SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Raven]

Alberta museum unveils world's best-preserved armoured dinosaur

Edit, ignore the usual Guardian begging for ad blockers to be turned off, or donation etc, they have plenty of money in their Cayman accounts.

 

[Job]

Feel free to deny it or accuse him of being big coal...he is quite simply correct.
Wind turbines are a joke and they present the data in a way to support something that just isnt working without storage tech.

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy | The Spectator

 

[Job]

Come on, isn't this topic of race getting quiet old? Surely there's something else to be debated. Also everything concerning Trump and co. Honestly, I'd hear you wank off on your new bike saddle any day rather than this.

Can we discuss, for example, Earth's different layers? We haven't been able to even reach past the crust. What different layers are there that we know for certain? What would we find down there?

Well I was listening to Radio 4 and they had a scientist on talking about how they have used the latest sonars to find the remain of the giant chalk cliffs that crossed from Diver to France and held back the North sea.
They collapsed all in one go and the channel filled in a few hours.
That would have been awesome to watch.

 

[Scouse]

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy | The Spectator

Written by Matt "Chairman of Northern Rock" and "I love coal me, ('cause I get paid for it *and got removed from standards bodies because of his lobbying)" Ridley? Or Baron Wendsleydale, to use his much cooler name.

The guy who breached parlimentary codes of conduct by not admitting that he's got large investment in fracking companies? The guy who says "climate change is definitely happening but I like it so lets do nowt"?

Yeah. Good reliable source.

 

[Job]

Thankyou for bringing up his coal support...which is irrelevant because wind and solar are no threat anyway..in fact as he points out, they require a lot of it.
The figures are undeniable, its basic physics..and of course its basic physics that with storage wind power WOULD be very good.
Just hasnt happened yet.

 

[Ctuchik]

Feel free to deny it or accuse him of being big coal...he is quite simply correct.
Wind turbines are a joke and they present the data in a way to support something that just isnt working without storage tech.

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy | The Spectator

And that means we shouldn't bother trying to make them viable?

Fucking hell you really are an Agri-Yob....

 

[Scouse]

The figures are undeniable, its basic physics..

You are the least qualified person on this forum to comment on what is, or is not, basic physics.

But aside from that - he quotes from the "institute of energy research" - which is a lobby group funded by the coal, oil and gas industry and a big climate-denier pressure group (one of the biggest). He himself is pro-coal, is dependent on it financially, pro gas, invested heavily there too.

Whichever way you cut it - the article is utterly unreliable. His figures are unreliable. His sources are unreliable. It's all bull.

 

[Access Denied]

Aside from being ugly as fuck, current wind turbines are woefully inefficient. Surely actual turbine style blades, rather than a big propeller would be better?

Anyone got any real knowledge on that subject because I'd love to know!

 

[Job]

Well..everything considered they are best atm...those vertical spinning designs, where the generator is on the floor work in any wind speed, but they have other problems...the truly best design really is the giant heat towers, where air rushes up huge 2000ft high columns, rynning turbine blades, but of course its essy to make propeller turbines and no ones going to take the risk on anything else.

 

[Job]

You are the least qualified person on this forum to comment on what is, or is not, basic physics.

But aside from that - he quotes from the "institute of energy research" - which is a lobby group funded by the coal, oil and gas industry and a big climate-denier pressure group (one of the biggest). He himself is pro-coal, is dependent on it financially, pro gas, invested heavily there too.

Whichever way you cut it - the article is utterly unreliable. His figures are unreliable. His sources are unreliable. It's all bull.

His figures have yet to be shown incorrect, though he does 'cheat' a bit by comparing wind to total energy, not just electricity...but if you are going to replace non renewables, that has to be the criteria...there are no electric tankers or planes and the total burn of fossil fuels and others dwarfs turbine generation...as in .5%.
There no point in getting annoyed about it , check it yourself...and no it doesnt mean they are a waste of time, it just means they have to be put into context..for 'saving the planet'.
If you are happy listening to the industry patting itself on the back by pushing out production figures that sound good, but are just a tiny bite out of a huge problem.

 

[BloodOmen]

 

[old.user4556]

Feel free to deny it or accuse him of being big coal...he is quite simply correct.
Wind turbines are a joke and they present the data in a way to support something that just isnt working without storage tech.

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy | The Spectator

O rly?

Wind power provided enough energy for 136% of Scottish households last month

 

[Job]

Lol

 

[Raven]

We had to move everything off the windowsill ages ago as the cat would knock everything off until it got let out. Then we got a cat flap which he only uses if he feels like it, he would much rather we let him out the window.

 

[Raven]

His figures have yet to be shown incorrect, though he does 'cheat' a bit by comparing wind to total energy, not just electricity...but if you are going to replace non renewables, that has to be the criteria...there are no electric tankers or planes and the total burn of fossil fuels and others dwarfs turbine generation...as in .5%.
There no point in getting annoyed about it , check it yourself...and no it doesnt mean they are a waste of time, it just means they have to be put into context..for 'saving the planet'.
If you are happy listening to the industry patting itself on the back by pushing out production figures that sound good, but are just a tiny bite out of a huge problem.

Nowt wrong with wind, if we could get storage sorted out, which will happen eventually and (I imagine) will be compatible with current renewable generation.

Think of it like a dynamo on a bike, that isn't connected to a small battery. Great for running lights off if you are moving but crap overall. Now they have batteries and are brilliant, that will happen one way or another with solar/wind/water.

Although my beef with wind power is that it absolutely decimates areas or natural beauty.

