 
     |
| Carbon dioxide hysteria (Page 117/170) |
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
OCT 31, 01:39 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Maybe I could say something about this, but not on a short turnaround or even a foreseeable schedule.
I don't believe there is a simple or straightforward Reply message that would do justice to this Red v. Blue remark. |
|
I know, not trying to be mean, but at least this is a bit more polite way of conceding. The answer to this is... two-fold... most Democrat "leadership" don't actually care about the environment, or whatever else it is that they say they want to solve. They only want power, and they want you to THINK they're solving these problems.
This is a relatively new phenomenon, because I don't think this was necessarily the case prior to 2000. I'd say the Democrat party has been heavily hijacked by foreign influence... the Republican part has as well, but no where near to the extent that it has on the left. I can't really say why, perhaps China, Russia, and the global oligarchs find that the left is more amenable to radical change. But in every city, and every state that Democrat rule resides... they are worse-off, year after year. You cannot show me a single Democrat city that's better today than it was 20 years ago. Consequently... every Republican city has improved.... **** , just look at Miami. The place is amazing.
So that's the first thing.
Second, modern Democrats are really, really bad at money-management. They don't understand human behavior, and think taxpayers are an unlimited resource. They allocate money towards never-ending problems that address the result, but never the solution. So there's never any money left to actually address things that maybe they should or need to. California is the worst... can you believe that California... a state that used to be the pinnacle of U.S. innovation, has stooped SO LOW that they now have to get nearly 20% of their electricity from a power plant in a 3rd world country? California does this... and that Mexican power comes from Coal.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
OCT 31, 02:42 PM
|
|
One thing I like about the Biden and Democrat-backed Floating Offshore Wind Moonshot is that it opens up the panorama of big-time electricity from coastal waters offshore to California on the Pacific Coast, and Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island on the Atlantic Seaboard.
That would be a lot of electricity and it would all be branded "Democrat Blue."
Offshore wind with fixed moorings for the wind turbines is already familiar territory.
Floating offshore wind, where the wind turbines are actually held up by the buoyancy of seawater, is more of a challenge, but it would be a gateway to more energy producing wind and more reliable energy producing wind.
It's a long game.
You can talk up "nukes" (fission reactors) all you want. I'm not standing in anyone's way, but for reasons beyond my control and even beyond my full understanding, it seems to me that it is still slow-going in terms of a nuclear fission renaissance.
I'm hopeful that the engineering and supply chain challenges of more offshore wind energy and floating offshore wind energy can be overcome, and that the new or expanded offshore installations can be constructed and maintained without creating signficant problems for marine life, the fishiing industry or maritime navigation.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-31-2023).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
OCT 31, 03:47 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
One thing I like about the Biden and Democrat-backed Floating Offshore Wind Moonshot is that it opens up the panorama of big-time electricity from coastal waters offshore to California on the Pacific Coast, and Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island on the Atlantic Seaboard.
That would be a lot of electricity and it would all be branded "Democrat Blue."
Offshore wind with fixed moorings for the wind turbines is already familiar territory.
Floating offshore wind, where the wind turbines are actually held up by the buoyancy of seawater, is more of a challenge, but it would be a gateway to more energy producing wind and more reliable energy producing wind.
I'm hopeful that the engineering and supply chain challenges of more offshore wind energy and floating offshore wind energy can be overcome, and that the new or expanded offshore installations can be constructed and maintained without creating signficant problems for marine life, the fishiing industry or maritime navigation. |
|
The only reason why they're doing offshore, is because of NIMBY... which is ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
OCT 31, 04:07 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
The only reason why they're doing offshore, is because of NIMBY... which is ridiculous. |
|
I completely disagree with that.
Offshore wind is more reliable and less subject to the vagaries of weather and the highs and lows of the diurnal cycle, and floating offshore wind, which takes it farther offshore, is even MORE advantageous that way.
I'm all about MORE..! MORE is all I do![This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-31-2023).]
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
OCT 31, 04:15 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
I completely disagree with that.
Offshore wind is more reliable and less subject to the vagaries of weather and the highs and lows of the diurnal cycle, and floating offshore wind, which takes it farther offshore, is even MORE advantageous that way.
I'm all about MORE..! MORE is all I do! |
|
Honestly, you can disagree... but this is one of the reasons why it's being considered in the first place. Many of these smaller Democrat-run states... they aren't expansive like the mid-west, so to be fair, there isn't the amount of space to put these turbines like there are in Texas. Texas has been putting them on top of oil fields, which is both ironic, and kind of funny.
