China now has the 3 largest solar farms in the world. And they are huge.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/mone...21dcbf471c3dc&ei=114

Drill, baby, drill!

They're gonna have the corner on the EV market too.

https://www.ft.com/content/c77...9b-8149-50aa60f39498

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...11abe2670bdc3d&ei=49

The Planet Could Bear the Scars of a Second Trump Term... Forever
Story by Bill McKibben • 14h • 6 min read

Yes they will.

Just as you lefties are stuck on commie ideas!

Stop blaming the others.

Fix your own party problems!

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news...11abe2670bdc3d&ei=49

The Planet Could Bear the Scars of a Second Trump Term... Forever
Story by Bill McKibben • 14h • 6 min read

This is all predicated on two suppositions:
the first is that climate change is not naturally occurring but is human caused.
The second, stemming from the first, is that human beings, specifically a small percentage of the human population, can positively influence climate change.
Regarding the first, I am absolutely convinced that humans actions have had and will have an effect on the ecology of the world and thereby have an effect on the climate over time. However, I do not believe they (we) are likely to be able to influence the climate deliberately. This is so for several reasons, not the least of which is that consensus is virtually impossible.
I alos have to wonder if any thought is ever given to the possible effects of so-called green energy projects undertaken on a large scale. For instance, what are the effects of blocking sunlight from thousands of acres of land with solar panels? In addition, what is the plan for energy storage and distribution? The most viable is probably to store water for future hydroelectric production, but this has environmental consequences as well. Of course, the consequences of such projects are easily ignored by proponents. Just like the wind farms with their limited functional life. When the windmill starts to fail, it is disassembled and the used parts simply buried in a big trench. given the energy required to manufacture the parts, it becomes questionable whether or not they are a net positive.
Lord knows we already have examples of bad choices made in the name of sustainability or green initiatives. The ethanol production to reduce carbon emissions is a classic net loser. Solar farms and wind farms may well be another.
Even the hydroelectric mega projects are not a beneficial as we might like to pretend. Bill.

quote:

I do not believe they (we) are likely to be able to influence the climate deliberately. This is so for several reasons, not the least of which is that consensus is virtually impossible.

You win the boobie prize.

Check your mailbox for the map to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Are you aware that Trump offered a deal with oil executives - for a Billion $ contribution, he would serve their wishes if elected?

That kind of political corruption is usually hidden, back door stuff. But Trump thought it so appropriate he just said it out loud. That's an indicator of where his head is and his followers' too.

Plus, he's an utter denier of climate change affected by man. So, naturally he's not into doing anything to chase what he considers a myth. Ditto for too many to count so-deemed conservatives.

Man-caused climate change denial has been going on a long time - long enough to see some consistent collateral ways of thinking and priority values. "Drill baby drill" is just the tip.

There is so much collateral damage Trump(ism) WILL do, no doubt, regarding environmental issues. Gutting the EPA is part of it, most obvious. International discussion and cooperation is another thing he will flush.

Anyway, there are many, many reasons to not trust his mindset and values, as well as that of his supporters. Environmental issues are just part of the picture, but I have always considered that part to be very significant and indicative.

IOW, being conscientious about big picture, long-term, forward looking, environmental issues as a fundamental world view, with corresponding words and deeds, is the KEY indicator in judging those in the establishment power. Their world-view value system, accordingly, will align, IMO, with practically everything else, positively, for whatever its worth.

So, in effect, that's why it's a single issue for me.

What events can we cite from the past that are equal to the massive burning of gas, coal and petroleum products from oil that are producing copius quantities of carbon dioxide that are released into the atmosphere. trump could approve drilling in environmentally sensitive areas [which will be tied up in court] and drillers will try to drill and pump so in that sense shit always rolls downhill.

The problem is many of his supporters look beyond this kind of crap and have no clue about what he plans to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

I do not believe they (we) are likely to be able to influence the climate deliberately. This is so for several reasons, not the least of which is that consensus is virtually impossible.

You win the boobie prize.

Check your mailbox for the map to the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Are you aware that Trump offered a deal with oil executives - for a Billion $ contribution, he would serve their wishes if elected?

That kind of political corruption is usually hidden, back door stuff. But Trump thought it so appropriate he just said it out loud. That's an indicator of where his head is and his followers' too.

Plus, he's an utter denier of climate change affected by man. So, naturally he's not into doing anything to chase what he considers a myth. Ditto for too many to count so-deemed conservatives.

Man-caused climate change denial has been going on a long time - long enough to see some consistent collateral ways of thinking and priority values. "Drill baby drill" is just the tip.

