Remember me
▼ Content

Is Alternative energy ready to take over?


Is Alternative energy ready to take over?20-02-2020 14:45
sceptic777
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
In our rush to implement alternative energy sources it seems clear that many people have not thought the changes through. What happens when, at night, the wind doesn't blow? Use batteries they say. But will batteries do the job economically? Many experts in the field such as Michael Shellenberger says no. For Australia to satisfy it battery backup needs, we would need battery banks the size of a shipping container stacked end for end that would reach from Perth to Sydney. This is clearly not viable.

Then we have the electric vehicles. The present range of an affordable EV is limited. The travel, 500 Kms, requires a midway recharge time of at least 30 mins to 2 hours. How many plug-in points will there be at the road house, and will there be a bottleneck with many others waiting? If your city, has 50% of cars electric by 2030 how will the recharging of these vehicles affect the power grid on a summers night when nearly all these cars plug in and home air conditioners are running ?

Wind Turbines have the following problems :
Kill many large birds(1 million in the US alone by 2030)

The blades cannot be reused or recycled and end up in landfill sites. They use up large areas of land. (1,000 times more land for the same power production as a Coal fired power station.) Wind Turbines in their working life save very little CO2. When the wind doesn't blow, coal fired plants have to ramp up their power and this fluctuating operation produces more pollutants than when the plant is running at full capacity.

With Solar Power the energy produced, costs up to three times as much as Wind power and only produces in the day time and when there are no obstructions such as clouds. Concentrated Solar power has to be done in deserts with the resulting power being piped as much as thousands of kilometres away!

The panels are tipped to last 25 years but many only last 12 years and although they have been in use for some years, there is presently no adequate infrastructure to recycle them or properly dispose of them. Another environmental problem. In Summary, funds that are desperately needed for real environmental problems will be diverted to solve a problem that does not exist...CO2 pollution! If Australia was to move away from this cheap source of energy and third world countries would then use inferior coal and burn it with less environmental regulations, the pollution problem would be much worse.

Just recently, 500 Climate Scientists petitioned the UN saying that "There is No Climate Emergency!". So, if we, do a panic and go down the renewable path we have plenty of time to get it right while solving real environmental problems!
20-02-2020 16:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6994)
sceptic777 wrote:In our rush to implement alternative energy sources it seems clear that many people have not thought the changes through.

You think?

sceptic777 wrote: What happens when, at night, the wind doesn't blow?

That's all part of the Marxist plan to ruin the global economy and to spread human misery on a massive scale.

Are you going to tell me that you haven't noticed?


sceptic777 wrote: Use batteries they say. But will batteries do the job economically?

Of course not. That's the whole point: uneconomical, inconvenient and very bad for the environment. A Marxist dream come true.

sceptic777 wrote: Then we have the electric vehicles. The present range of an affordable EV is limited.

Now you're catching on.

sceptic777 wrote: The travel, 500 Kms, requires a midway recharge time of at least 30 mins to 2 hours. How many plug-in points will there be at the road house, and will there be a bottleneck with many others waiting? If your city, has 50% of cars electric by 2030 how will the recharging of these vehicles affect the power grid on a summers night when nearly all these cars plug in and home air conditioners are running ?

So they aren't fooling you. Good for you.

sceptic777 wrote: Wind Turbines have the following problems :
Kill many large birds(1 million in the US alone by 2030)

The blades cannot be reused or recycled and end up in landfill sites. They use up large areas of land. (1,000 times more land for the same power production as a Coal fired power station.) Wind Turbines in their working life save very little CO2. When the wind doesn't blow, coal fired plants have to ramp up their power and this fluctuating operation produces more pollutants than when the plant is running at full capacity.

I think you're starting to see the bigger picture.

sceptic777 wrote: With Solar Power the energy produced, costs up to three times as much as Wind power and only produces in the day time and when there are no obstructions such as clouds. Concentrated Solar power has to be done in deserts with the resulting power being piped as much as thousands of kilometres away!

