Harris wants to reclaim abandoned land mines

Who's to say that wind turbines can't cause cancer? They can definitely cause tinnitus, heart attacks, any amount of stress from infra sound which results in high levels of cortisol being produced and higher blood pressure.

Thank you Lord Of Cretins, for your valuable medical advice.
 
if she read it in the NYT then it is all good. it is the most reliable, most quoted newspaper in the world, bozo. but there are other sources a brilliant woman like her has probably read and uses to know what a loser mining is in today's world, unlike a stooge like you stuck on stupid.

Almost spit my coffee out on that lol.

Thanks a lot.
 
lol
the stupid MF'r is putting us back in Paris after we already led the world in carbon reduction
He needs to sell that jet before I even listen to him

and the funny part is China/India can still build coal as a "developing nation"
the funnier part is China is doing that while leading in solar panels -capturing markets
The hilarious part id thinking we are going to use vast tracks of land for solar farms
although the Gods of Green might not mind ruining the land uses as well

I haven't seen anybody actually say why going back into Paris is a good thing. It's just plain madness unless China and India join and they won't for at least ten years if ever. Does anybody think that China responds to anything but its own interest? They currently have plans to have 1300 gigawatts of coal power by 2030. Contrast that with the US, where the total installed electricity generation in the whole United States, from all sources, is around 1100 gigawatts!
 
Last edited:
No you fucking inbred Southern moron. Vast tracks of rooftops should be covered with panels, not land.

When land based panels are deployed it is on otherwise useless desert.
rooftops arent going to cut it- those deserts are not wastelands.
 
Solar power has a real estate problem.

Rooftop panels are great, but there just isn’t enough viable rooftop space for solar to take a meaningful bite out of carbon emissions in the US. For that, the country needs utility-scale solar farms, which can take up a lot of space—they could occupy an area the size of Connecticut by 2030, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

But solar farms are persnickety about where they’re sited. The panels need sunlight, obviously, but their efficiency drops if they get too hot. They like low humidity and a bit of breeze. Builders have to avoid ecologically sensitive habitats and hard or uneven terrain—while staying close to existing electric grid infrastructure. And, not insignificantly, huge arrays of solar panels can be an eyesore.

One siting solution might be retired landfills. But increasingly, researchers, state governments, and solar companies are looking to place their solar farms on… farms.

“Farms convert the sun to food, and solar panels convert the sun to energy, but ultimately it’s the same process, so it makes sense to site them together,” said Chad Higgins, an ecological engineering professor at Oregon State University who has studied solar land use issues.

According to Higgins’ estimates, solar farms could supply the world’s electricity demands if they covered just 1% of global farmland. In a paper published in Nature last August, he found that the efficiency of solar panels is highest on farmland compared to any other possible landscape—a finding that was echoed in another paper the next month from the University of Arizona.

But farmland is a rapidly vanishing commodity. High operating costs, low prices, water scarcity, and other business challenges have put tremendous financial pressure on US farmers, and in recent years many have been forced to sell their land to developers. Between 1992 and 2012, an area nearly the size of Iowa was converted from farmland to urban or industrial development, according to the American Farmland Trust.

In an effort to stem that tide and conserve more land for food production, some states, including Oregon, have strict zoning regulations for farmland that make it difficult or impossible to use it to be covered with solar panels. But that tide appears to be turning.

“Since it’s a newish idea for how to use land, zoning laws remain a big impediment,” Higgins said. “But it’s accelerating toward acceptance a lot faster than I anticipated.”

There needn’t be a trade-off between crops and electrons, Higgins said; they can grow in tandem. Elevated solar panels installed above crops (so-called “agrivoltaics”) can provide an extra income stream for farmers if they lease the space for them to solar companies. And they can yield benefits for the farm itself: The shade can actually boost the yield of vegetables, decrease water consumption, and preserve the ability of soil to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, according to an ongoing National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study. The study’s pilot sites have also found ways to combine solar with cattle and goat grazing, as well as apiaries for bees.

A growing number of states are looking to agrivoltaics
https://qz.com/1913868/why-agricultural-land-is-better-than-rooftops-for-solar-panels/
 
Solar power has a real estate problem.

Rooftop panels are great, but there just isn’t enough viable rooftop space for solar to take a meaningful bite out of carbon emissions in the US. For that, the country needs utility-scale solar farms, which can take up a lot of space—they could occupy an area the size of Connecticut by 2030, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

But solar farms are persnickety about where they’re sited. The panels need sunlight, obviously, but their efficiency drops if they get too hot. They like low humidity and a bit of breeze. Builders have to avoid ecologically sensitive habitats and hard or uneven terrain—while staying close to existing electric grid infrastructure. And, not insignificantly, huge arrays of solar panels can be an eyesore.

