Page #4
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#29|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
"Simply put, these huge industrial sites – we simply must stop using the friendly-sounding term “farms” to describe them – create all manner of negative consequences for local communities. Consequences like loud noise from wind turbines, hundreds of dead birds and bats sprinkled across the countryside, thousands of acres of productive farm or ranchlands taken out of production for many years if not permanently, spoiled views, enormous “graveyards” filled with 150-foot blades and solar panels popping up all over the place, and impacts to local wind and weather patterns that are only now beginning to be understood."
Not as much is green about "Green Energy" as the promoters claim.
only registered users can see external links
Hard to believe they take them out of service so quickly anyway Should be made of lightweight pvc anyway or aluminum. something easily recyclable.
Apparently these folks that like fiberglass windmill blades have never had the loose fibers get into their skin and lungs ,say from cutting or scraping them.
Yes, the birds are important, so prohibit all domestic cats and kill all feral cats?
Than we can expand the number of wind turbines by a factor of 10,256,
without killing more birds, than cats do now.
solar has it's draw backs to.It can cause warming.
What are the negatives of hydropower?
Pros and Cons of Hydroelectric Energy - Kiwi Energy
Here are a few of the main disadvantages of hydroelectric energy.
It Has an Environmental Impact. Perhaps the largest disadvantage of hydroelectric energy is the impact it can have on the environment. ...
It Displaces People. ...
It's Expensive. ...
There are Limited Reservoirs. ...
There are Droughts. ...
It's Not Always Safe.
No, we conservatives are just sticks in the mud according to liberals. Plow horses wore blinders so they would not be distracted by things around them.
liberals wear blinders because they only focus on the "new idea" and not the reason the "old Idea" hasn't been changed.
but only fossil fuels are the ones threatening humanity now.
Hydropower is the cheapest power generation technology we have.
Please do some research before you say something.
There's just one problem with it; climate change brings long periods of drought, which is creating problems for hydropower in many areas in the world.
That's one of the reasons for China is doing more coal power now. Record-breaking drought has caused some rivers in China, including parts of the Yangtze, to dry up, affecting hydropower.
You're not sticks in the mud to me, you're roadblocks on the way to progress.
Your road leads to a canyon, but like Thelma and Louise, you're speeding ahead.
But, it's not just you in that car, it's the sensible people too. And that's not fair.
how can solar or hydro bring large cargo ship loads of goods to your country from ours or vice versa? it takes fossil fuels.
electric mining equipment, works but the electricity comes from somewhere. The amperage needed for 1 excavator digging out material for battery's would be far more than a windmill could make.
We either find a solution to prevent the worst of it or die off.
I have told you about technologies before that can power large cargo ships
on solar, hydro, bio or wind power. Understand that about 40% of the mass transported with those ships consists of fossil fuels. And maybe we could ship
a bit less shit from China?
If combustion engines are indispensable for a certain task, then they can run on hydrogen, alcohol or bio-fuel. The problem is however never the combustion engine itself, because electric motors are much stronger for their size. It's indeed the energy storage that is the problem. However, energy storage is not limited to batteries. There are several chemical solutions to efficiently store energy in a liquid or solid, with high density, which can easily be refilled in a short time, just like tanking fossil fuels. Electric energy storage also gets better by the day. High capacity capacitors can be recharged with many times the speed of batteries. At the moment they can hold a bit less energy than batteries, but it's the time unit of charging per time unit of operation that counts. A minute of charging for an hour of operation is acceptable. We do not have to kill humanity to avoid that minor inconvenience.
But, I like seeing them squirm and bend into impossible positions,
trying to defend their illogical ideas. And, it might help other people.
If you are then tell us what the “lies” are and if you are right, what do you think they do with that funding? You think they buy high priced cars and mansions?
More to the point, do you think funding sources just give funds on the word of a scientist? What happens when the funding runs out and there are no results?
I agree with you. It’s sad that when there’s no factual argument to the matter at hand, the first thing that happens is that the messenger is shot. 👿
" 'You know what, if I could make an arrangement where I had a stand-in, a front-man or a front-woman and they had an ear piece in and I was just in my basement with my sweats looking through the stuff and I could sort of deliver the lines, but somebody else was doing all the talking and ceremony"
only registered users can see external links
If I want a gas car,I go buy what I can afford.If I want a electric, i am shit out of luck unless I find alot of money.BUT money is the only obstacle from getting what I choose.
