Without evidence
President Trump doesn’t like wind farms.
More than any technical aspect, it's the MONUMENTAL STUPIDITY that leaves me stunned. This is a semi-senile old man making far-reaching, destructive decisions based on... whim. It's hard to imagine a more accurate image of a mad king.
I suppose that his "advisors" go along, despite knowing that this is profoundly stupid, because, in exchange for their fawning, King Donald lets them execute their own schemes. There's plenty of pork for all!
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
 |
| Off the coast of Rhode Island. Lucy Lu for The New York Times |
Without evidence
President Trump doesn’t like wind farms. Never has. He thinks they’re ugly. He calls them inefficient and expensive. Years ago, he failed to stop the construction of one that’s visible from one of his golf courses in Scotland. He was apoplectic about it. He told a Scottish politician on Twitter in 2014 that “the windmill hovering over hole 14 is disgusting & inappropriate.”
On his first day in office this year, Trump stopped new wind projects on public lands and waters. A judge called that order “arbitrary” and said it violated federal law. Still, Trump persevered. Yesterday his administration said it would halt leases for five wind farms under construction off the East Coast , virtually gutting the offshore wind industry in the United States. The projects were “expected to power more than 2.5 million homes and businesses,” my colleagues Maxine Joselow and Lisa Friedman report.
Perhaps in order not to appear arbitrary, Doug Burgum, the secretary of the interior, said that the decision “addresses emerging national security risks, including the rapid evolution of the relevant adversary technologies, and the vulnerabilities created by large-scale offshore wind projects with proximity near our East Coast population centers.”
Based on what evidence? The Pentagon has produced classified reports, Burgum said, and the Energy Department has found that wind farms could interfere with radar systems.
Is this true? Military studies have indeed shown that offshore wind turbines could disrupt radar, Lisa told me. But they concluded that the risk could be offset with planning. A spokesman for one of the wind farms said it had worked “in close coordination with the military.” He pointed out that his project’s two pilot turbines had been operating for five years with no impact on national security.
It is not the first time the administration has justified a new policy — one it wanted to impose quickly without fretting over legal and regulatory procedures — with a broad claim. It just asserts there’s a problem.
A fixation
 |
| Wind turbine bases in Virginia. Steve Helber/Associated Press |
Trump has given many reasons to dislike wind farms, but so far none are backed by agreed-upon facts. Here’s a look at his views:
|
|
(Maybe, but the administration has also weakened habitat protections, ended automatic protections for threatened species and said economic factors should take priority in decisions about endangered species.)
The rationales
In explaining a range of new policies, the president has pointed to grounds that don’t draw from evidence, or at least not evidence the public can see.
Wind farms: These need to be stopped because of radar “clutter.” See above.
Illegal immigrants: Some have been selected for deportation because the government has said they belong to a gang — without proving it.
Boat strikes: The administration says the nearly 100 boats destroyed off South America were running drugs to the United States. It hasn’t released any evidence for that claim.
National Guard deployments: Trump says protesters in a number of Democratic-led cities have threatened the safety of immigration agents and government facilities. Judges have chastised officials for not providing evidence for these assertions.
Alien Enemies Act: The administration says the presence of Venezuelan gang members in the United States constitutes an “invasion” by a “hybrid criminal state” that allows him to invoke this wartime law, reminds my colleague Mattathias Schwartz, who covers legal affairs. But U.S. intelligence agencies have said Venezuela is not directing gang activity.
Refugees: Trump has shut down most refugee admissions but is letting in white Afrikaners based on a claim of genocide against them that is not backed by evidence, says my colleague Zolan Kanno-Youngs, who covers the White House.
Liberal nonprofits: Vice President JD Vance and others say these groups support political violence — again without providing evidence.
It all adds up to what you might call a governance of assertion. That is: Trust, but don’t verify.
Whatever
Tags
Who is online
108 visitors
Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States.
Donald J. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his "demented" state of mind, cruelty, corruption for personal gain, and his desire to become "KING GONG" of the United States of America, because he, alone, is a GENIUS, and the rest of us are NOT!
Please, contact your Senator & House Representative, and encourage them to support the IMPEACHMENT of this LUNATIC.
Trump distroys every thing he touches!
"Dirty Diaper Donnie" doesn't like anything or anyone that doesn't make MONEY for Him, Honey!
It's all about the griffing, con games, and taking advantage of folks who think this ORANGE POS is human.
