NASA: 2014 was the warmest year on Record.

[Nanners]

Can you link me to your 4.3% statistic? EIA.gov says renewable is 9% of current energy, and renewable is defined as "hydroelectric, geothermal, solar/PV, wind, and biomass."


It surprises me wind would provide nearly half of renewable while hydroelectric, solar, and geothermal would combine for the rest. If youre right thats fine but Id just be interested to see the link info that figure. Id have thought hydroelectric and solar would each outproduce wind by themselves.

literally the first result on google


perhaps next time, you should do a little basic research before you start flapping your gums. its clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Btw petroleum, natural gas, and coal combine for 82%. Coal by itself is 20%. And as velocirap mentioned, you still HAVE to run fossil fuel plants bc wind isnt reliable on its own. So you arent preventing coal mines, but you are adding double the windfarms on natural landscapes to get us up to a nice 8% (at best) of the countries energy. Sounds pretty worthwhile.

as i already said, wind is not a magic bullet, its only one small part of the solution. obviously wind will not eliminate coal, but it will allow us to significantly cut back on coal.

[Akrazotile]

literally the first result on google


perhaps next time, you should do a little basic research before you start flapping your gums. its clear that you have no clue what you are talking about.



as i already said, wind is not a magic bullet, its only one small part of the solution. obviously wind will not eliminate coal, but it will allow us to significantly cut back on coal.

And pray tell what did I say that was factually incorrect in any way? We've got shit like this sprouting up in different places now:









Producing 4% of the country's energy. Woohoo! Ok, let's quadruple that, and add quadruple the turbines, now we have 16% of the countries energy. Not even 1/5. Which means what? We can stop harnessing coal? No. So what are we doing? We still have to burn fossil fuels, we're just getting a little bit of extra energy for our iphones by putting turbines all over the place?

Sorry man. I know wind is your big thing because it's very ideological and you don't have to limit the energy consumption of people who make less than 250,000 or have dark skin if you just have lots and lots of windpower. Wee! But it's not solution to anything. If you're legitimately worried about climate change and atmospheric carbon, wind generators aren't worth your breath to even discuss. But keep chasing that pie in the sky. Just be careful not to get whacked by a blade.

[Nanners]

Producing 4% of the country's energy. Woohoo! Ok, let's quadruple that, and add quadruple the turbines, now we have 16% of the countries energy. Not even 1/5. Which means what? We can stop harnessing coal? No. So what are we doing? We still have to burn fossil fuels, we're just getting a little bit of extra energy for our iphones by putting turbines all over the place?

Sorry man. I know wind is your big thing because it's very ideological and you don't have to limit the energy consumption of people who make less than 250,000 or have dark skin if you just have lots and lots of windpower. Wee! But it's not solution to anything. If you're legitimately worried about climate change and atmospheric carbon, wind generators aren't worth your breath to even discuss. But keep chasing that pie in the sky. Just be careful not to get whacked by a blade.

you have absolutely zero clue. none. you are a complete fvcking clown.

producing 16% of the countries energy with wind would be HUGE, thats close to the same amount as we generate with all nuclear plants combined. 16% is a massive amount of energy.

[Akrazotile]

you have absolutely zero clue. none. you are a complete fvcking clown.

producing 16% of the countries energy with wind would be HUGE, thats close to the same amount as we generate with all nuclear plants combined. 16% is a massive amount of energy.

Yeah, with no trade-off of course it is.

But you'd have to quadruple the amount of land you stick generators on, and the whole purpose of clean energy is to be more environmentally friendly. Not less.

The solution to the environmental impact of energy is to reduce energy consumption. Not to fill up the environment with wind turbines so that 8 billion people can watch Netflix on their ipads

[Nanners]

Yeah, with no trade-off of course it is.

But you'd have to quadruple the amount of land you stick generators on, and the whole purpose of clean energy is to be more environmentally friendly. Not less.

The solution to the environmental impact of energy is to reduce energy consumption. Not to fill up the environment with wind turbines so that 8 billion people can watch Netflix on their ipads

if our choices are building more wind turbines versus doing more mountain top removal, its pretty obvious which option is more environmentally friendly

and lol at saying the solution to our energy issues is turning off some ipads

dont know why i bother