Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Another waste of taxpayer money that ends up being a polluter. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/29/taxpayer-backed-solar-plant-actually-carbon-polluter/?intcmp=hplnws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 A solar plant that burns natural gas? Wow, Saturday night live could not have come up with a more ridiculous and comical scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Another waste of taxpayer money that ends up being a polluter. http://www.foxnews.c.../?intcmp=hplnws How is it a polluter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,410 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Another waste of taxpayer money that ends up being a polluter. http://www.foxnews.c.../?intcmp=hplnws How is it a polluter? Yet it is producing carbon emissions at nearly twice the amount that compels power plants and companies to participate in the state's cap-and-trade program. That's because the plant relies on natural gas as a supplementary fuel. According to the Riverside Press-Enterprise, the plant burned enough natural gas in 2014 to emit 46,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. But Ivanpah, while in the cap-and-trade program, is still considered a renewable energy source because it technically produces most its energy from solar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,121 Posted October 30, 2015 Share Posted October 30, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Interesting graph from the EPA - Steady increase during the Clinton years, near flatline under Bush43 years, and a big dip as Obama took office... but all in all, over 13 years, the levels haven't sky rocketed, as we're led to believe, as our global temps have stayed pat as well. Where's the crisis ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted October 30, 2015 Author Share Posted October 30, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Doesn't it contribute to the so-called global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,410 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Bens, you are harshing his mellow.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Then you should stop breathing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Then you should stop breathing Your ignorance of something so basic as the carbon cycle is hilarious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Then you should stop breathing Your ignorance of something so basic as the carbon cycle is hilarious. Here's my proposition.....plant more conifers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Then you should stop breathing Your ignorance of something so basic as the carbon cycle is hilarious. Here's my proposition.....plant more conifers. Not a bad idea. Still, that's a solution that would take centuries to re-sequester all of the fossilized carbon we've freed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Then you should stop breathing Your ignorance of something so basic as the carbon cycle is hilarious. Here's my proposition.....plant more conifers. Not a bad idea. Still, that's a solution that would take centuries to re-sequester all of the fossilized carbon we've freed. We have to start somewhere. Nothing will happen over night regardless of what we do...the cake is baked. We'll have to eat it until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Interesting graph from the EPA - Steady increase during the Clinton years, near flatline under Bush43 years, and a big dip as Obama took office... but all in all, over 13 years, the levels haven't sky rocketed, as we're led to believe, as our global temps have stayed pat as well. Where's the crisis ? Those are US only numbers. Add in other nations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AFTiger 282 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Here is the ignorance you support. World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the "whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man's combustion of fossil fuels. Included among these is a new documentary "inspired" by Naomi Klein's book "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate." If the title isn't enough to give away Klein's motives for attacking the climate "crisis," then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should. "So here's the big question," says Klein. "What if global warming isn't only a crisis? What if it's the best chance we're ever going to get to build a better world?" Then comes the threat: "Change, or be changed." Klein says she "spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there." Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It's just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health. Klein's statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists' goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism. "This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," Figueres said in Brussels last winter. "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history." Klein also calls up the specter of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who, as Obama chief of staff, said in 2009 that "you never want a serious crisis to go to waste." People who are always looking for a crisis to solve are much like those who seek elective office because they want to "serve." Their spoken motives are always a cover for the real agenda, which is so maligned that it is mentioned only by accident. Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/blogs-capital-hill/100815-774738-another-climate-alarmist-admits-what-warming-scare-is-all-about.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,353 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Yeah, it kinda is. Then you should stop breathing Your ignorance of something so basic as the carbon cycle is hilarious. Here's my proposition.....plant more conifers. Not a bad idea. Still, that's a solution that would take centuries to re-sequester all of the fossilized carbon we've freed. We have to start somewhere. Nothing will happen over night regardless of what we do...the cake is baked. We'll have to eat it until then. True, but if we wait until we use up all of the (proven) reserves of carbon-based fuels it will be far too late. The most likely scenario will require for things to get worse - plus an acceptance by the power structure that the problem is real - for significant action to occur. The more economically viable solar and other alternative sources become the faster this will happen. Both of these things are happening right now IMO. I hope to live long enough to see the tipping point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,569 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 You can't have solar cells without the materials that fossil fuels provide (plastics). It has to be a combination unless we finally tap into the power of these.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 You can't have solar cells without the materials that fossil fuels provide (plastics). It has to be a combination unless we finally tap into the power of these.... We need antimatter too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,353 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 You can't have solar cells without the materials that fossil fuels provide (plastics). It has to be a combination unless we finally tap into the power of these.... There's no problem with using fossil fuels as chemical feedstocks. One day we will probably regret burning these feedstocks for simple heat when we could have used them that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Here is the ignorance you support. Oh look. A moon bat saying something crazy and several quotes taken out of context. Surprise surprise. Drum's Law confirmed again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,353 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Here is the ignorance you support. Oh look. A moon bat saying something crazy and several quotes taken out of context. Surprise surprise. Drum's Law confirmed again. Well, don't forget he's starting from a position of the entire thing being a global conspiracy by scientists.... :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,353 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Try breathing a tank of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,353 Posted November 3, 2015 Share Posted November 3, 2015 A solar plant that burns natural gas? Wow, Saturday night live could not have come up with a more ridiculous and comical scenario. Well, I see you are confused again. Actually a solar farm that utilized natural gas for supplementary energy would be far less polluting that say, a coal fired power plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.