One siting solution might be retired landfills. But increasingly, researchers, state governments, and solar companies are looking to place their solar farms on… farms.

“Farms convert the sun to food, and solar panels convert the sun to energy, but ultimately it’s the same process, so it makes sense to site them together,” said Chad Higgins, an ecological engineering professor at Oregon State University who has studied solar land use issues.

According to Higgins’ estimates, solar farms could supply the world’s electricity demands if they covered just 1% of global farmland. In a paper published in Nature last August, he found that the efficiency of solar panels is highest on farmland compared to any other possible landscape—a finding that was echoed in another paper the next month from the University of Arizona.

But farmland is a rapidly vanishing commodity. High operating costs, low prices, water scarcity, and other business challenges have put tremendous financial pressure on US farmers, and in recent years many have been forced to sell their land to developers. Between 1992 and 2012, an area nearly the size of Iowa was converted from farmland to urban or industrial development, according to the American Farmland Trust.

In an effort to stem that tide and conserve more land for food production, some states, including Oregon, have strict zoning regulations for farmland that make it difficult or impossible to use it to be covered with solar panels. But that tide appears to be turning.

“Since it’s a newish idea for how to use land, zoning laws remain a big impediment,” Higgins said. “But it’s accelerating toward acceptance a lot faster than I anticipated.”

There needn’t be a trade-off between crops and electrons, Higgins said; they can grow in tandem. Elevated solar panels installed above crops (so-called “agrivoltaics”) can provide an extra income stream for farmers if they lease the space for them to solar companies. And they can yield benefits for the farm itself: The shade can actually boost the yield of vegetables, decrease water consumption, and preserve the ability of soil to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, according to an ongoing National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) study. The study’s pilot sites have also found ways to combine solar with cattle and goat grazing, as well as apiaries for bees.

A growing number of states are looking to agrivoltaics
https://qz.com/1913868/why-agricultural-land-is-better-than-rooftops-for-solar-panels/

They’ll have us all starving to death in order save the planet.

Sciencey science.
 
shes a ditz

Anatta lied about getting an unsolicited mail-in ballot because he was attempting to use Russian Active Measures to sow distrust in our elections.

He lied right here:

I didn't ask for a mail in, I would have never known it was sent except my Russian neighbor
( who values American democracy more then most Americans) was kind enough to bring it over
return postage paid envelope included.. what could possibly go wrong?? :palm:

This whole thing. The thread, the story, his excuses...all of it was a lie.
 
shes a ditz

The other reason anatta lied was because anatta doesn't know what telling the truth means.

Anatta has been propagandizing on behalf of anti-American forces for a while now, and is in far too deep to back away from any of it now.

So Anatta has to make up shit, lie about shit, distort shit, just so anatta doesn't displease the people who have ordered him to act this way and do these things.

I don't believe anatta acts or thinks for himself...I think every single post is a carefully constructed and coordinated lie to advance the interests of whoever is compelling him to do this.
 
He's essentially right about silicon based solar panels, but as per usual he doesn't tell you the whole story.

Cadmium telluride is being increasingly used by companies like First Solar. Although tellurium is not a lanthanide, it's very rare, extremely expensive, carcinogenic, extremely toxic and pretty nasty overall, cadmium is not much better! Yes you guessed it, China makes many of those panels as well.

Cadmium has been banned in the US as corrosion plating on things like bolts and has been for some time:

https://www.politico.eu/article/ban-on-cadmium-takes-effect/
https://nepp.nasa.gov/npsl/Prohibited/cadmium_prohibition.htm
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a532612.pdf

It's a really nasty metal...
 
Cadmium has been banned in the US as corrosion plating on things like bolts and has been for some time:

https://www.politico.eu/article/ban-on-cadmium-takes-effect/
https://nepp.nasa.gov/npsl/Prohibited/cadmium_prohibition.htm
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a532612.pdf

It's a really nasty metal...

The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic.
 
The toxic chemicals in solar panels include cadmium telluride, copper indium selenide, cadmium gallium (di)selenide, copper indium gallium (di)selenide, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride. Additionally, silicon tetrachloride, a byproduct of producing crystalline silicon, is highly toxic.

