The solar and wind energy lie

Truth Detector

Well-known member
Contributor
The biggest lie foisted on the American people is this notion solar or wind power is "green" and that we can be free of gas and nuclear run electric generating plants.

The fact is that not only are these efforts NOT "green" by any stretch based on the massive amounts of geography that has to be forever marred and ruined for their footprints, but also the major impact such projects have on wildlife and water resources for cooling; not to mention the unsightly blemish to a once beautiful landscape.

The forest of windmills in the desert near Palm Springs is a testimony to this "mythical green" blight.

The massive Ivanpah Solar Project on the Nevada border en-route to Las Vegas is another massive eyesore.

Here are a few myth busting facts:

• Solar power. While sunlight is renewable — for at least another four billion years — photovoltaic panels are not. Nor is desert groundwater, used in steam turbines at some solar-thermal installations. Even after being redesigned to use air-cooled condensers that will reduce its water consumption by 90 percent, California’s Blythe Solar Power Project, which will be the world’s largest when it opens in 2013, will require an estimated 600 acre-feet of groundwater annually for washing mirrors, replenishing feedwater, and cooling auxiliary equipment.

• Wind power. According to the American Wind Energy Association, the 5,700 turbines installed in the United States in 2009 required approximately 36,000 miles of steel rebar and 1.7 million cubic yards of concrete (enough to pave a four-foot-wide, 7,630-mile-long sidewalk). The gearbox of a two-megawatt wind turbine contains about 800 pounds of neodymium and 130 pounds of dysprosium – rare earth metalsthat are rare because they’re found in scattered deposits, rather than in concentrated ores, and are difficult to extract.


http://environmentaleducationuk.wordpress.com/2011/12/31/best-of-2011-the-myth-of-renewable-energy/

But here is the reality:
The project cost $2.2 billion

Site area 4,000 acres

Ivanpah 1 has a total capacity of 126 MW and Ivanpah 2 and 3 are both 133 MW each.

Ironically; During the trial of the solar thermal power plant in September 2013, 15 of the 34 dead birds found at the plant had heavily burned feathers. The feathers were burned and charred in flight by the intense radiation from the heliostat mirrors of solar thermal plant which resulted in the falling of the dead birds from the sky. Expect many more stories like this. It is like flying through a massive high intensity frying pan in the sky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

FOUR THOUSAND acres of land has been blighted to provide a mere 392 megawats of power.

Contrast that with the San Onofre nuclear generating plant provides 2,200 MW of power in a footprint of 257 acres.

The bottom line:

Renewable technologies are often less damaging to the climate and create fewer toxic wastes than conventional energy sources. But meeting the world’s total energy demands in 2030 with renewable energy alone would take an estimated 3.8 million wind turbines (each with twice the capacity of today’s largest machines), 720,000 wave devices, 5,350 geothermal plants, 900 hydroelectric plants, 490,000 tidal turbines, 1.7 billion rooftop photovoltaic systems, 40,000 solar photovoltaic plants, and 49,000 concentrated solar power systems. That’s a heckuva lot of neodymium.

Unfortunately, “renewable energy” is a meaningless term with no established standards. Like an emperor parading around without clothes, it gets a free pass, because nobody dares to confront an inconvenient truth: None of our current energy technologies are truly renewable, at least not in the way they are currently being deployed. We haven’t discoveredany form of energy that is completely clean and recyclable, and the notion that such an energy source can ever be found is a mirage.
 
All power generaters are eyesores so thats not much of a factor to me. Im more concerned about solar requiring diesel or natural gas backup for cloudy days or night. Much the same applies to solar. Its 3 to 4 x the cost despite no cost for fuel and thats after a generation or 2 of heavy tax money pouring into the pockets of cronies. And to top it off these panels and turbines are made in china. There is a reason europe is walking away from this nonsense.
 
I'm all about being frugal.
Give me solar panels that work 24/7,
For 80 percent of grid cost and I'm in!
We are at least decades away
 
All power generaters are eyesores so thats not much of a factor to me.

Not to the extent of these "claimed" "green" sources dude.

Im more concerned about solar requiring diesel or natural gas backup for cloudy days or night. Much the same applies to solar. Its 3 to 4 x the cost despite no cost for fuel and thats after a generation or 2 of heavy tax money pouring into the pockets of cronies. And to top it off these panels and turbines are made in china. There is a reason europe is walking away from this nonsense.

I would be just as concerned with the massive ecological destruction of the footprint for these "claimed" "green" sources.
 
I'm all about being frugal.
Give me solar panels that work 24/7,
For 80 percent of grid cost and I'm in!
We are at least decades away

We are not talking about "grid panels" here.

But yes, solar panels on houses make great sense. They are also smartly used here in California as parking covers. They provide shade for the cars and energy for a lot of schools who are using them.

