I Am Interested In Politics

@hippyjoe1955 No wind turbines and windmills are different, however considering how much Trump lies and gets wrong I'm not too concerned about the fact he doesn't know this. It would actually blow my mind if he did know the difference

And if they do cause vertigo that's one thing, but to say the noise causes cancer is completely on a different level.

@hippyjoe1955 Remember Harrisburg? Fukushima? Tschernobyl?

@Natty If you think I am a nuclear fan you are very very very mistaken. I grew up on a farm that used a windcharger to run its electrical needs. Many nights we did not have electricity because the wind didn't blow. Wind simply doesn't work.

Wind is a piece of the energy puzzle. So is water, do is sun. I know wind will not solve our problems. But when a moron says people get cancer from a wind mill (!), you should fight the moron first, especially when his intentions are dirty like coal and coal emissions

@Natty Actually it is part of the problem and not part of the solution. It is too unpredictable so you need 100% back up in case the wind doesn't blow or blows too hard. I drove through a wind farm a few months ago. All the windmills were standing still because the wind was too strong. Hundreds of these things spread over a huge area all standing still. Then I drove by the natural gas generating station that was providing the electricity the windmills weren't. It was small building out in the middle of nowhere. Its cooling pond was a wild life refuge and provincial park. People would drive for miles to see the deer and antelope and coyotes and waterfowl of all kinds. Some go boating there.

Yes, Gas is part of the energy mix as well. And no, you don’t get cancer from windmills, to come back to the main point

@Natty Did I ever say you did? My comparison is between unreliable windmills that slaughter birds and bats wholesale and the gas plant converted from coal that has been a wild life sanctuary for decades. I will take the coal or gas plants long before the modern bird shredders.

@hippyjoe1955 Per some of our previous conversations this is about using a mix to get to a more clean state. From what you have been saying here because the wind doesn't ALWAYS blow, we shouldn't use it at all. With that reasoning we should say that because 1 car breaks down along the highway we shouldn't use them at all.

Wind is only a piece of the puzzle to get us off Petroleum or to lessen the dependence on it. Which according to BP we have approximately 53 years left of oil in the world.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2014/0714/How-long-will-world-s-oil-reserves-last-53-years-says-BP
Why keep using that when we can use it for making things we will use, like the pen you sign your name to the document you purchased your vehicle or house with (Yes petroleum is a large part of that plastic) or the milk jug we all bring our milk home in.

As I have asked before, what harm is there in continuing to diversify our energy sources? Why not use multiple sources such as wind, solar and if needed coal, gas or oil?

The few bats and birds that die due to windturbines is miniscule compared to the number of animals killed every year due to oil pollutants in our water or the oil spills every year. So since spilled oil is killing more than wind turbines or solar we SHOULD be stepping away from it.

@Notme123abc The point I continue to make is you either have 100% back up for when the wind doesn't blow or you have brown out/black outs. You want to destabilize the electrical grid? Why?

@hippyjoe1955 Actually I want to make the grid stronger. If we are pulling less energy from the grid then blackouts and brown outs happen less frequently. Our petroleum based energy grid SHOULD be the backup, not the primary way of getting energy. We have better technology to convert energy from sources that are already available that doesn't poison the environment and people refuse to use them because there are groups that are perpetuating myths that it's too expensive to switch or that it's 100% unreliable when neither is true. Using wind as an example, Iowa produces more wind energy than any other state. We aren't the largest, nor are we the one that has the most constant rate of wind, I believe that is either OK or KS not sure. It is being used in ADDITION to other energy sources. I don't know of many people, except the ones on TV that are building for "Off the grid" life" that are suggesting our energy system goes to 100% wind. Trump stating Wind Turbines CAUSE cancer is absurd. What he's not tracking is that COAL causes more cancer than wind turbines and all the byproducts from oil are harming us at a rate faster than even mining the rare earth magnets and other metals are for solar and wind. To me if we can pollute less in ANY way, it is a win. For someone to just say NO because it's not 100% dependable isn't reasonable. It's like saying I'm not going to buy a newer car because it's different from my old one and gets better gas mileage than the old one.

@Notme123abc Grid weakness is caused by intermittent load not base load. If you generate one gigawatt per hour every hour of every day you have a stable grill. If you are generating one gigawatt per hour and suddenly drop to 4 megawatts per hour then generated 2 gigawatts per hour because the wind slows then picks up you have grid instability.