He looks ALIEN to me.
Fugazi, Trump!
This is what the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 do to the sanity of a certain president. The Heritage Foundation and the Heartland Institute denying anthropogenic global warming and climate change are why this environmental scientist first got online all those years ago on the Vine. Trump is obviously owned by the fossil fuel industry. Can anybody say Venezuela? Of all the bad actors in the world, why has Trump focused on the country with the largest fossil fuel reserves? The word corruption comes to mind.
Trump is a known THIEF!
He is also an ADJUDACTED RAPIST and a CONVITED FELON!
What the HELL is he doing in the White House? He should be in a NUT HOUSE!
the blowhard narcissist hates any competition ...
Trump's sole interest is himself. Fugazi Trump. It is way past time for his IMPEACHMENT!
You talking about Joe Biden?
He's not wrong. They are a far reach from getting away from fossil fuel given the amount of lubricant they require not to mention what is required for their construction.
The environmental impact is something that can't be ignored either.
The "rationales" read as the the frantic scramble of somebody trying (but failing) to make a point.
Do you have any facts to support your opinions?
I'm sorry, but....
The irony of that post
It's OK if you have no facts. Facts are not required on NT. NT is perfectly happy with brainless, fact-free opinions.
I was just curious. I cannot understand what satisfaction MAGAs find in exchanging vacuous posts.
The point is always to just defend the dishonorable criminal ignoramus in the White House, no matter what he says or does.
I can kinda sorta understand taunting libruls with anti-facts. "Ownin' the libruls" is thought by some to be a clever use of one's "intelligence".
But what's the point of exchanging dumb-shit posts among them?
Surely they don't believe any of their crap?
We see that on a daily basis. 2.1.3 is a good example. Another is 2.1.4
Prove me wrong.
When did I defend whoever it is you are posting about?
Just take a look at what happened to Germany when it went green under Merkel.
[deleted][✘]
It's Christmas Eve Vic.
Trump spent the first minutes of Christmas Eve ranting about how the Big 3 networks should all have their broadcast licenses taken away.
Trump's Truth
Cant wait to see his "Christmas Message" to the nation.
ChatGPT says:
Nice!
JohnRussell, you are a POWER HOUSE that keeps us moving in the direction of decency, concern for our Constitution, and awareness of the THREAT that Trump and his Cadre of Sycophants, Incompetents that are ripping our country apart.
Yes he is. Bigly.
AI summary from a quick Google search...
Average efficiency is better than everything but hydro.
Oh, c'mon, Dig!
If they wanted facts, they could find them in a few seconds. But they do not want facts.
"It's not good to try to force a donkey to read. It never works, and it annoys the donkey."
Addendum --
Simple cycle natural gas is comparable to wind at 33% to 43%, while combined cycle (a jet engine turbine plus waste heat boilers powering a steam turbine) can reach upwards of 60%.
So wind is third, behind hydro and combined cycle gas turbines.
Your AI / Google search doesn't answer these questions:
Why would it have? You may have lost the plot. I responded to your claim that Trump isn't wrong about wind being inefficient and expensive. He is wrong about that.
As to your questions, similar ones could be asked of any form of power generation, and are beside the point of wind being efficient and cost-effective.
I'll say something about a few of them, though...
I can't figure out the point of this question, but the answer is almost certainly a pump.
Another one lost on me. Distribution is not generation. Wind turbines are generation. Also, transformers aren't lubricated. They have no moving parts. Some are packed in oil, but it's for insulation and/or thermal regulation, not lubrication.
I don't know what you mean by saved energy costs, but I think you're asking how long it takes for a turbine to pay for itself. A quick search (that you could have done yourself) says there are many variables involved, but generally a 1MW machine covers its own costs in anywhere from 6 months to 10 years. A wide spread, but if a machine lasts 20 to 30 years before needing replacement, then there's plenty of profitability left over, even at the long end. And let's not forget, there's no ongoing fuel cost involved. The wind itself is free.
You continue to illustrate that you do not recognize that the manufacturing of turbines will eventually use renewable energy rather than fossil fuel.
Yes, Jeremy, today's energy infrastructure is predominantly fossil-fuel based. So of course building shit will consume fossil fuel. Hello?
And where do you get the idea that other mechanical devices do not need lubrication?
