlines say the oceans are rising - I point out that they add a linear fudge factor that entirely creates the anomaly.
Now someone with a real interest in science would attempt to rebut that point. How I'm not sure, because the original paper was complete junk.
And since its junk - the only response the left has is slamming the messenger.
I point out that solar generates 2% of US power, and receives on the order of 40% of the subsidies to energy companies - and there's no response.
quote:
its still fucked up that business and industry is too selfish & too God damn lazy to do the right thing in the first damn place.
No, whats fucked up is that its inconceivable to you that they may be doing the right thing.
quote:
Especially since the technologies available to do so, and better technologies are coming online every year.
Even if solar power were 100% efficient (which it never can be, 2nd law thermo), it can not compete in an arena of cheap power. Which is why democrats are doing everything they can to make power expensive.
The answer to the question about better technologies are coming online... Certainly thats true. However better technologies are coming online in other industries as well. For example a supercritical AUS coal powered plant using nickel alloys can get over 56% efficiency. Average efficiency in china is around 34%.
quote:
Maybe we should put you and people like you in a room with these pollutants and see how long it is before you ask if not beg to get out.
maybe you should listen to your political opponents and understand their points rather than slander and demonize them.
Alarmists change the goal posts - all the time. At first global warming dated from 1997. But then the temperature hiatus made that untenable so they changed it to the 70's. Then statistics showed that the 20-30's were warmer so they changed the time line to the 1880s. Forgetting that in 1973 people were worried about the coming ice age.
So alarmist are claiming that global warming has been occuring since 1880 - fine. See any mass extinctions in the last 100 years? Has humanity ceased to exist? Did the northwest passage become a navigable trade route. Of course not. So the ridiculous predictions made in 1997, and the ridiculous predictions made in 2001, and the ridiculous predictions made in 2006 are the same as the ridiculous predictions made now.
When do you stop and think - maybe the left has a biased interest in promoting "global warming"
I might advise you to do the same thing. Your side of the divide ignores the dying (coal mine ) Canary in the cage. Your side has a tendency to wait for the Canary to die, rather than do something when the birds stop singing a long time ago. We on the left get that.
Not one of your posts ever gone unchallenged. I gave you the correct context for your" nothing happens" water glass analogy and all of you could mutter AFTERWARDS with what I suspect was the 2 line precursor to this thread.
I refuse to believe that you are that stupid enough to think that you can add that much ice to an already full glass and not have it overflow, any more than you can comparatively add as much ice to the world's oceans and not have it cause issues to below sea level cities. All you really give a shit about is that you don't have to pay for the consequences in your lifetime. We on the left also get that.
Since 1900, approximately 40 bird species alone have ceased to exist. As of 2015, the "international Union for the conservation of nature" has 30 mammals currently listed as "critically endangered (possibly extinct)". And I haven't even listed the species that have already disappeared off the planet since 1900.
Seriously, do human beings who suffer from issues like lead poisoning or other kinds of groundwater contamination already really have to wind up on and endangered species list for your side to want to take action without all this bullshit?
its not been like a (natural) "red tide" fish kill, but really? How much more "mass extinction" do you actually want?
Answer: whatever species gets in the way of you making a profit.
The biggest reason why we have American bald eagles right now, is because we quit listening to people like you and stopped putting those chemicals into the environment that were stopping eagles from reproducing. That forced those industries to reward innovative companies to find cleaner, more effectivee and (surprise!) more cost-effective chemicals to do the same job as the old harmful crap.
Now I can go out and drive along the Mississippi River(here in Minnesota.) and see bald eagles all over the place where only a few years ago there were none.
for Me, those kinds of successes are what drives me to tell people like you how messed up your politics are and lets Me sleep at nite with My answers to people like you.
Nobody has to ask whether or not the right has a "biased interest" in anything other than "profit now, consequences later", and demonizes it self by doing so.
|
|
|
|