I would also recommend changing out ALL of your current home fixtures to LEDs. The initial outlay is high, but the monthly energy savings for me have been in excess of $50 a month.
 
Not to the extent of these "claimed" "green" sources dude.



I would be just as concerned with the massive ecological destruction of the footprint for these "claimed" "green" sources.


Well of course a partisan hack like yourself would rather look at pollution belching smokestacks reaching high up into the sky...to you it's a thing of beauty.

EVERY SINGLE power generation plant is an eyesore.

The difference between you and I is you are stuck in the past with an outmoded form of power generation.

I am looking toward the future.
 
Well of course a partisan hack like yourself would rather look at pollution belching smokestacks reaching high up into the sky...to you it's a thing of beauty.

Yes of course, I see nuclear plants belching pollution from smokestacks every day; what an ignorant dunce.

You brain dead Liberals can’t help but erupt with false strawman claims.

EVERY SINGLE power generation plant is an eyesore.

That wasn’t the threads point now was it shit-for-brains?

I am pretty sure it was talking about the massive footprint inefficient, not-so-green, sources like windpower and solar are compared to nuclear plants.

Claiming that a plant that takes up 4,000 acres and requires massive heat reflecting mirrors that fry birds and point to three massive 250 foot towers to a nuclear plant taking up a mere 200 acres with 50 foot hight domes as being similar is painfully stupid.

The difference between you and I is you are stuck in the past with an outmoded form of power generation.

I am amused when a dullard proclaims that “solar” or “wind” power are not things from the past but “nuclear” energy and “Natural Gas” turbines are.

Do you even comprehend how incredibly stupid you look when you bloviate with such moronic stupidity?

I am looking toward the future.

Wrong shit-for-brains; you’re running back to the past and supporting massive efforts that merely destroy natural beauty and cause great environmental harm based on emotional feelings rather than common sense.
 
All power generaters are eyesores so thats not much of a factor to me. Im more concerned about solar requiring diesel or natural gas backup for cloudy days or night. Much the same applies to solar. Its 3 to 4 x the cost despite no cost for fuel and thats after a generation or 2 of heavy tax money pouring into the pockets of cronies. And to top it off these panels and turbines are made in china. There is a reason europe is walking away from this nonsense.

Bullshit.

[h=1]Paradigm Shift! The future is now.[/h]
 
We are not talking about "grid panels" here.

But yes, solar panels on houses make great sense. They are also smartly used here in California as parking covers. They provide shade for the cars and energy for a lot of schools who are using them.

I would also recommend changing out ALL of your current home fixtures to LEDs. The initial outlay is high, but the monthly energy savings for me have been in excess of $50 a month.
I'm all LED at my vacation home where electricity is $0.15/ kwh. Here I'm getting there. Duke Energy has a $5 deal on 60W equiv. LEDs that I'm going to take advantage of soon..

I don't care if they use solar panels out in the desert- that land is useless anyway. The shade will probably benefit the creatures that live there. What I don't like are solar "farms" here in NC, where actual farms can grow food. They should put the panels on structures over the highways instead.
 
I'm all LED at my vacation home where electricity is $0.15/ kwh. Here I'm getting there. Duke Energy has a $5 deal on 60W equiv. LEDs that I'm going to take advantage of soon..

I don't care if they use solar panels out in the desert- that land is useless anyway. The shade will probably benefit the creatures that live there. What I don't like are solar "farms" here in NC, where actual farms can grow food. They should put the panels on structures over the highways instead.

Yeah, there are a lot of dipshits in the world but we have to take the good with the bad. There will not be much progress if we hold out for perfection.
 
Yeah, there are a lot of dipshits in the world but we have to take the good with the bad. There will not be much progress if we hold out for perfection.
Putting solar panels on farms instead of growing crops is bullshit, wouldn't you agree?
 
I'm all LED at my vacation home where electricity is $0.15/ kwh. Here I'm getting there. Duke Energy has a $5 deal on 60W equiv. LEDs that I'm going to take advantage of soon..

I don't care if they use solar panels out in the desert- that land is useless anyway. The shade will probably benefit the creatures that live there. What I don't like are solar "farms" here in NC, where actual farms can grow food. They should put the panels on structures over the highways instead.

I have solar panels at my mountain retreat. Useful, but not something you want to rely on. My hydro is much more reliable.

People who think solar can replace fossil fuels are fools and do not understand thermodynamics.

As for LEDs? I will never own them. I am an incandescent man. I have enough for two lifetimes.
 
I have solar panels at my mountain retreat. Useful, but not something you want to rely on. My hydro is much more reliable.

People who think solar can replace fossil fuels are fools and do not understand thermodynamics.

As for LEDs? I will never own them. I am an incandescent man. I have enough for two lifetimes.

Solar thermal plants use various means of storage (such as molten salts) so that they can generate 24 hours/day.

Incandescent bulbs are a retarded waste of money and energy.
 
Back
Top