I asked ChatGPT to provide an estimate of the fossil-fuel consumed to drill, pump, transport, and refine fossil fuels. Since apparently you do not recognize that fossil-fuel energy is used here as well. There are links that you could use to educate yourself on this matter:
Because it glosses over the real problems with it and gives the "feel good" answers.
Nope. Just not actively following the narrative.
That is the usual response when people are questioned about parts of this that nobody is willing to discuss. These are not cheap to build, maintain, dismantle. NOBODY wants to discuss the atmospherical impacts, the environmental impacts.
Because it's going to cost more than anybody is willing to admit.
And you still haven't answered my questions.
You are ignoring the facts. Of course. (You probably did not even read what I posted and almost certainly did not follow the links to gain some much need edification.)
Do you recognize that fossil fuels are used in the exploration, drilling, pumping, refining, and transportation of fossil fuels?
The only "real" problem with wind is that it's intermittent, something you didn't even mention.
No, you're making up your own narrative. The original point here was that Trump is wrong about wind being "inefficient and expensive," and he is.
Actually, it's the usual response when someone asks a dumb question. Transformers are primarily used in distribution to step high voltages from transmission lines down to customer usage levels. The question wasn't even relevant to generation. And they are not lubricated.
Where do you get this stuff? Wind is very cheap, often cited (from what I've read) as the cheapest form of new construction for power generation. Wind is also MUCH better for the environment than fossil fuels, by leaps and bounds. Again, its only real problem is that it's intermittent. The wind doesn't always blow at useful speeds.
Seriously, since when are right wingers the least bit interested in the environment? Environmental concerns are a hoax, right?
There are enough blowhards around to make up the difference. Especially on the internet.
Good point. They're the ones always trying to get rid of environmental regulations. Hell, I think I read yesterday that Trump is going to give Musk a large part of a wildlife preserve to use for his SpaceX launch facility. Gotta love all that "concern."
The only wild life Trump is interested in is the one he lived with Jeffrey Epstein.
I didn't. NONE of what you posted answer the questions I posed.
It's used in EVERYTHING we do and everything we have. To include all these "green initiatives" like solar and wind farms.
Given that you recognize our current infrastructure is predominantly fossil-fuel-based, it should not surprise you that creating renewable energy sources will also utilize the existing fossil-fuel-based infrastructure.
Now, attempt to project a little forward, and note that we will eventually have renewable energy as the predominant source; thus, the creation of new renewable energy sources will predominantly use renewable energy.
I never said it wouldn't be. The idea that I even hinted at that is all in your imagination.
Yes. There will still be petroleum based components and lubricants, but that's far less usage than burning them for fuel.
Also true. There are a whole lot of unrealistic expectations, both about capability of renewables and more acutely about their projected timelines.
The short answer is that it's going to be better than what we have but not as good as some people think.
Indeed. As I noted.
I am sure plenty of people have unrealistic expectations (true about anything) but I have not made any (to my knowledge) so this does not apply.
Same chickenshit tactic 'but I did not say that ...' while ignoring the implication of your argument.
You argue that renewable technology requires fossil fuel. No shit. Your stated negative is a temporary condition because eventually the renewables will be predominant. It is not a flaw with renewable energy as you imply.
So cry about it.
Efficiency is also not the whole story. There are many negative environmental impacts involved in the various means of production of power that must be taken into consideration.
FWIW, I own stock in Dominion Energy:
Leading the Country in Offshore Wind
When fully constructed in 2026, the Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind commercial project will deliver clean, renewable energy to the grid, avoid millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually, and help us achieve our goal of Net Zero carbon and methane emissions by 2050.
The 2.6 -gigawatt project will provide zero-carbon energy to as many as 660,000 customers at peak output.
The two wind turbines currently in operation are the first installed in U.S. federal waters and are avoiding up to 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually. CVOW will deliver what our customers want and what the planet needs: clean, reliable, affordable energy.
Full Disclosure: I currently have a slight gain in the stock and at this point I intend to keep my position. (I really don't care what Joe Biden says on the subject, and while Trump "hates windmills", from an intelligent stock holders' podition there are other importsnt factors to consider.
(Disclaimer: none of what I have said is intended to be advice as to buy or sell any stocks).
While hydro isn't doable or practical in all areas, where possible, it the best (or one of the best) solutions IMNSHO).
In some cases that could mean building a dam on a river.