There is so much collateral damage Trump(ism) WILL do, no doubt, regarding environmental issues. Gutting the EPA is part of it, most obvious. International discussion and cooperation is another thing he will flush.

Anyway, there are many, many reasons to not trust his mindset and values, as well as that of his supporters. Environmental issues are just part of the picture, but I have always considered that part to be very significant and indicative.

IOW, being conscientious about big picture, long-term, forward looking, environmental issues as a fundamental world view, with corresponding words and deeds, is the KEY indicator in judging those in the establishment power. Their world-view value system, accordingly, will align, IMO, with practically everything else, positively, for whatever its worth.

So, in effect, that's why it's a single issue for me.

So, you figure another four years of Joe Biden will turn climate change around? That is beyond foolish. The truth is, neither man nor his policies. will make a damn bit of difference.
Now, I happen to think Donald Trump is a fool but it is unlikely he will damage the earth forever with his anti-environment policies. I think Joe Biden is a fool too (thanks to age-related cognitive decline) and I certainly don't think anything he does will change the course of climate change one bit. I don't even believe either man's policies will be able to affect the climate or environment in the US to a significant degree. Bill.

And who are building soft coal fired energy plants????? China.

quote:

So, you figure another four years of Joe Biden will turn climate change around? That is beyond foolish.

I didn't say that I thought Biden could turn it around. He, and his admin, might be able to just not make it worse.

The truth is, neither man nor his policies. will make a damn bit of difference.

The truth is that man and his policies HAVE made a difference, per the climate scientists, contributing to warming beyond so-called natural occurrence.

Now, I happen to think Donald Trump is a fool but it is unlikely he will damage the earth forever with his anti-environment policies.

I didn't say "forever", but the author of the article did. Maybe it's true, maybe not. Either way, there is no way whatever Trump does is going to be positive for the environment. You said it "anti-environment", which is accurate, and it's enough, stand-alone not to vote for him specifically, or any republican, IMO.

I think Joe Biden is a fool too (thanks to age-related cognitive decline) and I certainly don't think anything he does will change the course of climate change one bit.

Different kinds of fools. One a denier. The other living in reality. Those two concepts; denial vs reality, sums what I'm talking about. We can find many examples of Trump's denial, alt-reality, and ought to see that no good can or will come from it. The story is different with Biden, aside from his age-related decline. The type of people he will appoint in his admin will be vastly different vs Trump appointees, with far different goals and accomplishments and even service to we the people.

I don't even believe either man's policies will be able to affect the climate or environment in the US to a significant degree. Bill.

Policies and regs, etc. have affected the environment. Just take one act and associated regs - the clean water act. Rivers used to be more polluted than now. They are still not clean, and in many if not most, the fish are toxic, not worth eating. It doesn't take much research to fine that republican run states cater to lobbyists for less restriction on industrial dumping and less testing. The Altamaha here in Georgia is a good example. Isn't it ironic, and clue-window to worldview, that practically all the environmental groups, river watch groups, etc. are liberals? Much can be and is inferred about environmentalists vs anti-environmentalists.

IMO, you are just another type of denier. First, not long ago, deniers denied warming at all. Then they denied it was man influenced. Now they say there's nothing we can do about it.

I expect any day now for the narrative to be out in the open, (it's inherent now) "it's God's will or plan".

BTW, a few days ago I read that China has the world's largest solar power farms in the world.

https://electrek.co/2024/06/04...st-solar-farm-china/

The world’s largest solar farm, in the desert in northwestern Xinjiang, is now connected to China’s grid.

The world’s largest solar farm in Xinjiang is part of China’s megabase project, a plan to install 455 GW of wind and solar. The megabase projects are sited in sparsely populated, resource-rich areas and send their generated energy to major urban centers, such as on China’s eastern seaboard.

China now boasts the three largest solar farms in the world by capacity. The Ningxia Tenggeli and Golmud Wutumeiren solar farms, each with a capacity of 3 MW, are already online.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
And who are building soft coal fired energy plants????? China.

Wouldn't that be better than diesel fuel fired plants? Seems like it would be a terrible waste of diesel fuel.

Soft coal is a far bigger emission problem. Many extra polutants in soft coal burning.
Australia is partly to blame. China will continue the building of coal power plants. The Aussies have mountains of hard coal, far less emissions than the brown coal of China and India.
The AU gov, say's, no coal for anyone! Even though it would reduce global emissions.
A "cut off your nose to spite your face" attitude.

Biden is far from improving things overall.

While he is placing “pro environmental” regulations, they really don’t do much and other policies are making things worse. Think 10M more people (and their subsequent follow one) utilizing natural resources at the US rate instead of where they came from.

