Wind and solar are a grotesque fiasco in the fight against Climate Change.Globally, wind and solar have achieved an impressive milestone of a terawatt(1000 gigawatts) of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Germany has about a hundred of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar enough to replace hard coal or lignite coal, but even so they will have to replace coal by natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂)to fake intermittent renewables are reducing emissions.Biomass, wind and solar, should be excluded from the tools against Climate Change, they are causing more ecological impacts(destruction of natural landscapes, disruption of wildlife habitats, massacre of millions of birds and bats and other endangered species) than reducing emissions.
Sure. But even if you cobble all the low-density parts of the country together, the rest may look small on the map but it's still 90+% of the population and 90+% of the energy needs. Not to mention only a fraction of those low-density parts actually have economically relevant geothermal resources.
The U.S. is a big country with lots of little pieces called states. I don't see why Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Washington and other states can't get all or part of their energy from geothermal (Mt. St. Helens, anyone). A single magic bullet often does not fix everything.
France was a pioneer in hydroelectricity, still is. But despite having a relatively high share of mountains and energetic rivers to tap from initially, and having harnessed close to 100% of the economically sensible potential, blue gold never delivered more than 20% of our electricity needs.
The total population of Greenland is less than that of Grand Island, NE. Meaning that you can tap low-density energy from a relatively large area for a relatively small number of consumers. In addition the extremely high cost of moving anything, including fuel, to the local communities makes local solutions that much more attractive.
AND using geothermal energy directly as a heat source is obviously more relevant in Nuuk than in Albuquerque.
It's a fucking quote, mate. Which I assume you know. It uses swine in a literal, not a figurative sense, and passes neither moral nor aesthetical judgment. Which I assume you also know, or should if you don't. Now please shove your faked indignation where it belongs, back into your bag of troll tricks.
Wind and solar are a grotesque fiasco in the fight against Climate Change.Globally, wind and solar have achieved an impressive milestone of a terawatt(1000 gigawatts) of installed-capacity at cost of trillions of dollars and huge ecological impacts with almost nothing to show in terms of reducing emissions. Germany has about a hundred of gigawatts of installed-capacity of wind/solar enough to replace hard coal or lignite coal, but even so they will have to replace coal by natural gas(methane(CH₄): 70x worse than CO₂)to fake intermittent renewables are reducing emissions.Biomass, wind and solar, should be excluded from the tools against Climate Change, they are causing more ecological impacts(destruction of natural landscapes, disruption of wildlife habitats, massacre of millions of birds and bats and other endangered species) than reducing emissions.
Sure. But even if you cobble all the low-density parts of the country together, the rest may look small on the map but it's still 90+% of the population and 90+% of the energy needs. Not to mention only a fraction of those low-density parts actually have economically relevant geothermal resources.
You were told right. But if the choice is between burning that junk and an unreliable electricity supply, lignite gets dug up and burned.
There is a huge amount of lignite in North Dakota. Growing up we were told since it was a soft, dirty coal it was not prized.
The U.S. is a big country with lots of little pieces called states. I don't see why Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Washington and other states can't get all or part of their energy from geothermal (Mt. St. Helens, anyone). A single magic bullet often does not fix everything.
The selenite objects!
France was a pioneer in hydroelectricity, still is. But despite having a relatively high share of mountains and energetic rivers to tap from initially, and having harnessed close to 100% of the economically sensible potential, blue gold never delivered more than 20% of our electricity needs.
The total population of Greenland is less than that of Grand Island, NE. Meaning that you can tap low-density energy from a relatively large area for a relatively small number of consumers. In addition the extremely high cost of moving anything, including fuel, to the local communities makes local solutions that much more attractive.
AND using geothermal energy directly as a heat source is obviously more relevant in Nuuk than in Albuquerque.
Dry tears are the tastiest.
Weeping trolls are my favourite.
You're not very persuasive.
It's a fucking quote, mate. Which I assume you know. It uses swine in a literal, not a figurative sense, and passes neither moral nor aesthetical judgment. Which I assume you also know, or should if you don't. Now please shove your faked indignation where it belongs, back into your bag of troll tricks.
Pearls before swine.
That, my friend, just shows how ignorant you are.
If you think you can troll me, you are barking up the wrong tree. Come back when you have a specific point to make.
You question a lot and provide very little. A comfortable position. Get off your lazy ass, cat. How deep is not enough? And why?