Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
He has a point, but I’m not sure that he’s right. Green energy is really the cheapest easiest form of energy. Doesn’t take a supply change to run wind and solar and large infrastructures. That being said most non wealthy countries already have old coal and fossil fuel energy.
This is just my prospective and option.
Can you heat up rainbow stew with wind power?
How much energy and money goes into windmills before they’ve been stood up and made their 1st watt? Where are they made…by whom?
How silly is clearing woodland for solar panels? (currently what’s goin’ on in upstate New York)
There’s plenty of productive and plausible green energy opportunities…but, when left to the politicians…the subject becomes an absolute shit show.
In SoCal, on land I’d owned until very recently…out in the Dez near Edwards AFB…there’s a solar farm goin’ up. No one displaced. Bare Dez land and not even a real impact on wildlife …well…according to the EIR.
There are alllllllll sorts pf way to make energy. Some are less expensive and and more productive than others.
You can’t even stop thinking about gay stuff. Everything you put up refers to it.
So dam infatuated with it.
You really need to just come out already.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Should be…
You can’t even stop thinking about gay stuff (not that there’s anything wrong with that!).
For future reference.
Signed,
The Management
Or, how about this:
Please both of you take your Jr High school bullshit to another thread.
Just throwing one small part of the fallacy of wind energy out there...
A medium sized wind generator field uses more concrete than the entire annual production of the cement plant that I work at can produce to support said concrete.
That windmill field requires more than 350,000 tons of cement, 2,200MW of electrical power (ours is hydroelectric), 70,000 tons of coal, and 20,000 tons of petroleum coke to produce, and generate metric shit tons (literally) of CO2.
This is all JUST for the foundations of those wind turbines. Before a single bit of the tower is erected. Before all the oil is used to make the tons of carbon fiber required. Or the metric shit tons of ore is mined and smelted to make the copper for the motor windings.
Wind energy is a complete farce once you drill down the energy chain required to produce a single watt of power out of it.
Ask and ye shall receive…
Beta dude nails the point I was alluding to.
I think you just insulted Junior High Schoolers everywhere.
But hey, rip out all the WAY cleaner hydroelectric dams and their massive amounts of concrete to save the fish instead of doing some proper excavating and making fish paths/ladders around the dams.
I will happily help produce all the concrete for the wind turbines to kill the same amount of birds.
And once you clowns get tired of killing birds and move on to the next thing i will help produce the concrete foundations for that boondoggle.
There is NO FREE RIDE. It is just how you shuffle the deck chairs on the Titanic to feel better about yourself. Move some CO2 around so you can claim you (the wind farm) aren't directly producing it yourself and can call someone else the bad man (me, the cement producer), even though you can't do jack squat without the bad man's product.
If you want clean truly eco friendly power, there are few options that have minimal footprint, high output, and minimize the complete emission chains: hydro, geothermal, and nuclear.
Solar and wind aren't it.
Rainbow stew has nothing to do with gay. You guys obviously do not listen to Merle Haggard.
You’re absolutely correct, I would normally stipulate that but was in a bit of a hurry! Will take that into advisement.
Signed
Union Representative
They're so cute when they're new.
They just need a little "Bubble Up" to wash it down.
Don't forget the life span of one of those windmills.
I didn't look up the actual numbers, but a report I heard seemed remarkably short.
I've also heard that dismantling and recycling what you can uses more energy that the damn thing ever even produced.
When you look at the basics. Wind only needs the windmills to be fabricated and placed in the grid. Expansion is relatively easy just by adding windmills. So each windmill is a 1 time cost to the climate to put up and 1 time cost to take down. Also expansion would be relatively quick.
Now look at fossil fuels, costs to mine or procure. The cost of equipment to refine and the cost and time to produce refineries. The constant supply chains. There is nothing that doesn’t produce cost CO2, huge start up cost and time frames. Huge costs to run, huge cost to decommission, all producing CO2 every step of the way continually. In my option does look like a tough choice.
The electric plant by me has been around since 1965 or so. I don't see it's end of life anytime soon, but if they do decide to decommission it, it will for damn sure have made more electricity than it will cost to end it.
Anybody with wind power or solar also has to have fossil or nuke as a backup. Plus all or most of the costs associated with fossil are already in place. That bill has already been paid. Not saying wind and solar do not have an application, saying that we will be burning fossil for at least as long as everybody in this conversation will be alive. It's not one or the other. It's not a choice.
Only ten minutes in and I think everything he's said is true, but he's omitting something incredibly important, which is that oil is very finite. Everything he's said comes with a might big asterisk of assuming that our effort is the limitation and that our consumption can never change, which you cannot leave out of this bigger-picture conversation. Someday we may be forced to use nothing but solar and nuclear, because there's just nothing else available. And I only say "maybe" because who knows what new thing pops up a hundred years down the road.
Pit Row
My perfect energy plant has not yet been built. In CA we have vast desert area. We could take a number of acres and build a solar concentration plant. The problem with current designs is, they use mirror lenses to focus on a tank up high. Among other problems, a bird flying by is instantly incinerated. A simple change of lenses to a glass fiber underground grid eliminates all that. No above ground damage. Solar turns water to steam, powers the turbine, cheap energy.