 

[DaGaffer]

Aside from being ugly as fuck, current wind turbines are woefully inefficient. Surely actual turbine style blades, rather than a big propeller would be better?

Anyone got any real knowledge on that subject because I'd love to know!

I think turbines would have a weight (and therefore cost) problem, and they tend to work better in high velocity applications anyway.

 

[Bodhi]

You are the least qualified person on this forum to comment on what is, or is not, basic physics.

But aside from that - he quotes from the "institute of energy research" - which is a lobby group funded by the coal, oil and gas industry and a big climate-denier pressure group (one of the biggest). He himself is pro-coal, is dependent on it financially, pro gas, invested heavily there too.

Whichever way you cut it - the article is utterly unreliable. His figures are unreliable. His sources are unreliable. It's all bull.

Yes, and if you bother to read all the way through, he covers that - windmills are great for coal producers, becuase of the amount of coal and other fossil fuels you need to build the things in the first place - so it's in his interests for us to go windmill crazy. The numbers he quotes in relation to the amount of coal required to build a turbine are staggering - half the EU's coal output just to keep up with global energy demands? How, precisely, is that reducing emissions?

He's right as well - if we want to satisfy mankind's energy needs, we are not going to do it with windmills and solar panels, as they simply aren't reliable enough. Sure on a particular day they might provide all we need, but the next day the wind drops and we're fucked. If you want reliable, carbon free energy you need to be looking at nuclear, but strangely the Greenies have a bee in their bonnet about that as well.

 

[Raven]

https://www.quora.com/How-long-does...te-more-power-than-what-was-used-to-create-it

Information is a little thin on the ground and usually based on perfect conditions, half the time the ones near me are off (wrong sort of wind or whatever) so who knows.

I am not sure if they take into account the environmental damage caused by mining for rare metals that are needed for production or transport either.

Although, as with most things like this, environmental damage is a secondary concern (see palm oil bullshit) so long as CO2 is down!

 

[Scouse]

The numbers the oil coal and gas industry quote in relation to the amount of coal required to build a turbine are staggering, and their solution? Bin off wind and burn oil coal and gas instead

Fixed.

Funny that eh? Who'd have thunk it.

 

[Tom]

It's funny how apparently, the renewable energy sector is a big old scam. A conspiracy to mislead people and make someone, somewhere, rich. But the fossil-fuel industry, they're the honest ones. They'd never mislead anyone, they only ever care about the environment.

 

[Job]

It's not a scam..turbines work...solar panels work...it's just they are exaggerating their impact on the co2 problem, the deceased Oxford professor who worked it out said, to make the UK 100 per cent powered by wind, you would have to stick every single turbine in the world offshore, turn every single lake into a hydro dam.
Thats just for our small population. it's rather obvious what we are up against , the fossil reserves in the ground took millions of years to be laid down, we are ripping through them in centuries.

 

[Bodhi]

It's funny how apparently, the renewable energy sector is a big old scam. A conspiracy to mislead people and make someone, somewhere, rich. But the fossil-fuel industry, they're the honest ones. They'd never mislead anyone, they only ever care about the environment.

View attachment 36630

It's funny how one can make sweeping generalistations to prove one's point. I've never said renewables are a scam, just wind (unreliable, expensive and an ecological nightmare) and biomass (how is cutting down Canadian and US forests to ship across the Atlantic to then burn in Drax in any way sustainable?) and solar in the UK (cos like, duh). Hydro and Offshore Wind are both well proven to supply the energy we need, wind isn't.

You have to bear in mind that we already have plentiful supplies of cheap and reliable energy, which have pretty much created civilization as we know it, so if we're going to replace these with something different, they should at least be as useful as what we have. And I'm sorry, but renewables just aren't. If you want reliable, abundant energy, you need to look down the Nuclear route, which I wouldn't have an issue with at all.

 

[Bodhi]

Fixed.

Funny that eh? Who'd have thunk it.

Again, if you'd read the article in an attempt to play the ball, you'd see he was suggesting yes, burn gas as it is the cleanest fossil fuel for power generation - then invest in Nuclear as the future. Coal and Oil not mentioned at all. In fact, that almost sounds sensible, so it will never happen.

 

[Tom]

It's funny how one can make sweeping generalistations to prove one's point.

how is cutting down Canadian and US forests to ship across the Atlantic to then burn in Drax in any way sustainable?

It isn't ideal but it's probably much more sustainable than digging coal from the ground, burning it and releasing that carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For the most part, when you're burning wood pellets, you're not adding anything that the fuel hasn't already absorbed (I realise it isn't quite that simple).

they should at least be as useful as what we have. And I'm sorry, but renewables just aren't.

Yet. Drax power station is what, 4GW? The first coal power station built in my hometown could produce 42MW in 1922. Investment in new technology usually produces long term benefits.

 

[Job]

Internet in melt down as Dilbert appears to mock climate scientists.

 

[Raven]

Tinder fights one-man dating platform - BBC News

Schindlers lifts aren't very happy (yes, it is a real firm)

 

[Raven]

Wow, they went there.


View: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B016NY7784?ref_=pfb_amn8ckgfla02lb5gnd789fl087jl&tag=hydfbook-21&ascsubtag=pfb-P11-V01-O3-ihjis8-0Q1U04

 

[Moriath]

Apple pencil been around ages now. Whats new?

 

[Scouse]

Again, if you'd read the article in an attempt to play the ball

It's not a ball. It's a giant pile of horse turd formed into a ball shape and painted white.

But it's still a turd. An industry-sponsored turd.

 

[BloodOmen]