Jump to content


The Wind and the Blowhard

  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Rogerdodger



  • TT Member*
  • 24,652 posts

Posted 03 April 2019 - 05:08 PM

Concrete is the real environmental villain because of heat retention and CO2 emissions created in it's manufacturing (#3 source of all man-made CO2) Manufacturing of the steel re-bar to support concrete's weak tensile strength is is't own ecological nightmare.

Many an eye has been poked out by steel re-bar; and it can be used to make assault weapons,

Additionally, we have reached "Peak Sand" already and supplies are scarce.

We will not need more energy if we ban all transportation immediately.

Let's GO GREEN and enjoy our last 12 years.





Edited by Rogerdodger, 03 April 2019 - 05:11 PM.

#22 colion



  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,064 posts

Posted 03 April 2019 - 05:08 PM




First, I'll answer my own question: it's all bollocks to justify more taxation. As to your question: I think tidal energy is a better source than wind.


That;'s your reason to eliminate wind as a source?! You want to give up achieving one-third of the US electrical need by 2050?


From the post with the maps:



In fact, wind turbines have cropped up like dandelions across large areas of the US, and thousands more are coming. The US Department of Energy projects that we’ll have 404 gigawatts of wind energy capacity across the country by 2050, up from 90 GW today. Since overall electricity demand is expected to hold steady, that would fulfill more than one-third of the country’s needs.




I disagree that all fossil fuel development needs to cease immediately. That would be the end of civilization as we know it. While we're talking climate change, why is Canada supposedly getting warmer at twice the rate as the rest of the world average with the arctic area being the worst? This is an inverse relationship to population density which proves it's not human caused, and yet in the same news release yesterday, they claimed the majority of it was human caused. Does logic not apply to the anthropogenic climate change?


That question belongs elsewhere, over with the deniers on global warming hoax thread where there is much stamping of feet any crying foul (not fowl).


Let me ask a question -- this goes for colion and "JB" too -- why is anyone desperate to eliminate wind as one of the sources of electrical power?



You put words in my mouth.  I did not say eliminate wind as a source.  I said to increase nuclear and increase R&D funding for next generation nuclear and fusion which are our best shot for the intermediate to long term.  However, this might not happen until the first city goes cold and dark.  California is a good example.  It decided quite awhile ago that building new coal-fired power plants was a no-no with polling supporting this by 60-40.  This led to brownouts which people did not like and polling shifted overnight to 40-60.  Man will do whatever is necessary to keep the lights on.


As for wind or any other renewable I say go for it as long as they can stand on their own without subsidies.  The earth is not an infinite source of carbonaceous or nuclear fuels.  Political fads push one greenie solution or another for invalid reasons (e.g., AGW, etc.) but at this time they will fail for technological and/or economic reasons.



Ah, subsidies, subsidies...


America spends over $20bn per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Abolish them




Americans needs to rethink what subsidies are for

Subsidies are a way for the government to assist an industry, hypothetically for good reason. For example, wind and solar power help meet our energy needs without producing harmful pollution in the process. Because of the associated societal benefits, it’s possible to justify subsidizing clean energy. Alternatively, we could eliminate all energy subsidies and instead tax carbon and other forms of pollution. If rising energy prices are a concern, we could offset those costs by returning the pollution tax revenue to taxpayers.

There are numerous different policy options available to achieve the Paris climate target. We can avoid unacceptably risky levels of global warming while also achieving cleaner air, water, and public health without destroying whole landscapes. But continuing to funnel tens to hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry is perverse and counter-productive, as the OCI report noted:

Removing these highly inefficient [fossil fuel] subsidies – which waste billions of dollars propping up an industry incompatible with safe climate limits – should be the first priority of fiscally responsible climate, energy, and tax reform policies.



Meaningless article.  We all pay for subsidies - not the government - and they are a step down the road to crony capitalism (e.g., Obama's Solyndra/O'care waivers/etc.) and socialism.  In the main, the marketplace should choose the appropriate product.  Government subsidies for R&D and make sense but in general not for commercialization or commercial products.   Bigger government is not the answer.

Edited by colion, 03 April 2019 - 05:13 PM.

#23 diogenes227



  • TT Patron+
  • 4,844 posts

Posted 05 April 2019 - 03:19 PM

"If you've heard this story before, don't stop me because I'd like to hear it again," Groucho Marx (on market history?).

“I've learned in options trading simple is best and the obvious is often the most elusive to recognize.”


"The god of trading rewards persistence, experience and discipline, and absolutely nothing else."

#24 colion



  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,064 posts

Posted 07 April 2019 - 04:58 PM



I have it on good authority that AOC realized she had a soulmate in Don Quixote de la Mancha when she heard him cry "Facts are the enemy of truth".