You can still hear the Marxists laughing about this one.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-02-2020 17:05
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(887)
The short answer is no. FAR from it.
20-02-2020 17:53
Third world guy
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
IBdaMann wrote:

That's all part of the Marxist plan to ruin the global economy and to spread human misery on a massive scale.

That's the whole point: uneconomical, inconvenient and very bad for the environment. A Marxist dream come true.



Neurotics and paranoids like you always see ghosts that take them away from reality, and they obsess and always repeat the same narrative.

Marxists practically no longer exist, except in your sick mind.

There is no Marxist plan that promotes the use of alternative energies to end capitalism. Clarify your ideas and don't keep writing nonsense! Be objective!


There are three kinds of climate change: that generated by natural factors; that generated by man; and that generated by economic interests.
20-02-2020 18:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6994)
Third world guy wrote: Marxists practically no longer exist, except in your sick mind.

Los ciegos como vos hablan tonterías. No dejes la baba caer al zapato.

Third world guy wrote: There is no Marxist plan that promotes the use of alternative energies to end capitalism.

Of course not. Green New Deal


Shouldn't you be out protesting Walmart?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
20-02-2020 21:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12743)
Third world guy wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

That's all part of the Marxist plan to ruin the global economy and to spread human misery on a massive scale.

That's the whole point: uneconomical, inconvenient and very bad for the environment. A Marxist dream come true.



Neurotics and paranoids like you always see ghosts that take them away from reality, and they obsess and always repeat the same narrative.

Marxists practically no longer exist, except in your sick mind.

They exist. It is heavily taught in schools today. Socialism IS Marxism, regardless of whether it takes the form of fascism by oligarchy (as it appears in the United States here and there and also practiced in the USSR, the UK, and Canada), or takes the form of communism (as is practiced by North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, or China).

See the Communist Manifesto.


Third world guy wrote:
There is no Marxist plan that promotes the use of alternative energies to end capitalism.

Yes there is.

The Church of Green is stems from the Church of Karl Marx. It's purpose is to destroy 'big energy' as the bourgeois. Coal, oil, and natural gas are cheap, renewable (at least for oil and natural gas, coal we don't know yet), and easily extracted from natural sources refined, and used.

Obama wanted to kill the coal industry. Fascism by dictat. He is a Marxist. He wanted to tax the hell out of the oil and gas industry too. Fascism by dictat. He is a Marxist. He wanted to destroy 'big energy'.

Solar power is EXPENSIVE, watt for watt. Solar arrays MUST be regularly cleaned, maintained, and replaced from time to time. They also do not provide any ballast. External batteries are the only practical ballasting method, and they do not store enough energy economically.

Wind power is EXPENSIVE. It cannot operate in winter conditions much of the time due to ice buildup on the blades. It covers acre after acre of land to produce piddle power. It too has no ballast. If the wind stop, or is too strong, or if there is frost or ice on the blades, it cannot produce power. A single coal plant can replace ALL of the wind generators in Washington State right now.

BOTH of these power sources are government mandated. That's the only way these projects get built. It is a waste of real estate.
Third world guy wrote:
Clarify your ideas and don't keep writing nonsense! Be objective!

He IS being objective. Denying Marxism exists, which is what YOU are doing, is not being objective.

BTW, the Church of Global Warming stems also from the Church of Karl Marx. It's purpose is not only to destroy 'big energy', but also to destroy 'big industry'.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Is Alternative energy ready to take over?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Nancy, an oil tycoon's daughter is kidnapped by a cultish environmental group who's ready to wage226-11-2019 21:22
An alternative theory from a non-scientist529-04-2019 18:28
Market trends now favor renewable energy as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels - Nov 20171902-12-2017 04:19
Alternative energy policy023-11-2013 18:26
A better alternative525-06-2013 00:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact