Science

hunter

(38,311 posts)

31. We are not "buying time."

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 01:26 PM

Oct 2017

It seems no magic power source is coming along to replace natural gas, especially if you dismiss nuclear power.

It doesn't matter if all the known gas "reserves" are burned in fifty years or a hundred. The end is the same.

We are witnessing a planetary extinction event and it's NOT because of nuclear power.

Your insults do not hurt my feelings. I am a jackass amateur scientist with some formal training in evolutionary biology, a radical environmentalist, and some kind of Luddite who believes humans can be happy without automobiles and giant solar projects in the desert, or monster wind turbines on the hills; "renewable" energy sources that are there merely to power the lights and air conditioners of suburban parking lot big box stores, build more cars, or power the internet servers determining which advertisements you see while surfing the web.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A Minor Problem For Sound Science of the Effect of Offshore Windfarms on Seabirds: There Isn't Any. [View all] NNadir Sep 2017 OP

Some new stuff. Eko Sep 2017 #1

The trouble is that people see wind turbines as a symbol of progress... hunter Sep 2017 #2

I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right. NNadir Sep 2017 #3

Wow Eko Sep 2017 #4

I live in California. The hills are littered with dead Enron-era wind turbines... hunter Sep 2017 #6

What do you mean by dead turbines? Eko Oct 2017 #11

Here, too, is another picture from Nature, of the realities of the wind industry. NNadir Sep 2017 #5

Yes, this is much better. Eko Sep 2017 #7

Here you go, way awesome. Eko Sep 2017 #8

The toxic wastes of a careless high energy industrial society suck. hunter Oct 2017 #10

Yup, Eko Oct 2017 #12

How about arsenic? Arsenic has a half life of forever. hunter Oct 2017 #13

Nope. Eko Oct 2017 #14

Seriously? You think the arsenic goes away? hunter Oct 2017 #16

Well, Im sure Eko Oct 2017 #19

The same sorts of processes that decrease the bioavailability of toxins like arsenic and lead... hunter Oct 2017 #20

This was your statement. Eko Oct 2017 #23

I would ask you to take a second Eko Oct 2017 #15

I'm some kind of quixotic Luddite and evolutionary biologist. hunter Oct 2017 #17

Yes you have said that many times. Eko Oct 2017 #18

Except they don't reduce the use of gas. hunter Oct 2017 #21

Gas is profitable without wind. Eko Oct 2017 #22

You'd be okay with more gas. I get it. hunter Oct 2017 #24

Wow. Eko Oct 2017 #25

So what? Eko Oct 2017 #26

Your enthusiasm for solar and wind augmented gas power plants is clear. hunter Oct 2017 #27

Yes, because somewhere I am sure Eko Oct 2017 #28

I'd happily see Ivanpah removed, and the landscape restored to the best of human ability. hunter Oct 2017 #29

Natural gas is successful without solar and wind. Eko Oct 2017 #30

We are not "buying time." hunter Oct 2017 #31

Of course we are. Eko Oct 2017 #32

Going back to the original argument... hunter Oct 2017 #33

Of course you are because it's not about global warming Eko Oct 2017 #34

Welcome to the twenty first century. It's a messy place... hunter Oct 2017 #35

Not afraid. Eko Oct 2017 #36

It would be silly to be afraid. hunter Oct 2017 #37

And I am not a silly person. Eko Oct 2017 #38

Im not even going to post the pictures from this. Eko Sep 2017 #9