Strauss Wind Turbine Transport Postponed Until Next Week

BYZ - hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Burning oil is good for the earth, eh? Good lord you're amazing.

Burning fossil fuels like petroleum puts buried carbon back into the atmosphere, where it can settle back down to earth and grow new green things, that eventually decay, compress and become another round of fossil fuels. Nature is both bountiful and regenerative.

Oil is the answer to the question "What is an antiquated, dirty, and deadly source of fuel?"

How about the government provides tax credits for blade materials that are easier to recycle? That way we don't generate a bunch of waste that we can't do anything with in the 1st place. For example, only 3 of the different types of plastic have any recycling value. So why do we let them make items out of the other types of plastic?

Thanks. Good to hear.

They are now - one company has capacity to take 7k-9k blades a year. They are making pellets out of them and then making walls and flooring from the blades. There are a number of private companies researching how to make something profitble out of the recycled blades. The local yoyo's on this board only want to run and say the sky is falling. Recycling the blades is still cheaper than cleaning up storing, disposing of petrol waste.

VOICE - I have to say, I'm still waiting on multiple things I've called you out on (can't even remember them all), with no response, so I wouldn't get to uppity about others doing the same to you. Just a friendly bit of online advice :)

Anything? Chilling, where was my tinfoil conspiracy here? Marcelk, my absurd and highly ideological claim? Anonymous @2:23 , where was I greenwashing nat gas? I'll come back later see if you found anything...

quote please.

But you credulously bought into the gas company greenwashing.

Still waiting to hear what "tinfoil hat" conspiracies or "absurd highly ideological claims" I've made here. Please quote my actual comments and not a skewed rephrasing. I'll wait and check back later. Chilling? Can you also show me where I said wind and solar aren't part of the future.

I don't think they are tinfoil hat wearers - I think they are not the most educated in the group and have social issues.

Dude, Marcelk, re-read my posts. No where have I ever said wind and solar are not effective solutions, just that they can't be the only solution for the foreseeable future, and they have their own drawbacks many ignore or aren't aware of. I'm glad you googled the Motte bailey fallacy, your using in your very own comment. Can you please quote my "absurd highly ideological claim"? When you can't, that is you retreating to something much milder that most people can agree with....

Despite the propaganda from the American Enterprise Institute and our resident purveyor of manure, the climate forecasts have been remarkably accurate, but a bit optimistic compared to what we see happening currently.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Pitmix, would you dare to predict specifically why will happen and when when? I would suggest keeping it a little vague and at least 30 years in the future. That way it probably won’t matter a whole lot when your prediction is proven wrong. Here is a list of failed climate catastrophe predictions with links to the newspapers in which they were originally presented. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-years-of-failed-doomsday-eco-pocalyptic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50/

VOICE - oh come now, just go on Parler or other similar sites and see what they say about anything "green." People have been hating on "tree huggers" and "enviro Nazis" for decades. You can't honestly feign "surprise" to hear of people that not just oppose, but really don't like anyone or anything that has to do with environmental protection.

Go re-watch (or gasp, watch) Ghostbusters. Look how the EPA is portrayed lol!

Seems like they are the people that just hate any change that might inconvenience them or their current way of living. Some researcher said recently that the sacrifices that we will have to make in order to address climate change with our current population are way beyond what most people are willing to do. And if you are one of those people unwilling to pay $20 or $50 a month for green energy instead of fossil fuel, we definitely know you are unwilling to be part of the solution.

Can I get a translation please? Who are the "green energy haters" and what is their goal? Why would they hate green energy? Beyond oil companies like Exxon and other corporations that support it, who are the "fossil fuel supporters"? I have a strong feeling these boogeymen (and women) are figments of your imagination instilled by divisive politicians and special interest groups in order for you to feel outraged and go along with whatever uptopian ideal they're pushing.

Green energy haters don't move the needle; not enough of them The people who matter are still on the fence and are too busy living life to dive deep into the topic. The green energy haters are targeting that crowd to help move the needle for them. That's the audience for fact and science-based arguments, not the fossil fuel supporters.

SAIL - "landfill full of used blades" is not the same as "laying on the ground next to the windmill!!!!" Your words matter.

Sacjon
I have had solar on my hose for over 10 years. Been driving hybrids for longer. Run a sailboat instead of a powerboat. That doesn’t mean I don’t do research about issues. Next time your in Cody Wyoming check out the huge landfill full of used blades. Satellite view off Hwy 10 just before Palm Springs. Imagine the uproar if the greenies found out what happens after their useful lifespan? Composites last almost as long as radioactive waste.