And here's another possibility-- how about harnessing natural energy by harnessing another natural source- - the natural cycle of the rise and fall of tides?
Did you know?Of the top 50 locations in the world with the largest tidal range (average difference between high and low tide), only two locations are within the U.S.:
While hydro isn't doable or practical in all areas, where possible, it the best (or one of the best) solutions IMNSHO).
And while it should be obvious, most (all?) uses of harnessing the flow of water to generate electricity also work on days when the sun isn't shining!
France has had a big tidal power station for sixty years: La Rance. We visited it many, many years ago. Impressive, like Lake Mead is impressive.
Wikipedia:
Sounds good to me!
There are obviously other sources needed, but IMO that's the single best source of electrical power (in the areas where it can be built, of course).
We are NOT "Right Winger" or "Lefty"!
We are American Citizens divided by political interests that do not have our best interests in mind.
... and it has been producing electricity for almost sixty years already...
That is absurd. The lubricant lasts a long time (since it is not burned) so very little is actually used over time (compared to combustion).
Which will naturally reduce over time. You are basically arguing that because our current infrastructure for energy is fossil-fuel dependent —and thus we use fossil-fuels to build renewable energy equipment— that we will never move to a point where renewable energy becomes predominant.
That is irrational and extremely (to the point of naivety) short-sighted. It is arguing that we can never replace fossil fuels with renewables for the primary source of energy.
As I read the comments (pro and con) here I can't help but wonder-- are so many NT users such experts?
Or perhaps more to the point-- do they really think they know more about devices for wind energy-- do they really believe they know more than the company (Dominion) who's been in the business for a while?
The amount of energy to build these projects? The initial investment? Or..the amount (and cost!) of any lubricant. Difficukty (and cost) of recyling blades? Etc, etc.
Dominion is an experienced company. And while they may or may not have an altruisitic streak-- the fact is one of their goals is to make money-- not lose money!
So if this is such a terrible investment of time and (initially) money-- I think they know more about this business than people on social media have have googled a few articles and selectively posted exerpts!
I think it's simply a matter of (blindly) agreeing with whatever Trump says.
No. But in MAGAland, knowing something... knowing anything... is not a prerequisite for having a very firm opinion.
Alternative energies are dominating new installations all over the world, except in MAGAland, where dogma outweighs even finance. But MAGA's Glorious Leader has decreed that America shall remain in the Carcinogenic Age, so his NT True_Believers wil continue to spout disproven garbage.
Several people here are arguing against the use of these "windmills" (Turbines). But here's another argument for using them:
Its simply these-- who would I rather believe? A few folks on NT who did a little googling-- and cherry-picked some information?
Or the experienced experts at companies like Dominion-- who are experienced plus they really know the science and other facts....
(And remember, Dominion is a business-- they want to earn money. So their not going to invest their time & money on something they know very little about!)
But what if Trump changes his mind?
Trump "FLIP FLOPS" back and forth on everything.
On the campaign, he talked about murderers and rapists. Once elected, he poured billions into ICE to go after illegals in general with a very wide net that rips apart families domiciled here for many years.
He promised to lower prices (stupid) and has done the exact opposite with his tariffs.
He promised that he would keep the USA out of wars, yet in Venezuela he has initiated major military action.
Just three off the top of my head. And his supporters continue to support him.
Nope.
Of course he is.
They are part of a multifaceted approach to dimmish a reliance on fossil fuel, not a magic pill to replace fossil fuels.
It's a fraction of what mining coal and drilling for oil and gas has already done to the environment in the last 200 years.
Glad to see that you totally agree that the Presidents rationalizations make no sense, just the rambling nonsense of an uninformed person unfortunately in the position to set the country back decades in development of alternative power sources.
Answer the questions in 2.1.6.
Oooo, you told me. Now prove it.
They still rely heavily on fossil fuels. From it's construction, its use and it's destruction all rely on fossil fuels.
Unlike yourself and many on the left, if I meant the President I would have specifically mentioned him. Instead, I quoted the article.
I submitted your query to Copilot hoping it could break down the arguments in simple terms you could appreciate.
Other participants point out that lifecycle studies of wind turbines consistently show short payback times. Large modern turbines typically generate the energy used in their construction within 5–8 months, depending on site conditions and wind resource quality. After that, they continue producing net-positive energy for 20–30 years.
