"Green" Energy Will Kill Millions of People

HERE IS A THOUGHT.......

You just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem... and you solve the next one... and then the next. And If you solve enough problems, you get to come home. All right, questions?” THE MARTIAN MOVIE


and another....I'm going to have to SCIENCE THE SHIT out of this.

I think it is called innovation.....apparently mankind has forgotten and gotten lazy

homeagain wrote: HERE IS A THOUGHT.......

You just begin. You do the math. You solve one problem... and you solve the next one... and then the next. And If you solve enough problems, you get to come home. All right, questions?” THE MARTIAN MOVIE


and another....I'm going to have to SCIENCE THE SHIT out of this.

I think it is called innovation.....apparently mankind has forgotten and gotten lazy

Disagree. We are seeing more innovation than ever before. With innovation comes disruption, but we must be willing to take on those risks and continue forward.

THAT is not what rick is saying......he sees mass annihilation and RISK is not in his vocabulary.....stay with the tried and true....FOSSIL FUEL.

homeagain wrote: THAT is not what rick is saying......he sees mass annihilation and RISK is not in his vocabulary.....stay with the tried and true....FOSSIL FUEL.

Nope, swing and a miss.

I’m saying that there are not enough affordable energy resources as it is, and the Democrats want to ramp the insanity up. Where does the money come from to buy poor people and most of the middle class an EV or two? Why should poor people have to suffer the most ?

We can’t flip that switch without thinking of the economic consequences, but that’s what they are doing anyway. I wonder how many people in Europe will die this winter because of a ridiculous gamble that did not pay off. You’ll probably have to venture outside of your usual sources to learn about Europe’s little problem. If they do cover it, they certainly won’t blame the restricted use of fossil fuels.

One more question, not to be answered.

I’m assuming you would be ok with some number of people having to die for the greater good? That is, if your trusted scientists tell you that all life will be destroyed unless a large number of people were to perish.

Pick a number between 1 and Every Human On Earth.

What’s your red line that would make that plan unacceptable?

Rick wrote: One more question, not to be answered.

I’m assuming you would be ok with some number of people having to die for the greater good? That is, if your trusted scientists tell you that all life will be destroyed unless a large number of people were to perish.

Pick a number between 1 and Every Human On Earth.

What’s your red line that would make that plan unacceptable?

As SPOCK would have said...."The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"......NOW I am going to state something that probably piss many off.

IT IS INSANE and unsustainable to perform major medical surg,ORDER OBSCENELY EXPENSIVE MEDS AND MRI, CT SCANS ON VERY ELDERLY PEOPLE.. IF the outcome is questionable and the body is in the process of dying.(the relatives who say do everything possible to save his/her life) THAT is a sad travesty.and, in my opinion unacceptable.

Canada is exploring more euthanasia and even starting to look at it for the elderly poor. First deny them medical treatment, and then offer them a medically assisted suicide. Think this will become more popular? And will longevity rates crash?

My answer to u.....BRAVO, for Canada....IF a person is ready to leave this plane and the body is not functioning,the choice should be available. (it is a very personal choice,and one that I have in place....MEDICAL AID IN DYING.

You’re drifting out into the weeds again HA. I’m not talking about sick people dying, I’m talking about perfectly healthy men, women, and children dying who just happen to be poor. Isn’t it the poor that progressives always claim to want to help? Please tell me how doubling or tripling energy costs help them stay warm or feed their families.

The elites who are currently running our governments know these deaths will happen but that’s a main desired outcome of the plan. Less people means fewer resources used. Those who remain will become more and more dependent on government which means the elites will gain more snd more power over us all.

That’s not the world I want for my kids, how about you?

Carbon footprint of green energy source - specifically windmills:

yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/whats...t-of-a-wind-turbine/

You can see that the results vary by country, size of turbine, and onshore versus offshore configuration, but all fall within a range of about five to 26 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour.

Power plants that burn natural gas are responsible for 437 to 758 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour — far more than even the most carbon-intensive wind turbine listed above. Coal-fired power plants fare even more poorly in comparison to wind, with estimates ranging from 675 to 1,689 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour, depending on the exact technology in question.

www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/can-wind-po...ruly-carbon-neutral/

Global wind power installations will increase more than 400% by 2050, and our research shows this could add 55 million tonnes of total life cycle carbon emissions. While this is only a fraction of the 12 billion tonnes of emissions generated by the global thermal power sector in 2020, it’s still far from being truly carbon neutral.

www.factcheck.org/2018/03/wind-energys-carbon-footprint/

It’s true that wind power isn’t a zero emission energy source. Greenhouse gas emissions are produced when wind turbines are manufactured, built, maintained and decommissioned. But the “life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar, wind, and nuclear technologies are considerably lower and less variable than emissions from technologies powered by combustion-based natural gas and coal,” says the NREL.

To be more exact, wind energy produces around 11 grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, Garvin A. Heath, a senior scientist at NREL, and colleagues concluded after reviewing the scientific literature. That’s compared with about 980 g CO2/kWh for coal and roughly 465 g CO2/kWh for natural gas, Heath found.

In other words, coal’s carbon footprint is almost 90 times larger than that of wind. The footprint of natural gas is more than 40 times larger.

It's a start.