Biden’s plans are equally fallacious and problematic as Trump’s, just different from an environmental impact point of view. Supporting him on environmental grounds is showing pure virtue signaling.

If your concern is CO2 emissions and so called greenhouse gas emmisions, you should be advocating for large scale nuclear power.

Wind farms are meaningless in the larger discussion.

Solar is very inefficient of resources and effectiveness. The production of solar panels is both very energy intensive and polluting. It’s reasonable in off grid situations, but the batteries needed for storage need to also be considered.

Virtue signaling that “the environment is my single issue” from someone who lives in GA and commutes via personal vehicle to Alaska to fish is pretty hypocritical, wouldn’t you think?

Using old inefficient vehicles to travel “because I can do more for less money” is also very hypocritical.

The rank hypocrisy of the climate agenda people is the main reason I don’t think they really believe what they preach.

The commentary of the government must force everyone to do something, but I’m not going to until I have to is what kind of a statement, exactly?

Sounds kind of like Trump, doesn’t it?

I have worked in the energy industry for over 40 years all of the current main stream power generation types have their pros and cons. Thermal plants have to burn something (coal, NG etc.) and they all pollute to some degree or another. Hydro is pretty good but there are just no more places to put hydro so it is tapped out, wind and solar work when the conditions are good but are very unreliable, however, they are "greener" than thermal but still have issues.

The only real solution is nuclear power. Nuclear can generate a tremendous amount of power in a small footprint unlike solar or wind that have a huge footprint. It is very reliable like a thermal plant but does not produce anywhere near the pollution of a thermal. The problem is everyone is afraid of nuclear and have the not in my back yard syndrome. Yes, there has been accidents in the past but in every case the root cause can be traced back to poor design and human error. Modern plants with good design, good controls and good people are very safe.

Because windtower parts are so big, they chop the old ones up.... and burn them at coal plants.
Solar panels are made with silicon and cadmium. Silicon production creates silicon tetrachloride. It will fume in humidity, and especially with rain, and is highly toxic. China dumps it in pits in rural areas. I dont care if they kill their own people off, just dont blow smoke up everyones ass about how GREEN it is. Cadmium is water soluble and there is no warnings about broken panels leaking toxins. Most all end up in landfills. When I asked my legislators when they were going to do something before it's to late..... they had no answer.
When keystone pipeline was going to go NEAR tribal lands, Biden shut it down. Biden bypassed the EPA to fast track green projects. That includes copper and lithium mines on or next to tribal lands. He is pushing through power lines through AZ to CA, despite them going through sacred tribal sites. The tribal members case is being held up in court while they are pushing the project through.
AI is going forward even though it is using 9% of the power in the country, according to NPR.
I talked to the foreman of out electric dept. They cant get the upgraded transformers needed for people who bought EV cars. A 2 year wait at this point. People bitch they were told they could charge at home. The co-op says yes, when you get a big enough transformer to let you.
In the mean time, both parties are taking big $ from either oil, green energy or both. The suckers are the people that support their side as better.

yep big transformers are usually a 2-year lead time. Not only that but the transmission lines are a limiting factor also. We do not have enough transmission capacity to handle the additional load.

I live in an area that has a few thousand acres in solar “farms”. And what a god dam catastrophe they are. You want em? Build it around your house. Used to hunt fish and trap several of these properties…not anymore. Fucking green my ass.

MtElk, is there just not enough places that build transformers nowdays?

One thing on top of my wish list is to build a cabin on my own land that is off grid. Also, near the top is to build a tiny cabin boat which is also totally off grid, sufficient for camping as long as I want, on land or water, dogs included.

That means solar power, battery bank, inverter, etc., which supplies all the power needed for everything, water from a well included. Generator backup, of course, but not as the main power source.

It's viable on a small scale like that. So, why is it not viable large scale?

Low density.

You would have a couple tons of lead acid batteries, etc.

If everyone does it, there isn’t enough to go around.

You’ve posted you are a Vietnam vet. That means like what, 20 years of lifetime?

Maybe your stuff would last until you are gone. Who deals with the leftovers? They are not altogether recyclable. They have very finite lifespans.

By the way, your environmental laws are why I can’t put a well on my place… can’t have a well into the ogalla aquifer up here because we might pollute Texas’s water…

Generator back up? Can’t have that. It’s not green.

Honestly I like your wish, but the policies you support will mean I cannot do what you want to do.

Thus the hypocrisy label.

The democrats do it all the time… ok for me, but not for thee.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
One thing on top of my wish list is to build a cabin on my own land that is off grid. Also, near the top is to build a tiny cabin boat which is also totally off grid, sufficient for camping as long as I want, on land or water, dogs included.