The question also reflects a broader skepticism in the thread: critics argue that turbines rely on fossil fuels for manufacturing, transport, and lubrication. Supporters counter that this is true of all energy systems, including fossil fuels themselves, which require drilling, pumping, refining, and transport—activities that also consume large amounts of energy.
The debate highlights a key distinction: while fossil fuels must be continuously extracted and burned (always consuming energy to produce energy), wind turbines have a one-time construction cost and then operate with minimal ongoing fossil fuel input. That’s why their energy payback is relatively fast and their lifetime emissions are far lower.
I hope that is helpful for you.
Where? Just highlighting the words "the Rationales" ?
Do you agree with the Presidents assessment that whales are confused by windfarms on the water?
That they are unattractive? ( Compared to what, smelly oil refineries of coal fired electric power generating companies belching smoke and CO2 into the air continuously?)
Per the President ( from the article )
These comments are delusional. That's the point of the Rationales, they don't provide any rationality at all if read objectively.
I quoted the article. Isn't NOT quoting the article something you all threw a tantrum about?
I respectfully suggest that you never apply for an English language teaching position.
Thank you for your 20 years of service and have a Happy New Year.
Not in away that meant anything at all...
Now you are just arguing for the sake of it, I am not "you all" or part of any group.
You asked for a response to 2.1.6 and this petty bickering is the best you can field?
See 2.4.6 and have nice weekend.
One of the most important issues in the upcoming midterms will be this: what can we do to address the Yuge proliferation of craczy whales?
They are ruining the American Way of Life. those crazy whales are!
(Its nice to see that President Trump is finally addressing this problem-- a problem of deep concern to all Americans!)
Yes, now he claims that the bruise on the back of his hand is from high fiving Katherine Levitt and that her ring caused a small cut.
Maybe they were playing twister, again?
One of the arguments against Dominion's project here is that "Trump hates windmills." It seems most of us can agree on that. So if that's the case, why do I continue to keep holding the stock?
Well, because when I invest I try to look at the entire picture. On the downside to Dominion: Trump hates windmills (and he has certain powers...)
But here's the upside for this stock IMO. Fow a while it seems Trump's approval rates kept swinging back and forth-- approval %, disapproval %. And recently he's become aware of this. So?
Lately he's been trying to get his numbers up. Going back on a few unpopular programs or in some cases delaying them.
This is a large project. When it goes into effect, there will be several impacts. One will be much cheaper electricity for people living in the area. (Something that President Trump will take credit for, as he will have changed his original position-- and allowed this project to go ahead.)
He will then have an area where he can claim what good he did for people (the "affordibility issue).
Oh-- did I mention the stock is up today...???
JEREMY, RETIRED IN NC...I think it was fairly clear that no one with a lick of sense is talking about BIDEN.
Joe Biden is over and done.
We are all talking about a FAT 78-year-old AJUDICATED RACIST, known collectively as "Dirty Diaper Donnie", because he can't control his own BOWELS, and stinks up the joint, whichever joint he is in.
Donnie's history of "pooping his diaper" goes back to his TV days.
Several candidates who participated in that hilarious comedy stated that the production had to be "shut down," so the Fat FUC could have his WIPERS CLEAN HIM UP.
Is this who you think is a GREAT AMERICAN PRESIDENT?
How do you feel about solar panels?
I know you didn't ask me, but I think they take up too much land space. I can be reasoned with on that point. Why not put solar panels in parking lots? I've seen it done at military installations and the local VA has solar panels in their parking lots. They not only provide power, but cover for people and vehicles
that would make too much sense .
For the big solar installers, parking lots are too small. Each installed system needs the infrastructure to tap into the grid and it is easier to tie in with one large sub-station rather than a bunch of little ones.
Yuma calls itself the sunniest city in America. (I'd guess that other cities say the same...
) In any case there's a lot of sunlight. Municipal parking lots have pergolas so the cars don't melt. There have been solar panels on the pergolas for at least a decade.
East of Yuma, in the Foothills (where we live), there's a huge solar farm. Google tells me that there are several other even bigger projects starting up. I suppose that Trump can slow this progress down, but I doubt he can really stop it. There is so much empty land, getting so much sunlight.
I saw a news report where sheep where put to grazing where solar farms have been "planted". Now that makes sense. You can't do that with goats because they would be jumping on top of the panels all the time
I don;t care about the large installers. The solar panels I'm talking about are producing power for a small entity like a hospital
I saw a video not long ago - probably on Matt Farrell's excellent "Undecided" channel - about "small vertical wind turbines". These are kinda snail-shaped. They use the updraft air rising along the walls of multi-story buildings - they're a good match with factories.
