sdram wrote:

They’re building wind farms just about as fast as they can out here where I live. And, there’s a local factory in Aberdeen SD building the fiberglass base and blades on a daily basis. The biggest problem with their construction locally is that the transmission system isn’t available to transport the juice into the grid and that’s where the big cost is. They’re also working on a fairly large solar farm at the local small town airport that they think will supply enough electricity for the airport itself.

There are good things and bad things about the wind farms. Clean energy is great IMO. But, picture the idealic prairie landscape with 40 or so turbines sticking up all willy, nilly. It’s different to me. Now put that in New England nestled against the leaves turning or in your mental portraits of the Rockies. Many of the farmers\land owners love them because they take up about a 50 square yard area and typically it’s arid pasture land and they get paid a substantial bonus and then an annual royalty to rent their land.

I read somewhere a while back where they thought that the us had the ability to supply about 10% of it’s own electrical needs with a combination of renewables – wind farms and solar and hydro electric – that was at least 10 to 15 years ago.

From Wikipedia: Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 13.44 percent of the domestically produced electricity in 2015,[2] and 11.1 percent of total energy generation.[3] As of 2014, more than 143,000 people work in the solar industry and 43 states deploy net metering, where energy utilities buy back excess power generated by solar arrays.[4]

I’m all for jobs being created. I’m for farmers and ranchers getting additional income from leasing land too. However when it comes to wind energy it is not cost effective at all. The initial investment is very high and the maintenance costs are very high. The power production fluctuates greatly and is not cost effective compared to readily available coal and natural gas.

Regarding renewable energy production in the US of the 11% you mentioned over half of that is hydroelectric (7%) which has long reached its maximum extent. After so many decades sedimentation is becoming a major problem for electrical production as well as reservoir capacity to store fresh water. As in all mechanical systems the maintenance requirements accelerate with use and age. The remaining renewables of solar, wind, geothermal and biomass are therefore 4% of total US energy production.

Currently the only solar option that is cost effective over time is passive solar. Exploiting that option to the fullest is much more practical for work and living space.

Wind energy is not cost effective. PV is still too expensive. Green energy to power a first world economy of a nation that spans a continent is for the foreseeable future a pipe dream. Those are the facts but feel free to dream on.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Straw man my gluteus maximus. It is pure hypocrisy that should be exposed.

Clearly hypocrisy is very important to you.

Except when it involves Trump’s use of undocumented immigrants.

Or his denial of climate change while simultaneously trying to prepare for it at his golf course.

Or his attack on political contributions (except the ones he receives).

Yes I am a Hypocrisy Free Individual. I do not believe in man made global warming thus I burn wood to heat my home with a clear conscience. Same for driving a car. You?

Zooey wrote:

It doesn’t matter, Billy.

It isn’t a principled argument. As always, it’s an argument of convenience. It’s the same thing the right said about Al Gore. “Oh, global warming, huh? Then why do you have such a big utility bill for your house?”

It’s a straw man.

It’s a classic “change the subject” argument.

Instead of arguing about the issue – the environmental danger and cultural disregard of the pipeline (arguments the right will lose) – they change the subject to different ground where they feel they have the upper hand – in this case, the “purity” of the people making the argument.

This is standard arguing practice of the right, and it won’t make any difference how many times you point it out, and at what length. They change the subject as routinely as you change your socks.

They can’t say what they really think which is “Hey, this is how society makes progress, and I don’t get my drinking water from there, and I have no ancestors buried there, so it’s not my problem. Your loss is an acceptable price for me to pay. Fuck you.” That won’t go over well, so as usual, they just wrap the whole issue in a bunch of bullshit until most people are so confused, they change the channel to something easier to understand, like “The Apprentice.”

Straw man my gluteus maximus. It is pure hypocrisy that should be exposed.