VOICE - I can actually agree on that somewhat. We're not ready to go full on wind/solar right now. The tech is there, but not completely "green." Once it is a more viable "green" solution, we need to jump in with both feet. Our current energy production is not sustainable, nor can our planet handle it much longer. BUT, that should not be stopping us from starting to use it now. We can't afford to wait much longer.

No one is saying that Sac. The people bringing up the real-world drawbacks / challenges with wind and solar are the ones saying a balanced approach is needed where wind/solar is a part of our greener solution (but simply can't be the ONLY solution as many here incorrectly assume).

HAPPY. Here is a tweet from The Office of the Governor of California…. saying the exact same thing you dismiss Shellenberger for (and anything else he has to say). Keep an open mind! No one is right, or wrong, all the time.

https://twitter.com/cagovernor/status/1430344420637872134?s=21

VOR, I don't like the *way* you say it, or your consistent put-downs of people reading you.

Happy, I agree, you're comment is further justification for natural gas being a stepping stone toward a greener future. So far of this Shellenberger who you "immediately dismiss", the two issues you've brought up with him are either false significantly misstated. Maybe you should read and liste more? This time, try reading the article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/06/the-reason-renewables-cant-power-modern-civilization-is-because-they-were-never-meant-to/

The "greener pastures" argument ignores the millions of abandoned oil and gas wells in the US leaking methane straight into the atmosphere, as well as contaminating groundwater with benzene, arsenic and hydrogen sulfide. Now think about how poorly Russia, Saudi Arabia and other countries may be capping their abandoned wells. Properly forcing the fossil fuel companies to cap those wells and clean up contamination would make natural gas generation even less economically feasible relative to solar/wind/batteries and hydro/nuclear.

Maybe if you actually read and researched rather than dismissed you'd understand that switching to natural gas does lower the risk of high global temperatures because it's much less polluting that the energy sources we're moving away from. It's a stepping stone to greener pastures, but you, in your infinite wisdom, immediately dismiss someone because you don't like what they're saying even though they have actual data and facts to substantiate their position vs. your anecdotal example. Got it!

Wisdom, in part, comes from being able to properly filter out poor sources of analysis and information. I don't take medical advice from reality TV hosts, nor do I take climate advice from pundits who say natural gas lowers the risk of high global temperatures.

I posted an example where an extremely intense and destructive inferno occurred in an area of very good forest management during the Caldor Fire, completely contradicting Shellenberger's assertion. The tweet I linked was from someone who actually worked at the burned down station, a primary source.

Absolutely not Happy, he 100% doesn't say it's proof against climate change. He says it's proof that the extremely intensive, unnatural and destructive infernos are the result of poor forest management and the decades of fuel build up. He also points to droughts and climate change as increasing the duration of the fire season, no denying climate change there, but it's the unnatural fuel load that leads to the extreme devastating fires, for which Caldor Fire is an example with the area that was thinned and managed vs. not. But, thank you for admitting how closed minded you are and in your infinite wisdom "immediately disqualify" people with with different opinions, because you are always right and someone with a different view couldn't possibly ever be correct. Also, that twitter link wasn't even a Shellenberger quote, here is the thread you should read https://twitter.com/shellenbergermd/status/1429826018932510720?s=21 (could you image the backlash if I used twitter as a reference!).

Because using Shellenberger as a source is immediately disqualifying. Just this morning he used one anecdote from the Caldor Fire as "proof" against climate change contributing to forest fire intensity, blaming poor forest management instead.

Yet, the Grizzly Flats Fire Station burned down even thought the site *was* a well-maintained "mature forest, well-spaced, with bear clover groundcover."

https://twitter.com/pyrogeog/status/1429661397080678403

Full quote: "This is what's left of my old station, and the site was mature forest, well-spaced, with bear clover groundcover (although the station was wood, not hardened). If a well-maintained USFS fire station burned down, that indicates how extreme #CaldorFire behavior is."

So just going to down vote and not even read the article? This is a balanced, fact based article but okay.... keep those heads in the sand!

"There is room for both of us, but I'm betting your ideology gets in the way." -- project much? People like you and CW are here denigrating wind and solar with completely bogus arguments.

Fission molten salt reactors have problems with containment vessel erosion, and still produce waste isotopes that are dangerous for hundreds of years. Their upfront costs and insurance costs are huge. No matter your ideology, lifecycle analysis shows that wind and solar are cheaper and better.