Since they sit on the edge of the roof, they can be combined with solar cells mounted closer to the center.
The large installers may be the only ones that will be able to afford to do it come July of 26, if the system for a business isn't started by that time the federal tax incentives go away. It is already too late for residential, for it has to be up and running by tomorrow.
The Big Beautiful Bill forced the companies to start installing these systems now on leased land instead of what was happening of waiting until the end of the lease installation agreements. I will be surrounded by a solar farm except to the west where it will be 3/4 mile away the rest will be, at the minimum, 300 feet away from my property line. The installer did try to get me to lease my 16 acres, even though they wouldn't install on me I would get $1,000/acre but then they could install on the adjacent property right up to my line, nope that's not worth it.
LOL , i was gonna say make the panels high enough the goats cant jump on them , but goats can get anywhere . i carry a small solar charger / battery pack out in the woods now enough to charge my phone , where all my maps are kept , yes there is an app for that , and can charge my hearing aides when needed , all it needs is daylight , not even direct sun light . cheap insurance is my excuse and reasoning .
Probably not a good idea, the extra load to the building structure could cause damage. Buildings are built to withstand wind loads and in our area snow loads, but the torque load of a generator on the top edge of the building would require more internal structure or completely isolating the turbines from the building with their own anchored structure.
I think that's a good idea if you spend a lot of time in the woods. Very important to keep your hearing aids charged especially in the woods. They have bears in Wyoming, don't they?
How about the desert?
there's an idea but some people might have heartburn with that
Do bears Poo in the woods ?
The one i have is rather small , about the size of one of those larger smart phones , it can be strapped to a pack so its always collecting a charge , im not totally deaf ,yet , but headed that way , just deaf enough to be irritating to others trying to talk to me , imagine me as the character in The Patriot with the ear horn ( sometimes i think one of those would actually be better ) it can sometime become quite comical .
Another thing about the bears , this year it has been unseasonably warm here , about 20 degrees warmer than it should be , and people are saying winter is about a month or so late here , so the bears have not had the inclination to den up for hibernation and reports of sightings are still being reported .
i wish to wish all a happy new year as well while i think of it .
Well, okay, then I hope they don't lose their healthcare.
We've had 2 deadly bear attacks this past year in Arkansas. We have black bears not brown or grizzlies so I'm left scratching my head. They were males not females protecting cubs. Still scratching.
Have a safe and Happy New Year, Mark
I see deserts as a vital part of our ecosystem and think deserts can be quite beautiful. Except the Sahara. No beauty in that at all, but that's my opinion.
As in The Patriot, you can use the earhorn if some guy asks permission to see your daughter. Happy, Healthy, comfortable and due to bears around, SAFE New Year to you.
How does a desert benefit the ecosystem moreso than cutting down the use of fossil fuels? As explained by Sydney Ellen Wade (Annette Bening) in the movie The Ameican President, global warming can lead to a disaster second only to nuclear war.
Deserts are not all like the Sahara. New Mexico has a beautiful desert filled with beautiful cactus and other plant life. Those cactus serve as food for wildlife. I would hate to see those types of deserts destroyed for a a solar panel farm. But they would work for wind mills.
I assume the architects and engineers know what they're doing.
Energy Policy and Innovation Center (EPIcenter)
LINK -> Harvesting the Sun–Twice: Agrivoltaics and Rural Land-Use – Energy Policy and Innovation Center (EPIcenter)
This might not keep the desert beautiful, but solar panels can still co-exist with farming. What it comes down to is whether or not saving the planet is important or not.
Is that not the same line of thinking from not so long ago about wet lands and swamps ?
They got filled in and drained only to find out what purpose the actually held in the grand scheme of ecology .
how about the vegan argument of becoming plant eaters and getting all the protein we need from plants ? for high protein plants one has to kill everything that would eat said plant , so you kill everything in the eco-system the flies , walks crawls or burrows on that patch of ground , basically sterilize it of "pests " in competition , for food with humans , only to find out everything you have eliminated has a part to play in making sure the eco system stays working .
it is when humans get involved and try to
"better " things that things usually get buggered .