But NY does not want these windmills. They aren't silent, they make noise, and some people have a considerable intolerance to them (I think it's mostly mental, personally, but whatever). But the main reason why they're being considered off shore is because there's limited places where they can get approval (mostly because of NIMBY) to put them.
I don't have a problem with them off-shore (or on shore for that matter)... but there's also the NIMBY problem there too, so now they're being forced to put them even further out. They are sitting in salt-water, and the operational and maintenance costs, as well as the initial costs are exceptionally higher than they are compared to normal wind farms. I hate to be the bringer of bad news... but man... Rinse... these off-shore wind farms are a really bad investment. They require nearly twice the maintenance and are twice as expensive.
My own PERSONAL issue with both of these, is that ~85% of this is all made in China... so we're literally funding our Communist enemies. I would be willing to PAY MORE on my power bill if I knew these wind farms and solar farms were from equipment made in the United States.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
NOV 01, 02:40 PM
|
|
Just when you thought offshore wind energy was "down for the count," Dominion Energy's Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project is greenlighted by the Biden administration.
This was just posted on YouTube.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-01-2023).]
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
NOV 01, 05:59 PM
|
|
|
|
|
82-T/A [At Work]
|
NOV 02, 06:38 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
Just when you thought offshore wind energy was "down for the count," Dominion Energy's Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project is greenlighted by the Biden administration.
This was just posted on YouTube.
|
|
Look Rinse... you know I'm a fan of this technology... but I've said before that I take issue with the fact that all the money is going to China. We're funding our enemies... and I hope you can see that.
I just got back from the Orlando World Money Show... it's an annual investment show that I go to every year... and there's a lot of information that I take away from it. One of the things they talked about is that "green" investments have largely been subsidized by the government. But it's been a net-loss of an investment and many companies are cancelling a lot of their green energy projects.
Another thing they mentioned is that the United States will likely never recover it's oil energy production because most of the companies have moved elsewhere (to other countries). There's a new oil field that was discovered in Guyana (no, that's not in Africa... everyone always thinks this, haha) which is one of the largest sweet crude oil fields in the world. So Exxon and Chevron are going to be tapping that, which will provide a significant amount of international oil. They believe it will significantly affect OPEC's ability to control pricing. Unfortunately, that means that no one will bother drilling in the U.S. oil fields, except for the specific oils used for other products such as plastics or diesel, etc.
Anyway... I'm an engineer of a few different trades, the least of which though is mechanical engineering. I don't understand why they don't produce a mobile wind platform that can be anchored and has 4 posts. You can have 4 equal-sized blades (about half the size of one of those blades at the bottom, with a 5th large prop coming up from the middle raised above the other 4. As a mobile platform with actual lateral support, you could move these around pretty quickly and they'd be able to withstand hurricanes much easier with collapsible blades. We could build them at home, and use those off-shore, allowing us to move them based on the changing seasonal winds in the ocean.
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
NOV 02, 09:00 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
(snip)
Anyway... I'm an engineer of a few different trades, the least of which though is mechanical engineering. I don't understand why they don't produce a mobile wind platform that can be anchored and has 4 posts. You can have 4 equal-sized blades (about half the size of one of those blades at the bottom, with a 5th large prop coming up from the middle raised above the other 4. As a mobile platform with actual lateral support, you could move these around pretty quickly and they'd be able to withstand hurricanes much easier with collapsible blades. We could build them at home, and use those off-shore, allowing us to move them based on the changing seasonal winds in the ocean. |
|
That doesn't sound like a practical idea, at all.
Move them to follow the seasonal winds? That's a lot of undersea infrastructure to get the electricity to shore, and a lot of energy and manpower to effect the relocation.
I would like to see tidal powered generation of electricity.
|
|
|
|
ray b
|
NOV 02, 11:24 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
That doesn't sound like a practical idea, at all.
Move them to follow the seasonal winds? That's a lot of undersea infrastructure to get the electricity to shore, and a lot of energy and manpower to effect the relocation.
I would like to see tidal powered generation of electricity. |
|
TIDAL WILL WORK IN VERY FEW PLACES
requires hi flow and locations for structures = BIG BUCKS
WILL NOT WORK IN FLA
gulf stream turbines maybe but not tide flow
intermittent peak and slack times with tides
so not constant consistent power
changes all the time in time and peaks
|
|
|
|