Billy_T wrote:

The rationales and motives vary for pushing the absurd idea that people can’t ever use a resource they protest against. They range from an innocent misunderstanding of how protest works, how the world works, how complex our modern world is, how dependent we’ve become on various technologies — to a cynical attempt to crush all protest. The bottom line for me is this:

I don’t give a shit what they say. It has less than zero impact on what the protests mean, what the protesters stand for, and what they’re trying to accomplish. The best thing we can do as human beings who care about the planet is to absoLUTELY ignore the voices accusing those protesters of hypocrisy. They’re not worth a second of our time. They’re either too ignorant to understand what they’re demanding of people, or they know full well that if their words were heeded, all protests of this kind would be nearly impossible — or, at best, severely weakened. The people pushing this meme, through their useful idiots, fall into the latter category.

It is the difference between being an adult vs. a child. A child merely wants what they want. An adult realizes there’s far more involved. Petroleum for better or worse powers this nations transport especially outside of the eastern seaboard megalopolis. That won’t change for a long time if ever. The petroleum is needed period. Whether for domestic use or for export having the resource developed when imports get too expensive is absolutely vital.

Mitch is an idiot.

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

I wonder how many protesters walked out there to protest?

————

Well its a fair question, but its also fair to ask how is one supposed
to be totally ‘pure’ in all actions when one is born into a corporotacracy.
I mean, I have no problem with progressives picking out some major issues and fighting for them, while still having cars, or watching pro football on televisions, etc. Its ‘almost’ impossible to be a saint today. So, i don’t have a problem with non-saints protesting the big issues of the day.

w
v

No don’t do that. Not at all the same nor relevant. You can’t use the benefits of petroleum and then protest against its use. Especially when driving or jetting to a protest against petroleum. Such hypocrisy.

— X — wrote:

bnw wrote:

What network is the game on?

ESPN

Thank you!

Fisher’s weaknesses are shitty NFL owners, brunettes and YooHoo.

Isiah58 wrote:

I think there are two reasons why these talks went nowhere.

First, Denver offered a fourth round pick for Kappernick in the offseason, but SF wanted a 2nd. It is unlikely John Elway would have given up more than a 4th for Keenum since nothing has changed from Denver’s point of view.

Second, it is likely the Rams will let Keenum walk after the year to begin the Goff era. If a team gives Keenum a contract, the Rams would get a compensatory pick. If he plays decently, it might be a substantial contract, which could net the Rams a 4th round compensatory pick. So they can keep Keenum this year and get basically what Denver was offering next year.

So unless Denver was offering something outrageous, which was very unlikely, the Rams were probably never interested in a trade of Keenum.

Thanks for explaining that. Good post!

Hildabeast is above the law so it doesn’t matter what wiki leaks releases. Obama claims elections are not fixed yet now Homeland Security is policing the election to insure Hildabeast wins. She is losing support because people are fed up with the hypocrisy of her BS and lies. Trump overwhelmingly won the NBC event which means she won’t dare get into a real debate with him.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Why not anger? Why not now? When you witness Hildabeast’s constant lying about willfully breaking the laws for which we little people get prison time, how is anger not justified?

Nobody said anger isn’t justified.

But just because anger is justifiable doesn’t mean all responses to it are.

?

zn wrote:

bnw wrote:

By the mid ’90s pipes with holes running the length were found to do just as good a job and were practically maintenance free.

Mine have the pipes.

Good. Mine does too. There can be a slight buildup of ash within the pipes (after 8 years Mine had 1/8 in.) but the pipes are loose fitting so it’s easy. The biggest accumulation is on top of the insulation blanket. I take the top of the stove off every year now to clean it. Can get up to a half inch of ash a year. Only found out about it after the stove was having draw issues and I had burned 7 years without cleaning it.

Yet here we are with Trump drawing thousands everywhere he goes compared to Hildabeast getting a hundred at most and then only when she has her one or two events a week. Trump has gained support in every poll over this time Taibbi wrote about. In fact Trump has mostly drawn even and has gained support in the swing states especially Ohio. I’ve always believed his support is greater than what the polls show. What is undeniable is he’s gaining and unlike Hildabeast he’s working for it.

Your next president is Donald J. Trump.

$3500 four years ago for a gas fireplace insert?