And the benefits from the desert are? I'm not saying there are NO benefits, but in the world where a balance of all is necessary, what do the benefits contribute other than what Trout said? My concern is the future. I would like it that my grandchildren will be able to breathe when they are older.
I agree. The desert around Yuma is full of life, plant and animal, much of it specifically adapted to rocky desert.
That said, most desert life thrives with some shade, so a properly designed solar farm can be minimally intrusive.
The Earth is very big. There is more than enough arable land... if it - and water ressources - are managed correctly. Transforming desert into farmland is very difficult, requiring supplementary organlcs and water.
In a confined space, like Israel, it makes sense to terraform the Negev. The Sonora... not so much.
I think the dlosest I've ever been to a desert was being in Las Vegas.
I wish Dowser were still around , this is her area of knowledge, we are getting into geology here .
I am no geological expert here , but it is my understanding that a desert area is vital to recharging an aquifer, even many miles distant , due to its geological make up.
Now considering a desert is defined by the amount of rainfall it gets , that does not really account for annual run off either. the water that falls or passes through a defined desert area , also trickles through and down to the aquifer more readily due to the geology of said area .
Changing the over all geology can and likely will and would have unintended results .
I can acknowledge the need for balance , the 2 competing issues i see, if people are even considering them , is between water , and power. what the balance is , i cant say .
I don't have a lot of knowledge of geology. Until now, I didn't think a desert had much use.
"Have use" is an interesting notion. For whom?
As I said, the desert around Yuma - rocky rather than sandy - is home to dozens of species of plants and animals, many of which are so specialized for their environment that they can't survive elsewhere.
One of my favorites is the ocotillo. It can go for months without water, losing all its leaves, turning brown, and looking dead.
Then it rains, and in a few hours, the ocotillo is covered in bright green leaves.
And dozens of critters feast!
For the Earth's ecology generally. As I said, I was unaware of its importance.
Not to be insulting , so please don't take it that way , you see what is on top , but didnt give a thought to what's buried underneath , same as bob is doing when he says his is more rocky , thing is what's under those rocks 10 ft down, 20-30 ft ? working in gravel mining for the short time i did ,only a few years , i saw the different strata being exposed cutting into a hill or digging down .
years ago, my dad had a flooding problem at his house from runoff from the roof , his solution was to install a "french drain " as he told me it was called , dad was sometimes full of it and would try and get away with it he he thought he could . he usually did that for 2 reasons , 1 , make you curious , 2 make you think .
a simple pit that the downspout fed into , filled with rocks , he used old oak milk crates to hold the rocks in place , and covered it back up. what the pit and rocks did was give the water someplace to be held in a temp fashion , until the ground could naturally absorb more water , and also acts as a filtration agent , anywho , it solved the flooding of the lower parts of the yard , and as far as i know since the house was sold 10 yrs ago , its still functioning almost 50 years later .
I would say , one would be amazed , at how some eco systems work with geology and what nature has already put down in place .
Why would I be insulted? I SAID I knew almost nothing about deserts. I know a lot more about desserts.
What do you mean by "a confined space"? Israel borders 4 other countries & Gaza. In addition it borders the Mediterranean Sea.
The Negev desert in Southern Israel extends well across Israel's Southern border into Egypt.
But unlike the deserts in the American South-west, The Negev is mainly rocks and is very dry. Most of it has no significant vegetation.
Israel has limited arable land. Israel also has the tech to transform desert. I'd rather see that than the displacement of Palestinians.
But it also has harsh deserts that the "experts" said was useless-- and the Israelis made it bloom.
Their desert is not like the desert areas of the American South-West (which have a lot of plant and animal life). rather, most of it is rocky and barren of life.
The israelis invented "drip irrigation" which makes it ppossible to grow plants in areas plants couldn't have grown in before.
The company Netafim has developed these systems of "Precision Agriculture" (also called "drip irrigation"). It is used in many countries worldwide:
Precision irrigation changes the economics of agriculture.
In the past, if you wanted to grow more, you needed more fertilizer, labor or land. Precision irrigation is about reversing this age-old relationship between cost and output. It’s about delivering the perfect amount of water and nutrients straight to the roots of each plant – not the soil. So you grow bigger, better yields every season – with fewer resources. ( Cont'd . . . )
Are you saying that putting solar panels in a desert means covering every inch of the desert floor with the panels?
In places where a desert extends for a few miles it wouldn't be necessary to cover the entire area!
