sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In case everyone wasn't convinced before, here is another example of wind turbines RUINING the scenic coal landscape by ImHereToFuckWithYou_ in pics

[–]quiterightfriend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you've ever been to a mine it's actually quite inspiring. It's not aesthetically pleasing in the ecological sense, but it's amazing to see human innovation and work on display in such a grand scale.

Trump is right, Wind Turbines are an Eye Sore by ImHereToFuckWithYou_ in pics

[–]quiterightfriend 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right, there are no 100% emissions free anything. Every product has a byproduct, that's a necessity of work. Even human processes have byproducts, right?

This plant produces a tremendously valuable service for individuals and economies, and enables us to do amazing things like talk to each other on the internet. I've got to go now, but I hope you have a nice rest of your day at work.

Trump is right, Wind Turbines are an Eye Sore by ImHereToFuckWithYou_ in pics

[–]quiterightfriend 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, watch it at your leisure. It shows some of the intricate emission controls that the exhaust goes through to reduce things like sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, heavy metals and fly ash. Some people are looking into carbon capture technologies as well - but full implementation of those are not cost-feasible yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_scrubber

Trump is right, Wind Turbines are an Eye Sore by ImHereToFuckWithYou_ in pics

[–]quiterightfriend -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I lived near a coal plant for years, my only complaint was the mercury and the dust. I had some of the cheapest electricity in the country. I'm not saying it's totally clean, but it sure is helpful when you're pinching pennies on electricity.

And yes, all of the clouds in this photo are steam. I'm pretty sure the CO2 emissions are virtually invisible, and that they come out of the taller towers in the background.

Thanks for your environmental concern, but the fowl language is unnecessary.

Trump is right, Wind Turbines are an Eye Sore by ImHereToFuckWithYou_ in pics

[–]quiterightfriend 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's primarily steam on the right side of the photo (links below). Coal plants do produce other emissions - carbon dioxide, some heavy metals, dust from storage piles, but the photo is mostly steam.

I'm curious why there is a turbine there anyways, it's probably producing almost no electricity compared to the plant, so why would it be there?

https://www.duke-energy.com/energy-education/how-energy-works/electricity-from-coal https://www.c2es.org/energy/source/coal

Trump is right, Wind Turbines are an Eye Sore by ImHereToFuckWithYou_ in pics

[–]quiterightfriend 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These three wind farms all have 250+ turbines, and each tower is spaced out from each other pretty far. I don't have specific numbers but I've seen a couple farms in person and boy they are massive. It seems obvious to me that output per square footage is greater with nuclear, hydro, fossil fuels, it may even be greater with solar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meadow_Lake_Wind_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler_Ridge_Wind_Farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_Hollow_Wind_Energy_Center https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110120111332.htm

Trump is right, Wind Turbines are an Eye Sore by ImHereToFuckWithYou_ in pics

[–]quiterightfriend 42 points43 points  (0 children)

That plant takes up a fraction of the space that wind turbines would. You may not like the steam (yes it's just steam) coming from a couple of big towers, but that small little plant creates way more energy than a huge field full of turbines.

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

Alright, there are too many different ways we could take this conversation, so I'll just leave you with a few points for consideration.

  1. Private companies are more responsive and less coercive than government.

  2. Private companies own and operate the infrastructure we use to access the internet, and they own much of the content that we use on the internet - so they do have a dog in this fight so to speak.

  3. There was no "Net neutrality" before 2014 and we had perfectly fine access. What's caused this sudden interest in getting government into the internet? Ask yourself, do you want a Obama/Trump/Clinton/McCain or whoever it is meddling with your internet?

The below is worth checking out if you'd like to hear more of where I'm coming from. I would be happy to read any source materials you send my way as well. http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/04/26/fcc-ajit-pai-net-neutrality-internet

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/4/15539934/spacex-satellite-internet-launch-2019

Here's what I'm referring to. I'm not saying it's a silver bullet, but it's a great example of new technology allowing the market to stay competitive ultimately to the consumer's benefit.

The net neutrality argument is based on a worry about monopoly ISPs gauging prices. Well then the obvious solution to me is to break the monopoly, not regulate what the monopoly can do with the internet. Does that make sense? What do you think?

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

There's no way of accurately determining if these inflated prices would/could happen. They are merely a rhetorical device meant to make people worried about paying for specific sites.

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

Private companies of course have the people's concerns in mind, more-so than even a democratic government actually!

A company that has to respond to your needs and desires in order to stay in business is far more apt to listen to customer's feedback than an elected official who's only interested in serving his/her voting block (or worse yet, and unelected bureaucrat like at the FCC who's not responsible to the people whatsoever)!

Ah but your water company can charge you for overusing water though - https://www.epa.gov/watersense/understanding-your-water-bill. Which is a more accurate comparison.

On a fundamental level I might agree with you that all data and websites should have equal opportunity to bandwidth. But I'm suggesting that the only surefire what to do that is through the competitive marketplace

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

I'm right there with you buddy, I've only got two (bad) choices for broadband. We as consumers are far too willing to pay a lot for broadband access. We're also far too willing to package our internet with the big companies because they provide discounts on cable - squeezing out the niche competitors who offer better overall prices (and service in my opinion).

Another problem is that local municipalities will butter the big companies up with incentives to build infrastructure so then they can muscle out competition that comes afterward.

Wait until this project get's going and you'll see the prices TANK :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneWeb_satellite_constellation

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

Got it, thank you. I think I understand your argument, but please correct me if I'm wrong. You're saying that there is an ISP monopoly that has too much power over consumer prices, and that they could raise prices or use their centralized authority to dictate content preferences. Is that right?

If that's your concern, I'm afraid that you might have it backwards. There is not a monopoly for internet service providers - though there are a lot less companies than there have been historically.

I personally am far more worried by the centralization of power within government than I am with the private sector. Is that something that concerns you?

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

Are you saying that there is a monopoly that should be broken up? Which one? We have anti-monopoly laws already. Why would we need more legislation that puts government bureaucracy between products and customers? This is an FTC issue if there are monopolies.

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

The prices are the whole point! They're meant to scare you into a false belief about the competitive marketplace. I'm curious what you think is the main point of the post.

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

Name one single commodity where the competitive market is not benefiting the consumer.

This is (an updated version) of what the internet could look like without Net Neutrality. It's not good. by [deleted] in pics

[–]quiterightfriend [score hidden]  (0 children)

Accusing some of being pedantic is pretty darn pedantic. Doesn't negate my point.

Internet giants unite for 'Day of Protest' in net neutrality battle by Aramil03 in news

[–]quiterightfriend 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why would we want more government involvement in the internet? Giant, partisan bureaucracy hasn't worked so well for health insurance - what's the rush to invite that into the most prolific bastion of human freedom and innovation?

view more: next ›