Making laws telling me regardless of my income I can't have a choice,that is the issue.
phart, what you're doing is 'Gish galloping':
only registered users can see external links
from point to point way more, almost never reacting to the point
that was made in the comment you react on, but something aside
to the point, which is mostly irrelevant.
I'm not saying I never do that, but not as often as you.
I bet you couldn’t find anyone selling prescription drugs for psoriasis, and, by the way, if you don’t work, you don’t have to pay taxes. You don’t even have to file. The taxes you are referring to is called INCOME TAXES. NO WORKEE, NO INCOME.
All other taxes are from POS transactions like gas or liquor. If they are homeless, they don’t pay PROPERTY taxes.
But, again, what does it have to do with this conversation? You implied the federal government is restricting your access to certain goods. Did you complain when the Feds restricted vehicles that didn’t conform to epa Regis like catalytic converters?
I would like to know what was going on when that pic was took. he just looks so confused, dumbfounded.it's like he was watching paint dry while high on mushrooms or something
only registered users can see external links
Who is using literal Nazi rhetoric, calling people animals and vermin?
It's Trump.
Your argument is ridiculous. Everything that Obama did was democratic and everything he ever said was well-considered and decent. He was the hardest working president you ever had, tried to cooperate with the other side to the absurd and did everything to improve your country. Obama is a good man. Don't lower him to the level of your selfish piece of shit, treasonous, raping, racist, fascist, wannabe dictator.
In the meantime he can enjoy it.
Who told you the president makes only $42,000 per year?
That would be stupid. That's asking for corruption.
He gets a speaking fee of a million per gig.
Well, $400,000 now. The million was just after he was president.
only registered users can see external links
Then he has his book sales. And he was a millionaire before he was president.
I can't see anything he says being worth a million,nor TRump for that matter
If there is a market for you speaking, then you can ask
whatever price the rules of supply and demand support.
Actually, as a socialist, I see no problem with getting rich that way.
No one is exploiting anyone else's labor that way.
If people feel they get their money's worth, that's an honest exchange.
Pay your taxes, and whatever wealth remains is yours.
It's honest money, so that shouldn't be taxed crazy high.
I want to tax the lazy fuckers who profit off other people's work.
Jamie Oliver's fee also ranged from $100,000 - $1,000,000.
I would pay good money to see him, just not what he is asking.
But, I'm paying good money to see several big performances this year.
The last time atmospheric carbon dioxide amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, during the Mid-Pliocene Warm Period, when global surface temperature was 4.5–7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (2.5–4 degrees Celsius) warmer than during the pre-industrial era. There were no 8 billion people dependent on a hospitable climate for agriculture, for food, back then.
The Earth will be OK. It's humanity we are worrying about.
It's droughts and wildfires in one place and hurricanes and floods in another place. It's massive costs from damages and unaffordable food. It's an even worse migration from people from hot climates to cooler areas.
Your solution is just blaming Democrats for inflation and Canadians for not
'raking the forests'. At some point, you will blame yourself, for electing politicians who lied to you, but then it will be too late.
Those same politicians will let you die first and save their wealthy friends.
Who is to blame? Everyone who uses fossil fuels.
When everyone is to blame, everyone is responsible to solve the problem.
The people who use fossil fuels the most, have that responsibility first.
And that starts with people who profited the most from fossil fuels.
How is inflation the dems fault? If it is true, you should have a concrete explanation for it. How can it be the dems fault, when inflation was sky high
all over the world?
Who's to blame? the dems.
How?,Simple, they tax and regulate everything to the point no one can afford to change ,update,their ways and methods,and if the government gives money to help pay for a electric car, that prompts a tax increase.
tax and waste,tax and waste.
Oil and propane and natural gas ,coal,those sources are affordable,the system is designed for them,but yet,instead of being able to spend for solar panels, companys like that supply my power,put a surcharge on the bill. Because they can't afford to upgrade or do research and still turn a decent profit,which is the primary function of a company,to make MONEY
And even if he raised taxes by 100% on day one and regulated the shit out of everything, that STILL doesn't explain OUR INFLATION! It was GLOBAL!
Most of the inflation was caused by corporate greed. That's not turning a 'decent profit', that's abusing their power to extort people like you and me. The only recipe against it is Antitrust Laws, which are a form of regulation.
You understand that the primary function of a company is to make MONEY.