@hippyjoe1955 Good point. This is one of the many issues we have with a power grid that was designed for use and power volumes for the early 1900's. It's too inefficient. Why is a power plant in NE supplying power to customers in OH? It doesn't make sense. Electricity is similar to a parishable good, the further it goes the weaker it gets and the drop off is dramatic. So we need to re-evaluate the power grid regardless of if we change to more renewable energy.
As for the ability to generate power our current power plants fluctuate throughout the day. Wind isn't something that is a mystery, neither is the sunshine and the power plants can and do ramp up and drop down production based on demand.
There is also the ability to store the energy in batteries either on or off premises. This will mitigate the concern of fluctations that happen throughout the day as well, hence actually making the grid more stable than not.
My question is why not continue to work on more renewable energy sources? We have a ticking clock that is counting down to zero with oil and coal and we need to find solutions in our lifetimes so we don't end up fighting wars over the oil supplies. Moving now will also secure our country as we won't have to become dependent on other countries to supply oil when we need it most. Conservation of our resources needs to become a higher priority. That's what conservative used to mean. Now it seems to be don't change anything.

@Notme123abc So when are you giving up your computer. It requires a stable available source of electricity.

The same time that you give up your car. As I said before I'm not stating that we are taking everything away right now. I'm stating we need to start working on change but it seems you don't want to change anything until it's perfect, which is impossible, the vehicle you drive is extremely flawed with energy bleeds as much as 70% lost due to just the inefficiency of the gas motor. So asking me to give up my PC wehn you won't even entertain the idea of making a minor change isn't feasible. Especially when I'm willing to make changes to keep using the advanced tech and from what you keep implying you won't make even a minor change.
So coming back to the unanswered questions. Why not make some minor changes, every little bit helps. We all know that. Why not make minor changes? Baby steps. That's all I'm talking about. Baby steps.

@Notme123abc I don't have the same desire as you so I don't have to give up anything. You seem to want to 'save the planet' so you must make sacrifices. I don't suffer under such delusions.

@hippyjoe I'm not sacrificing anything. I'm just making adjustments. Like I said earlier I'm a businessman and I'm always looking for ways to improve. I'm also an ex-athlete and a current coach. Improvement is in my nature. I won't sit stagnant. I tell everyone that works with me we are either evolving or dying. This is one of the ways that I'm choosing to evolve. You seem to want to convince people not to from what I'm reading and you argue against these alternatives but won't give any reason for it. So I'm getting the impression that you choose to take the easiest way out for you and don't care about what happens to others. I get it. You refuse to change. If that is the case then unless you have a valid reason for the rest of us to not change, to stop trying to convince us we are wrong. If you want to prove us wrong then provide proof.

To get back to the original discussion on this, there STILL is no scientific proof that wind turbines are the direct cause of cancer. Whereas the fossil fuels and their byproducts have been proven to be carcinogens.

@Notme123abc I grew up relying on wind power. I pumped a lot of water by hand when the wind didn't blow.

@hippyjoe1955 Like I stated earlier. Not looking to drop everything else. Just looking to slowly replace what we do are using. Why keep doing the same thing we are when there are other options. You still haven't given me ANY data to prove that renewables aren't worth using at all which is what I keep getting from you. Please provide data beyond the fact that you had to pump water by hand when the wind didn't blow. (BTW, the farm I lived on in NE had the same thing. I pumped a lot of water by hand as well. It's just something we did. The cattle and horses needed the water.)

@Notme123abc Well you won't do that with wind and solar. Too unreliable.

That's why we hand pumped occassionally. Wind was prettily good in the middle of NE though.

@Notme123abc Not far from where I grew up is one of the largest wind farms in the province. I often go there and see all the wind mills standing still. The city I now live in often gets a brown out and major industry is told to shut down since there is no wind blowing and the base generating capacity is not sufficient.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it at all. If you have statistical proof you would have shown it by now. The fact you haven't means you haven't got anything beyond anecdotal data. Bring anecdotal data in to make.people change there mind and you won't get anything. That plus the fact you stated I was stupid basically means you're afraid of the truth.

Show me the studies and I'll back off. Since you can't you're proving my point.

@Notme123abc Statistics about this are widely available. If you are interested you can look them up yourself. Numbers are rather dry for those who do no know how to read them. The facts are that people are suffering energy poverty and the effects will be worse than the problem it seeks to solve. Do some research on Britain and Germany who went into wind and solar wholesale. Now they are seriously back tracking since people simply resorted to burning coal in their homes since they couldn't afford to heat their homes otherwise.

Once again show the studies. I'm reading otherwise. That same report you quoted came from.Sean Hannity trying to state what you're saying that we shouldn't even try wind or solar. He couldn't show his sources either.

@Notme123abc Do you know that such a request would be laughed out of academe? Do your own research. Don't rely on studies anyone cites. Studies are not proof of anything. They reflect opinion not fact. As my old physics prof used to say, "The best you can say is science would seem to indicate".