Anyone need a good laugh?

[volinbham]

opcorn:

 

[Gannon Goodson]

So when gas is four dollars a gallon why do they?

Gas is expensive because we're printing so much money.

Wind energy is not viable. You'd have to blanket the entire continent of Australia with wind turbines just to power the city of Sydney. So if you want to cover the landscape with wind turbines, spend hundreds of billions that we don't have for a tiny fraction of the energy generated by coal, oil, or natural gas, and kill a few million birds in the process, then go for it. However, those of us who live in reality will continue to fight the morons advancing the stupid Marxist green agenda.

 

[LouderVol]

in case this wasn't sarcasm see below

you believe you could build enough windmills in Kansas to generate the equivalent of 3/4 of all electricity currently produced in the US? That was my point.

As another poster pointed out - there is either a typo (million vs billion) or the author of the story made a substantial math mistake.

could we? yes
should we? no
guys an author not a calculator, darn decimal places...

and if you think wind turbine efficiency is where it is going to cap out at you have another thing coming. How efficient were cars when they just started, heck look at how efficient they were 15+ years ago. These large scale turbines have just really started in those 15 years, they will get better, or bigger or just more efficient.

There are a lot of sustainable/free sources of energy out there that we don't utilize enough. If you have lived in East TN then moved elsewhere you know how much of a Godsend TVA is (lets not get political here) now just think if we utilized more of the same ideas. No one power source is going to fully cover the US, no one energy source does it today. Why does it hurt to have another system in play? More energy produced is cheaper costs for consumers, and more energy produced by 'green' could lead to more exports of fossil fuels, which in another thread I have already been told they can sell it for more over there than they can here.

Me I would rather have the systems in place to deal with whatever is coming then depend of fossil fuels until the moment they run out.

 

[LouderVol]

Gas is expensive because we're printing so much money.

Wind energy is not viable. You'd have to blanket the entire continent of Australia with wind turbines just to power the city of Sydney. So if you want to cover the landscape with wind turbines, spend hundreds of billions that we don't have for a tiny fraction of the energy generated by coal, oil, or natural gas, and kill a few million birds in the process, then go for it. However, those of us who live in reality will continue to fight the morons advancing the stupid Marxist green agenda.

making money through non O&G = marxist, seems legit. How did O&G get so big? they invested billions of dollars, and had plenty of government dollars, tax breaks (still ongoing) to help... its the future new things are coming.

 

[volinbham]

could we? I don't see how that is a yes given the author's error. Show me where it is theoretically possible to get wind power out of Kansas equivalent to 3/4 of what is now generated in the country and I'll listen.

As it stands, it appears the theoretical limit was 3 million not 3 billion megawatts. More than a minor difference.

I'm all for any and all energy sources. I'm all for reality too.

 

[#VFL__]

could we? yes
should we? no
guys an author not a calculator, darn decimal places...

and if you think wind turbine efficiency is where it is going to cap out at you have another thing coming. How efficient were cars when they just started, heck look at how efficient they were 15+ years ago. These large scale turbines have just really started in those 15 years, they will get better, or bigger or just more efficient.

There are a lot of sustainable/free sources of energy out there that we don't utilize enough. If you have lived in East TN then moved elsewhere you know how much of a Godsend TVA is (lets not get political here) now just think if we utilized more of the same ideas. No one power source is going to fully cover the US, no one energy source does it today. Why does it hurt to have another system in play? More energy produced is cheaper costs for consumers, and more energy produced by 'green' could lead to more exports of fossil fuels, which in another thread I have already been told they can sell it for more over there than they can here.

Me I would rather have the systems in place to deal with whatever is coming then depend of fossil fuels until the moment they run out.

Great outlook

 

[LouderVol]

could we? I don't see how that is a yes given the author's error. Show me where it is theoretically possible to get wind power out of Kansas equivalent to 3/4 of what is now generated in the country and I'll listen.

As it stands, it appears the theoretical limit was 3 million not 3 billion megawatts. More than a minor difference.

I'm all for any and all energy sources. I'm all for reality too.

i was being tongue in cheek there, I thought the gave that away. Is it possible, strictly speaking yes, is it probable, laughably no.

 

[#VFL__]

.

 

[#VFL__]

Gas is expensive because we're printing so much money.