Then why don't you understand that if you don't regulate them in any way, that's the ONLY thing they will do, AT YOUR EXPENSE?
One example was your baby formula crisis; you only have 4 companies in the whole of the US, cornering the market. As a result, they can screw you on availability and price. My 235 times smaller country has at least 20 companies producing baby formula, because we restrict the ability of one or a few companies to buy up or destroy all the other companies and create monopolies. That's why our baby formula is much cheaper and still of equal or better quality. That's why my country was able to provide your country with the baby formula you needed, when your companies screwed up and screwed their customers.
only registered users can see external links
"the increased cost is going into labor and positions"?
Wage increases have not exceeded inflation for decades.
only registered users can see external links
So what do you have on the 'positions', besides some gut feeling?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
I am basing it on common sense for the most part.
Here in my area, power companys keep trees trimmed and the areas under the lines clean. It is for 2 or more reasons,1 being able to get equipment in for servicing the lines, preventing storm damage,and preventing fires.
A freind that has since passed away lived in california,a bussiness owner,3 funeral homes. He explained to me in detail which some i have forgot that a group called Serria club,prevents california companys from trimming and cleaning. Thus,when over growth happens, fires happen.
It's a fact that summers are getting hotter and dryer. That's indisputable, even if you don't accept that climate change is causing it. Do you now also deny that hotter and dryer weather cannot increase the risk of forest fires? You do now when most forest fires happen, right? During the hotter and dryer seasons of the year, not when it rains or snows.
There is definitely a link between more overgrowth and forest fires.
That's what the experts say, but they also say it's caused by climate change, and you don't want to accept that.
You do know that problems can have more than 1 cause, I hope.
Actually, almost every problem has more than one cause.
It's called the 'Swiss Cheese Model of accident causation'.
Well, that's the funny name they use for it, at least.
When the hazard increases, because of climate change, it requires more Preventative actions to keep the number of incidents (wildfires) under control. When all the controls fail, an incident happens. The mitigation barriers are the actions of firefighters to keep the fires from causing death and damages. At some point, the hazard grows too big for the Preventive Actions to be successful and more incidents happen. Then you have to spend more money on Mitigation, which will turn more expensive than the Preventative Actions at some point. Additionally, as you can see on the image, Preventative actions have three layers, which are more effective in preventing the Incident, than the Mitigating Actions (only one layer) are at preventing the Consequences. That's why they say 'prevention is better than cure'.
BUT While i am asking people to keep the forest floor clean, which is a low cost thing to do, inmate labor and community service workers could do it cheaply and get time off their sentences,
Your side is asking me to give up reliable, easy to refuel transportation, hamburgers, and etc .Expensive things .
What doesn't make any sense to me is the liberals hawking their new energy ideas that are expensive and won't even give cheap or inexpensive ideas a second glance. Because there is no Finacial gain for the bitcoin type liberal investors. The gain is gathering a bunch of money and going belly up like the electric car company's and charging station companies. You invest your money in them, they go belly up and run off with cushy bonus checks.
I'm telling you that we don't have a choice. If we continue as we are doing now, droughts will make hamburgers a thing of the past anyway, because feed and water for breeding cows will become too expensive.
In any case, you won't be able to afford them. Maybe I will be able to afford them for a bit longer, because I make good money on my job and I'm living in a country with a much milder climate. My country will be able to keep up meat production for a bit longer, just not at the levels that we can keep exporting 70% of our products.
Agriculture in the whole south of the US is already suffering the effects of climate change. At the moment, 52% of American soil is used by agriculture. Of that area, 79% is used for livestock production. That's not sustainable, if farms go out of business due to drought.
only registered users can see external links
I'm not saying we should completely stop eating meat. It will just become way more expensive; it will be a luxury. No one can stop that, unless we stop climate change.
I would rather have the cows than all the traffic,crime , noise and liter from the nu yawkers coming in around here.
What part of droughts making meat more expensive don't you understand? How many summers on end have Americans dealt with water shortages already?
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Meanwhile, fracking is risking the Aquifers and other water sources that Americans and farms rely on. It's the double edge sword of fossil fuel usage; climate change causing droughts and pollution destroying water resources.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Even the fracking itself requires water
only registered users can see external links
Eat one pound of beef less and save 1,847 gallons of water.
That's 6 days water usage of the average American family.
New Comment Go to top