User Controls
Do you actually believe in global warming/climate change?
-
2019-02-14 at 12:31 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny No one is really talking about 4 billion year predictions though. Generally it's the next couple hundred years that people are talking about with climate change. We have reasonably good estimations of historical weather patterns for at least a thousand years into the past.
keyword : estimation. -
2019-02-14 at 12:47 PM UTCElectric cars run on coal power
It takes a by product of petroleum to make solar panels
Denmark pays 4 times for their energy as Americans and they aren’t 100% renewable. They still have to buy energy (about 30%) from coal producing nations to supplement.
Look at your utility bill and multiple by 4. Cost of electric vehicles are 25-30% more.
It would take a 56 square mile solar panel to power the city I live in. Imagine New York...
Meanwhile,Russia,China,India,the continent of Africa will still be burning coal and driving diesels while we bankrupt ourselves.lol.
Where the hell is japan going to put all those windmills and solar panels? Have you seen the energy Tokyo uses?
Not viable at this time. Carbon has been dropping and don’t forget the active volcanos belching carbon all over the planet. -
2019-02-14 at 12:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Archer513 Electric cars run on coal power
It takes a by product of petroleum to make solar panels
Denmark pays 4 times for their energy as Americans and they aren’t 100% renewable. They still have to buy energy (about 30%) from coal producing nations to supplement.
Look at your utility bill and multiple by 4. Cost of electric vehicles are 25-30% more.
It would take a 56 square mile solar panel to power the city I live in. Imagine New York…
Meanwhile,Russia,China,India,the continent of Africa will still be burning coal and driving diesels while we bankrupt ourselves.lol.
Where the hell is japan going to put all those windmills and solar panels? Have you seen the energy Tokyo uses?
Not viable at this time. Carbon has been dropping and don’t forget the active volcanos belching carbon all over the planet.
What's your point? -
2019-02-14 at 1:09 PM UTCGo back to bed Q
You jobless bum!
🤠 -
2019-02-14 at 1:20 PM UTC
-
2019-02-14 at 2:20 PM UTCJoin me 😉😘
-
2019-02-14 at 2:21 PM UTCQueers in space
-
2019-02-14 at 2:22 PM UTC*a bunch of emojis with hearts*The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-02-14 at 2:29 PM UTCIt’s not a gay thing
Reducing carbon with body heat 👍🏻 -
2019-02-14 at 2:37 PM UTC
-
2019-02-14 at 2:39 PM UTCI don't believe man is responsible for climate change but I wish I would have gotten into the scam from the beginning.
-
2019-02-14 at 2:40 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra 'clean energy' is only clean if you ignore half of the supply chain
whether or not it really is 'cleaner' would have to take things like lifespan, power output etc. into account
Nigger if we put like 8 zillion windmills around the world we would be good to go but everyone is scared of windmills for some reason -
2019-02-14 at 2:40 PM UTCCause the birds
-
2019-02-14 at 2:41 PM UTC*birbs
And no. The windmills will kill the birb problem too -
2019-02-14 at 2:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Nigger if we put like 8 zillion windmills around the world we would be good to go but everyone is scared of windmills for some reason
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution
generally speaking though they need a lot of space, constant maintenance and their cost to power output ratio per unit is far lower than standard coal or gas boilers.
I think the most promising 'green' power sources are hydroelectric, tidal and geothermal turbines but they all still have major issues. The best stopgap we have for the moment is nuclear -
2019-02-14 at 2:47 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra 'clean energy' is only clean if you ignore half of the supply chain
whether or not it really is 'cleaner' would have to take things like lifespan, power output etc. into account
Yes
Plus cost comparison to value/detriment
Carbon is already coming down. Why take on the cost when the science isn’t pure and our global powers/competition aren’t on board?
It’s completely narcissistic nonsense. -
2019-02-14 at 2:59 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/07/china-rare-earth-village-pollution
generally speaking though they need a lot of space, constant maintenance and their cost to power output ratio per unit is far lower than standard coal or gas boilers.
I think the most promising 'green' power sources are hydroelectric, tidal and geothermal turbines but they all still have major issues. The best stopgap we have for the moment is nuclear
A lot of space? It's a windmill. They take up like a back yard's worth of space barely.
Constant maintenance? Lol. There's just a mill that needs spinning from the wind. What the fuck is there to maintain CONSTANTLY? Hire some faggot Mexican to check on the windmill blades here and there . That's that.
Cost? Put the stupid windmill up and it's done. I could build one myself for like 100 dollars I bet.
There I just solved wbeyrhing and that's why I'm a nuclear physicist thanks -
2019-02-14 at 3:01 PM UTCSomeone has to clean up the bird guts
Constantly... -
2019-02-14 at 3:06 PM UTCUmm.
Windmills produce energy that needs STORED. Aka-batteries. The wind isn’t always blowing. There’s already a supply deficiency in the materials to make batteries. Tesla is having issues getting batteries for their cars.
The material has to be mined...with dielsel heavy equipment and tnt.
The amount of batteries required for a world of windmills is astronomical.
Combustion is the most efficient way to produce energy and it isn’t even close. -
2019-02-14 at 3:46 PM UTCIt's like trying to find the average amount of rent you pay each year, so you take the first month and the last month and divide by two and declare the result the average, when you paid double in December than you paid in January.
So:
JAN $540
FEB $580
MAR $650
APR $690
MAY $740
JUNE $780
JULY $860
AUG $890
SEPT $930
OCT $980
NOV $1,050
DEC $1,080
Total: $9,770
NOV/DEC average ($1,050 + $1,080) / 12 = $1,065
When the actual average is $9,770 / 12 = $814.17
That's a difference of $250.83.
Multiply that incorrect average by 12 months and you get $3,009.96. That's how much the error would be when calculating the total average on the whole year, making it look like you paid $12,779.96, when you really only paid $9,770, a 76% difference.
The global warming data was calculated in the exact same manner as the calculations I've made above. Erroneous. False. Intentionally exaggerated strictly for political agenda.