It's a disaster all the way around. Cadmium can be dissolved out of solar panels by rainfall while in use, among other toxic chemicals that can leach out and into the soil below. Then you have the problem of disposal since PV solar panels only last 15 to 25 years before needing replacement. They are difficult or impossible to recycle as it is nearly impossible to break them down into their component elements and separate those for new use.
Add in that it only takes one serious storm to destroy a solar farm. Solana in Arizona for example (the largest in the state) was hit by a microburst thunderstorm a few years back and half the array was damaged. A quarter was completely wrecked. The plant operated at less than half capacity for months while repairs were made. Speaking of Solana... It has also had the largest environmental fine in the history of the state levied against it.

Then there's the urban heat island effect solar arrays have. They create huge columns of hot air rising off the panels that can effect local weather. When applied to building roofs in urban areas they raise the temperature of those areas significantly (2 to 5 degrees F is typical). The whole idea that solar is cheap and environmentally friendly is really just a bunch of crap spewed by the technologically illiterate.
 
But is he smarter than toe-jam? No.

let us check out kerry's resume and compare it to yours and see who is at least 50,000 times smarter, redneck-

John Forbes Kerry (born December 11, 1943) is an American politician and diplomat serving as the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate. He previously served as the 68th United States Secretary of State from 2013 to 2017. An attorney and former naval officer, Kerry first drew public attention as a decorated Vietnam veteran turned anti-war activist. He went on to serve as a prosecutor and as Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts, before serving as United States Senator from Massachusetts from 1985 to 2013. A member of the Democratic Party, he was the Democratic nominee for President of the United States in the 2004 election, which he lost to incumbent President George W. Bush.

Kerry grew up as a military brat in Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. before attending boarding school in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In 1966, after graduating from Yale University, Kerry enlisted in the United States Naval Reserve, ultimately attaining the rank of lieutenant. From 1968 to 1969, during the Vietnam War, he served an abbreviated four-month tour of duty in South Vietnam. While serving as the commanding officer of a Swift boat, Kerry sustained three wounds in combat with the Viet Cong, for which he earned three Purple Heart Medals. Kerry was awarded the Silver Star Medal and the Bronze Star Medal for valorous conduct in separate military engagements. After completing his active military service, Kerry returned to the United States and became an outspoken opponent of the Vietnam War.

now you-
ardent monster tractor pull attendee, regular at local mobile home park Banjo Jamboree Night, and placed 2nd in your mobile home park's pig squealing contest this last calendar year.
 
It's a disaster all the way around. Cadmium can be dissolved out of solar panels by rainfall while in use, among other toxic chemicals that can leach out and into the soil below. Then you have the problem of disposal since PV solar panels only last 15 to 25 years before needing replacement. They are difficult or impossible to recycle as it is nearly impossible to break them down into their component elements and separate those for new use.
Add in that it only takes one serious storm to destroy a solar farm. Solana in Arizona for example (the largest in the state) was hit by a microburst thunderstorm a few years back and half the array was damaged. A quarter was completely wrecked. The plant operated at less than half capacity for months while repairs were made. Speaking of Solana... It has also had the largest environmental fine in the history of the state levied against it.

Then there's the urban heat island effect solar arrays have. They create huge columns of hot air rising off the panels that can effect local weather. When applied to building roofs in urban areas they raise the temperature of those areas significantly (2 to 5 degrees F is typical). The whole idea that solar is cheap and environmentally friendly is really just a bunch of crap spewed by the technologically illiterate.

smarter people than you know all this shit, clown, and can work around it. nobody said it would be easy, or we would get trump stooges to do it. just lay back down and keep watching those Hee-Haw reruns, boy. we will let you know when you can talk.
 
It's a disaster all the way around. Cadmium can be dissolved out of solar panels by rainfall while in use, among other toxic chemicals that can leach out and into the soil below. Then you have the problem of disposal since PV solar panels only last 15 to 25 years before needing replacement. They are difficult or impossible to recycle as it is nearly impossible to break them down into their component elements and separate those for new use.
Add in that it only takes one serious storm to destroy a solar farm. Solana in Arizona for example (the largest in the state) was hit by a microburst thunderstorm a few years back and half the array was damaged. A quarter was completely wrecked. The plant operated at less than half capacity for months while repairs were made. Speaking of Solana... It has also had the largest environmental fine in the history of the state levied against it.

Then there's the urban heat island effect solar arrays have. They create huge columns of hot air rising off the panels that can effect local weather. When applied to building roofs in urban areas they raise the temperature of those areas significantly (2 to 5 degrees F is typical). The whole idea that solar is cheap and environmentally friendly is really just a bunch of crap spewed by the technologically illiterate.

Add in that it only takes one serious storm to destroy a solar farm.
oh snap!
how is this not a concern?
 
Back
Top