Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

GOP madness Unbound...


mr6666
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/9/2022 at 9:34 AM, NipkowDisc said:

99% of that is hyperbole and you know it. 

Must be;  those good-people-too,  wouldn't think of using violence against government officials.

Oh,  wait,   didn't something happen on January 6th?    

PS:  at least it appears you don't support the use of violence.    But do you think Trump will make a statement advising people to chill?    (or will he continue to do what he is doing,  fanning the flames because he doesn't care if people are harmed or killed).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H8V5ANco_x96.jpg
 
Marjorie Taylor Greene just said she opposes solar panels because she thinks they would cause the lights to turn off at night.
Quote Tweet
 
 
gdbs7Rye_normal.jpg
 
PatriotTakes 
 
@patriottakes
· 14h
Marjorie Taylor Greene believes generating electricity from “wind turbines and solar panels” will result in the loss of air conditioning and home appliances.
Greene: “I like the lights on. I want to stay up later at night. I don’t want to have to go to bed when the sun sets.”
Show this thread
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

California's governor Newsom is starting to work with power companies to keep the Diablo Nuclear plant here in CA (which produces more electricity than any other single source in  CA), operating,  at least until 2035,   mainly because solar panels can't ensure enough electricity when the sun goes down.  

The plant was scheduled to close in 2024 \ 2025 due to misguided planning that was too dependent on green energy,  as well as state's Dem party desire to show-off to the world (by becoming the largest economic system to be 100% "green").     In addition CA is delaying the shut-down of natural gas power plants. 

Of course Newsom is still for the overall goal of being 100% "green"  (just like me and most other Californian),  but is finally seeing that any plan has to be realistic and science based and not overly politically based.    E.g.   due to the drought,  electricity from hydropower has fallen from 18% to 8%.     

As we are seeing in France and Germany;  Nuclear power can be clean power!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

California's governor Newsom is starting to work with power companies to keep the Diablo Nuclear plant here in CA (which produces more electricity than any other single source in  CA), operating,  at least until 2035,   mainly because solar panels can't ensure enough electricity when the sun goes down.  

The plant was scheduled to close in 2024 \ 2025 due to misguided planning that was too dependent on green energy,  as well as state's Dem party desire to show-off to the world (by becoming the largest economic system to be 100% "green").     In addition CA is delaying the shut-down of natural gas power plants. 

Of course Newsom is still for the overall goal of being 100% "green"  (just like me and most other Californian),  but is finally seeing that any plan has to be realistic and science based and not overly politically based.    E.g.   due to the drought,  electricity from hydropower has fallen from 18% to 8%.     

As we are seeing in France and Germany;  Nuclear power can be clean power!

 

 

As long as it's not on the San Andreas fault...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

As long as it's not on the San Andreas fault...

Correct;  but note that here in CA environmentalist are complaining about wind and solar power;  E.g.  that wind power kills billions of birds on an annual basis.  All methods to produce energy have pros-and-cons,   risk migration and associated cost benefits.     Now  that Newsom wishes to become a future US President,  he is viewing matters in a more mature,  less narrow,  less just-progressive,  more realistic manner.     That will be good for CA.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

Correct;  but note that here in CA environmentalist are complaining about wind and solar power;  E.g.  that wind power kills billions of birds on an annual basis.  All methods to produce energy have pros-and-cons,   risk migration and associated cost benefits.     Now  that Newsom wishes to become a future US President,  he is viewing matters in a more mature,  less narrow,  less just-progressive,  more realistic manner.     That will be good for CA.     

Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they’re made out to be. Here’s why

Published: June 16, 2017 1.41am EDT

That’s nearly 15 times more. From this, the author estimated:

wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.

In other words, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bogie56 said:

Wind farms are hardly the bird slayers they’re made out to be. Here’s why

Published: June 16, 2017 1.41am EDT

That’s nearly 15 times more. From this, the author estimated:

wind farms killed approximately seven thousand birds in the United States in 2006 but nuclear plants killed about 327,000 and fossil-fuelled power plants 14.5 million.

In other words, for every one bird killed by a wind turbine, nuclear and fossil fuel powered plants killed 2,118 birds.

How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ElCid said:

How?

Can you go to the article.  If you are that interested, that is.  I thought there were new rules about posting articles in their entirety.

I thought the important information was that more traditional forms of energy are even worse for birds.  Much worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LawrenceA said:

That was written back in 2017 and there is  some new information.    One point I have seen since then was the location:   wind farms in areas where birds fly for their annual migration.    

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JamesJazGuitar said:

That was written back in 2017 and there is  some new information.    One point I have seen since then was the location:   wind farms in areas where birds fly for their annual migration.    

 

 

Other articles say the numbers of bird deaths are dropping significantly with new technology of wind turbines.  The high numbers are usually from the year 2000 in google searches.

In any event the other forms of energy are much worse on birds - it seems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Thanks.  It still does not answer the question.  How are fossil fuels killing birds?  Also, seems to have a lot of older data and some from Europe rather than US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
-DNpPNUm_x96.jpg
 
In just a few weeks, Republicans in Congress have: -
Opposed gun safety -
Opposed investing in our planet -
Opposed protecting marriage equality -
Opposed codifying abortion rights -
Opposed lowering health costs -
Opposed capping insulin prices
Against everything. For nothing.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...