TM
I’m also not saying that for the time being fossil fuels have a place also. Nuclear has its place especially with some of the newer nuclear design and development. As technology progresses we will see some things we have no idea about now come online. I’m just pointing out the costs to produce the energy and the costs to the environment.
I don't think it should be an either/or when it comes to fossil fuels and other forms of generation. Ideally it would be a mix of several different sources and the source would be determined by conditions.
I grew up with massive amounts of hydro power. It was/is fantastic from a pure dollar standpoint. It wasn't the greatest thing for the ecosystem in some ways, but it was a tradeoff. I'm definitely glad that the hydro producers worked and worked on ways to mitigate the issues, especially the fish run elimination, but the costs were pretty damn big in order to do it and it took a lot to get it to the point that they were actually making a positive impact.
I think wind and solar have their place. Wind is great when you are able to harvest it. In a perfect world, you would have the option of using wind when the wind was blowing, and then use hydro, solar, nuclear, or fossil fuel when it isn't. Or put a lot more of our research funding into energy storage solutions, but those will probable be several decades away to become truly viable.
Solar? Ideally those would cover the rooftops of buildings, garages, carports, etc. Not as a primary source of energy, but a source that, during sunny periods, would allow us to use less fossil fuels, store more water in the reservoirs created by the dams, etc.
Nuclear would be ideal if we can truly dispose of the waste correctly and ensure that some rogue group somewhere couldn't find a way to turn it into a new-day Chernobyl somehow. I think that the notion of small, modular nuclear reactors is a good one if those issues are solvable or already solved.
Unfortunately most of the discussion always seems to devolve into the either/or type of thing. It's too bad, because a good, healthy mix of sources would just make too much sense.
The fellow in the video says early on that he likes a diversified portfolio, so if someone's using this video as a segue to express anti-whatever views, they're not watching it. But, solar makes awesome sense at least as a supplement, at the individual level. I'm stoked to see Utah lead the way with balcony solar in the US and hope other states follow.
I watched it. He’s perfectly reasonable and explains the basics without an agenda. Maybe that’s why I’ve never heard of him!
Also, I have no clue why we don't take advantage of tidal energy. That seems like a no-brainer too.
TM
they have tried tidal here but not made it commercially viable yet, , i can imagine having mechanical having stuff submersed in salt water full time has proved troublesome
trigonometry is my favourite podcast, they get some awesome people on there on a range of subjects,
FYI......
We have nearly 300 years of oil in the ground in the good ole USA plus Canada eh. Think back 100 years ago. Nukes did not exist and gasoline was a new commodity. Think how far we have come since then. With our technology and if AI does not kill us all, we should have cold fusion mastered in the next 50 years which will solve the energy problem. Then again, we may discover another technology. Oil is not the worry. The eco clowns that burn down buildings and other environmental eco terrorism they commit would disagree. If they only knew that damn near everything they are wearing or using has petroleum in it.
Up on nearby buffalo mt, in the middle of our ohv land, they recently removed all of the wind turbines. Over a dozen had been there since 2001-2002.
When they were all operating, they didn't even supply enough power for the nearby town of Oliver Springs.
Problem was, they rarely were all operating.
Maintenance issues kept most of them turned away from the prevailing wind, with their blades feathered horizontal.
One even threw a blade, disintegrating itself.
They just were not even close to being cost effective.
Tennessee has an abundance of hydroelectric power. Enough to sell to other states. Rain makes that a reliable source of renewable energy
It did though, come at the cost of flooding farmlands, small communities, and historical areas.
The dam projects also put an end to the seasonal flooding that overran many towns along the Tennessee river, Little river, and other waterways
Also in the entire Appalachian coal mining area, natural gas has seeped back into coal seems.
The entire area has been drilled, and capped. Dozens, and dozens of wellheads are all across the three major ohv areas all the way up to Kentucky.
You're surprisingly trusting! I'm worried about the decision making of all the humans involved between that oil in the ground and the gas in my tank. For example, why are oil companies reporting record earnings? If they're raising pricing because their expenses have gone up and they're passing that increase onto the customer, then their profits would remain roughly the same, likely a little less because demand often drops when prices go up. But that's not what happens.
What actually happens is that they look for any excuse to add margin and then find some bogus scapegoat to blame it on. It's fraud. Not the legal definition, but certainly by the regular definition of the word. It doesn't matter whether or not a dem/rep is the one that gave them the excuse, it's the fact that the world runs on oil and the seven supermajors are the gatekeepers to the economic productivity of the entire planet, and they'll lie about anything to add margin because we let them do it.
I pass a bunch of the windmills in NY pretty regularly, either the ones in the lake or further inland ,more often then not they arnt even moving.
Is it possible they're exporting more? Just selling more? It's kind of funny how the oil companies are the boogey man here and the entity that makes the most off every gallon sold is the government. Why is the government not filthy rich?
TM
Post a reply to: Renewable energy Myth