Wind energy is not viable. You'd have to blanket the entire continent of Australia with wind turbines just to power the city of Sydney. So if you want to cover the landscape with wind turbines, spend hundreds of billions that we don't have for a tiny fraction of the energy generated by coal, oil, or natural gas, and kill a few million birds in the process, then go for it. However, those of us who live in reality will continue to fight the morons advancing the stupid Marxist green agenda.

Just a personal question. Why is it that everyone with a different stance is an idiot or a moron? What exactly have you done for civilization Gannon? Because you sure ride a high f'in horse

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Just a personal question. Why is it that everyone with a different stance is an idiot or a moron? What exactly have you done for civilization Gannon? Because you sure ride a high f'in horse

I have yet to produce a bastard kid; I don't live on the dole; and I pay a boatload in taxes. People like me have to subsidize the broke, downtrodden, and irresponsible. That's just the way the system is set up.

As for your last sentence, it's certainly not a high horse. I will continue to challenge those who make nonsensical and illogical points. Let's look at this thread. The evidence shows that wind power is not a viable source of energy. It certainly won't meet the needs the nation-state. We know that. So why would anyone logically conclude that it's a good idea to invest money that we DO NOT HAVE with little to no benefit in return? That's not a holier than thou statement. The numbers don't add up. I know bulls*** when I see it.

 

[#VFL__]

I have yet to produce a bastard kid; I don't live on the dole; and I pay a boatload in taxes. People like me have to subsidize the broke, downtrodden, and irresponsible. That's just the way the system is set up.

As for your last sentence, it's certainly not a high horse. I will continue to challenge those who make nonsensical and illogical points. Let's look at this thread. The evidence shows that wind power is not a viable source of energy. It certainly won't meet the needs the nation-state. We know that. So why would anyone logically conclude that it's a good idea to invest money that we DO NOT HAVE with little to no benefit in return? That's not a holier than thou statement. The numbers don't add up. I know bulls*** when I see it.

By your logic they would have never developed the computer or phone you type on. Technology is changing more than ever. We have the ability to do anything that we put our mind to. I have no doubt that wind and solar energy will be a huge asset to future humanity. Let's just give up because it's hard and Gannon doesn't see it as a worth while task. I get it, we don't have money as a country. We spend billions on the war on drugs. Why not divert that energy and money to providing future energy sources. Oh wait... because it is hard.

 

[Carl Pickens]

By your logic they would have never developed the computer or phone you type on. Technology is changing more than ever. We have the ability to do anything that we put our mind to. I have no doubt that wind and solar energy will be a huge asset to future humanity. Let's just give up because it's hard and Gannon doesn't see it as a worth while task. I get it, we don't have money as a country. We spend billions on the war on drugs. Why not divert that energy and money to providing future energy sources. Oh wait... because it is hard.

How old are you V? I ask because I'm 46 and they've been preaching solar power since I was under 10 and it's still not a significant energy source.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

By your logic they would have never developed the computer or phone you type on. Technology is changing more than ever. We have the ability to do anything that we put our mind to. I have no doubt that wind and solar energy will be a huge asset to future humanity. Let's just give up because it's hard and Gannon doesn't see it as a worth while task. I get it, we don't have money as a country. We spend billions on the war on drugs. Why not divert that energy and money to providing future energy sources. Oh wait... because it is hard.

 

[FLVOL69]

By your logic they would have never developed the computer or phone you type on. Technology is changing more than ever. We have the ability to do anything that we put our mind to. I have no doubt that wind and solar energy will be a huge asset to future humanity. Let's just give up because it's hard and Gannon doesn't see it as a worth while task. I get it, we don't have money as a country. We spend billions on the war on drugs. Why not divert that energy and money to providing future energy sources. Oh wait... because it is hard.

At a minimum we have at least 100 years of known oil and gas reserves thanks to fraking and other advances in the industry, why not exploit those resources in the mean time while science continues to make advances in wind and solar. Like the man said, it's just not viable at the present time. Build some ****ing refineries and convert all this natural gas into methanol or liquefied gas, the methanol would run approximately 1.50 a gallon. Cheap energy is the key to turning our economy around and putting folks back to work.. Just look at North Dakota and Midland Texas for example. That should be the model for America not green energy scams like solyndra and company..

 

[McDad]

How old are you V? I ask because I'm 46 and they've been preaching solar power since I was under 10 and it's still not a significant energy source.

Just wait until our sun becomes a red giant, then it will give our planet more energy than it can handle.

