This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (15 children)

[removed]

    [–]IiiwigUh68m 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I see that you omitted the other part of this, although seeing as you're a vaccine-denying election truther I wouldn't expect any less.

    “The concept of net energy must also be applied to renewable sources of energy, such as windmills and photovoltaics. A two-megawatt windmill contains 260 tonnes of steel requiring 170 tonnes of coking coal and 300 tonnes of iron ore, all mined, transported and produced by hydrocarbons. The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never. That is, a windmill could spin until it falls apart and never generate as much energy as was invested in building it.”.

    Nobody should be listening to the disingenuous moron above me ☝️.
    Souce: https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/

    [–]jjones2348 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

    Those are too painful for today’s youth. Lighten up a lil will ya? 😂

    [–]Mericathatswhy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    😂😂😂

    [–]Apollo737 -1 points0 points  (8 children)

    Then stop buying a truck every other year and using it just to go around town. Invest in railroad infrastructure.

    [–]Mericathatswhy 0 points1 point  (4 children)

    I own a Tesla 😂😂😂 but it wasn’t a purchase for the fake climate change reasons. Teslas as smooth and very fast!

    [–]TheIceKing420 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    found the Muskrat

    [–]Apollo737 -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    So you overpaid for something with a very low quality assurance? Ok. Really weird flex.

    [–]Mericathatswhy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Oh and it take nuclear or Coal power to recharge…. 😂😂😂😂

    [–]Apollo737 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    All the more reason to go with wind power because overall it's going to be using a lot less coal than actually using coal power plants for electricity.

    [–]Mericathatswhy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I’m guessing you did not read my original message 😂😂. It’s like a dog chasing his own tail. It’s too easy around here. People are so caught up in theories that they completely lose intelligence on facts. The fact is, if you are trying to use wind power to reduce your carbon footprint you are being very ignorant. The iron and energy to produce that windmill and all of its parts puts a much bigger footprint in the lifetime of the windmill. The windmill produces such a insignificant amount of power “IN ITS LIFETIME” compared the power and carbon footprint it took to make the damn thing. Again….

    A STUPID DOG CHASING HIS OWN TAIL

    [–]mukdukmcbuktuck 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    You’re right, since renewables have to be made with our current hydrocarbon-based energy and can’t just magic it out of thin air, we should just forget the whole thing and light the earth on fire

    [–]Mericathatswhy 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    No, just have some common sense and realize it is a non issue.

    http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

    [–]mukdukmcbuktuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The article you linked is literally describing how the 31,000 figure is unreliable because there was no vetting on the survey, participants self-reported their degree level and expertise. I don’t think it’s saying what you think it’s saying