That means solar power, battery bank, inverter, etc., which supplies all the power needed for everything, water from a well included. Generator backup, of course, but not as the main power source.

It's viable on a small scale like that. So, why is it not viable large scale?

I'm thinking lithium iron phosphate batteries, not lithium ion. Recyclable. Maybe 5 year life to replacement. Certainly not lead acid.

The bank would need maybe 600 amp hours, inverter 12 or 24 volt to 120, max power available part of the day - not 24hrs. Aside from well pump, the power needs in my vision are small fridge and freezer and minimal lights, minimal AC.

And by off-grid I also mean off permit. Ask for forgiveness, not permission.

The only clue to the code enforcers is the well. I'll need to ask the well driller if he reports. No power lines will be tied to the grid.

Of course, there's the septic tank and drain field too, which I forgot to mention. That doesn't require power to operate, but it's a factor and cost. It's passive once installed.

I may not be estimating everything correctly. It's a dream for now, to be worked out.

Geez.

You know they won't grant it... so do it and hope?

And you want more regulation that others will have to follow?

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
I'm thinking lithium iron phosphate batteries, not lithium ion. Recyclable. Maybe 5 year life to replacement. Certainly not lead acid.

The bank would need maybe 500 amp hours, inverter 12 or 24 volt to 120, power available part of the day - not 24hrs.

And by off-grid I also mean off permit. Ask for forgiveness, not permission.

The only clue to the code enforcers is the well. I'll need to ask the well driller if he reports. No power lines will be tied to the grid.

Of course, there's the septic tank and drain field too, which I forgot to mention. That doesn't require power to operate, but it's a factor and cost. It's passive once installed.

quote:

Geez.

You know they won't grant it... so do it and hope?

And you want more regulation that others will have to follow?

If you have the land out in the country, I wish more power to ya. Just don't fuck up the countryside.

The off-grid houseboat idea is less subject to regulations. Of course I'm not thinking of living on it 100%, but I could. No need for a lawn mower.

I'm not talking about polluting or environmental impact. Quite the opposite.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
And who are building soft coal fired energy plants????? China.

Only to fill short term needs while ramping up the green energy. You guys always leave that part out.

And you believe everything China says? You really are a dumb fuck wymple.
Sorry Kabob, there is always someone quick to turn folks in, to get away with things. Google earth search, or someone with a drone. Chopper spotting for pot fields, you name it. True privacy is a thing of the past. I own 10 times the land you do and there is always mapping going on by the state who use every resource. There is no "not telling anyone".

I probably lived in Alaska too long. Can't shake the mind-set.

They do agriculture wells around here. I haven't studied them but some appear to be off grid, with solar panels.

A houseboat 8x24'on a trailer, under a shed, ag well, solar panels on boat and shed, shouldn't draw attention.

https://youtu.be/qDUFt1Mozfo?si=SKYqBbAFOokXlM4G

University of Maine puts 'new spin' on recycling wind turbines

UMaine researchers are repurposing aging blades, which could keep the waste out of Maine landfills.

When I built my house (mid-90's) solar panels, while available, were costly and not as efficient as what is available today. So it was that I decided to pass on the solar. Today, I might go solar given the choice. I could probably produce enough power with panels on the south facing side of my roof. When I have to replace my well pump, I will probably switch it to solar and will return to a storage tank up on the hill.
I built my house with no permit. Got away with ten years before I was made to get a permit. That process was a bit of a story in itself. We lived off grid for six years. It finally occurred to someone, if I had a phone, I must have a house! Negotiations ensued.
Today, even my campground is permitted. I pay enough in taxes to have the right to bitch! I get along fine with most of the gatekeepers. The tax assessor did accuse me of being "unco-operative", because I refused them access to the campground until they clarified some tax regulations. Since they have labeled me thus, I am determined to show them what unco-operative looks like the next time they show up.
My son has half of his shop roof covered with solar panels (shop is 60x120 feet). These produce enough power that he makes money six months of the year, breaks even for four, and has to pay a power bill for two. He lives in Southern, Alberta. Here, I don't get as much sun, because I have hills and trees. Regards, Bill

I would guess you would get away with that Kabob.
If you have a well and septic, most towns will charge for a "site" but it shouldnt be much.
Much of this depends on what shape a town is in for money. If there is enough new development, they get tax $$ enough to leave things like you're talking about alone. When something pops up to make a big expenditure,like a new school, that's when they start looking for things to tax.

"And you believe everything China says? You really are a dumb fuck wymple."

Sure, we are way ahead of China in green energy

We are " close enough" right pimple?

No, we are not. But you just stay stuck on stupid, OK? It's fully what I expect

Oh pimple, try as you might to change it, "close enough" remains your catch phrase.