 

[#VFL__]

How old are you V? I ask because I'm 46 and they've been preaching solar power since I was under 10 and it's still not a significant energy source.

The technology wasn't there. What our species has accomplished in the past few years should do nothing but solve these issues. Trust me, some genius is going to develop a way. Just a matter of time and money.

 

[#VFL__]

At a minimum we have at least 100 years of known oil and gas reserves thanks to fraking and other advances in the industry, why not exploit those resources in the mean time while science continues to make advances in wind and solar. Like the man said, it's just not viable at the present time. Build some ****ing refineries and convert all this natural gas into methanol or liquefied gas, the methanol would run approximately 1.50 a gallon. Cheap energy is the key to turning our economy around and putting folks back to work.. Just look at North Dakota and Midland Texas for example. That should be the model for America not green energy scams like solyndra and company..

Solyndra is not a science, it was a scam obviously. But you're right, we have tons of other options. We are lucky that we have those. I'm just glad scientists and engineers don't have most of your views on our limitations.

 

[volinbham]

Ah but Solyndra was a perfect example of the topic of this thread. It was awash in cash (including tax payer cash) due to cronyism rather than technological merit or market demand.

 

[FLVOL69]

Solyndra is not a science, it was a scam obviously. But you're right, we have tons of other options. We are lucky that we have those. I'm just glad scientists and engineers don't have most of your views on our limitations.

I'm simply being practical,exploit what we've got and put people to work now! I'm more of a futurist than you could ever imagine. One day it will be practical, just not now.

 

[LouderVol]

Ah but Solyndra was a perfect example of the topic of this thread. It was awash in cash (including tax payer cash) due to cronyism rather than technological merit or market demand.

scam aside, it did have merit, we actually used there panels on a project and it exceeded theirs and our expectations. I will take my real world experience with them over green bashing prejudice

the biggest problem was that there was no demand to justify the huge investment.

we have to keep pushing on all fronts, I am not saying cut off the O&G or even really tone it down, I am saying diversify. again how many billions did we invest and how many laws were changed/amended/ignored for frakking and horizontal drilling. O&G is just as big, probably bigger, example of cronyism and back room deals and government funded boondoggle. It has just been around a lot longer and had way more invested into it. if we spent the same that we did on renewable sources as we did on O&G you would see a return on investment.

 

[hog88]

Put the money in the hands of the end user, the homeowner, business owner the apartment owner. Provide subsidies/tax incentives o the end user and require the power company to purchase the excess.

That is the only way to make solar/wind ext viable on a mass scale.

 

[LouderVol]

Put the money in the hands of the end user, the homeowner, business owner the apartment owner. Provide subsidies/tax incentives o the end user and require the power company to purchase the excess.

That is the only way to make solar/wind ext viable on a mass scale.

a lot of places do that. TVA does it, KUB does it, whatever in Chattanooga does it and some utility providers in Georgia/Atlanta area do it. And most buy it back for more than they sell it for. I know about those areas because i have lived in them, i am sure others do it as well.

 

[WooPigSooie]

skimmed through it

if wind energy is going to be a viable alternative, it needs to be able to survive in the market without being propped up by tax dollars

To be fair.. trying to sell green energy in this economy is going to be like trying to sell tofu at a meat market.

If we are going to agree that our economy's addiction to fossil fuel is a problem.. we have to agree that it isn't going to sort itself out in a free market in a timely fashion.

Without some sort of meddling sooner rather than later.. it's likely that it will take a complete disaster before the market decides to quit fossil fuels on it's own.

 

[LouderVol]

To be fair.. trying to sell green energy in this economy is going to be like trying to sell tofu at a meat market.

If we are going to agree that our economy's addiction to fossil fuel is a problem.. we have to agree that it isn't going to sort itself out in a free market in a timely fashion.

Without some sort of meddling sooner rather than later.. it's likely that it will take a complete disaster before the market decides to quit fossil fuels on it's own.

this

 

[McDad]

To be fair.. trying to sell green energy in this economy is going to be like trying to sell tofu at a meat market.

If we are going to agree that our economy's addiction to fossil fuel is a problem.. we have to agree that it isn't going to sort itself out in a free market in a timely fashion.

Without some sort of meddling sooner rather than later.. it's likely that it will take a complete disaster before the market decides to quit fossil fuels on it's own.

Ridiculous, fear mongering idiocy.