Whatever you do, some group of people will be pissed off.
I'm not sure I see the relationship between transforming the desert (or not) and whether Palestinians are displaced-- or not.
Jeremy:
Your adulation for Trump, aka "Dirty Diaper Donnie", may be obscuring your view of this ORANGE BEAST.
Trump's FOCUS is on himself.
That'll bring prices down...
Of course.
Thankfully, all those AI datacenters and bitcoin mines do not need electricity.
That's the point... Cut off renewable energy sources then big oil jacks up the price of fuel and they get even richer. Trump is a corrupt POS that cares only making himself and his rich buddies even richer.
Amen, Mr. Frost!
In the case of publically traded oil companies' stocks,-- anyone can buy stock in the company. When you buy a stock you are a part owner of the company-- which means (in the case of dividend paying stocks) you also get part of the profits.
You can spend your dividends. But for most dividend paying companies you can "DRIP" the dividends.
(DRIP stands for "Dividend Re-investment Plan"--- if you enroll in one the company automatically reinvests your dividend in the company in your name.)
This also takes advantage of the principle of "Dollar Cost Averaging" which is getting a bit off topic so I won't explain how it works.
Actually what many smart people on Wall Street see as the future for energy generation is "SMR"s. ("Small Modular Reactors"). Nuclear generates tremendous power.
These small reactors are quicker and easier to build (and supposedly safer)
The only big downside to investing in these is that the investment won't pay of 'till some future date.
SMRs are a possibility. So is thorium. So is fusion (well....).
In all cases, the basic idea is that fossil fuels are going to end, so it would be financiaolly smart to have a good position on replacement tech. This is obvious to people all around the world. Everywhere except MAGAland.
There's a lot of things to criticize about the Saudi gov't. But a while back I noticed something interesting. it seems that many of them began to realize-- and take seriously-- the fact that some day their yuge oil reserves will be depleted.
And then what? (Mostly what they will have is...lots of sand!). So to their credit they've really begun looking at alternative sources of income.
One of the things they've done is to really study the stock market and invest tremendous amounts of money into what their research indicates are very solid stocks that will generate future income.
(And with the huge amounts of cash they've accumulated, they can afford to hire some of the smartest (and therefore some of the smartest) economic/stock market analysts.
And they've also started looking at other alternate sources of income in anticipation of the oil supply eventually being depleted.
And consumers have to pay much more for energy.
Do you really think Trump wants prices to go up -- why should consumers want higher prices?
Do you really think Trump wants to piss off more people with higher energy prices?
And of course its not obvious to some people eved here on NT!
Are American citizens who support Trump that STUPID, naive, and easily fooled that they cannot comprehend how CORRUPT this psychopath is?
It is time to WAKE THE FUCK UP.
We are on the edge of WORLD WAR III, thanks to "Dirty Diaper Donnies" admiration for P U T I N!
Putin is NOT Russia!
Putin is Adolf Hitler on STERIODS!
China, Russia, North Korea, Belarus, and Iran are ruled by DICTATORS who are willing to DESTROY every free nation in the world for total control of their assets, and bow to CHINA!
We have problems! Serious problems!
I wouldn't be surprised if President Trump reverses that decision.
Why? Because recently his poll numbers haven't been good. Despite his hatred of wind power, the Democrats will keep bring up the "affordability issue"-- its to Trump advantage to have electricitiy prices lower.
After extensive research I decided not to sell my stock in Dominion Energy (Stock symbol D) . of course I could be wrong.
Its not a certainty but I'm guessing that Trump will change his mind and allow to project to progress. . .
Most people would call this a very risky bet . . . .
Hating wind power is a bizarre fetish.
They hate the look of them, but love the view of a coal fired power plant...I swear they are retarded.
T-Diddy RUMP is a "Natural Born Hater"!
The man hates everything and everyone that ain't Trump! Donnie is a SICK POS! He must be removed before he removes all of us by his compulsive ANGER VENTS, THE ICE IDIOTS!
Clearly, this is obvious!
Or, are we talking to a rock?
Down, down with Donald J. Trump, the CONVICTED FELON! There is no space in the White House for an ORANGE BEAST to rampage through, to feed his FAT, GLUTONOUS EGO!
FUGAZI, the Garbage Man!
Hating wind power is a bizarre fetish.
Not if your ultimate goal is to destroy everything before you die.
As a species we began to harness the wind about 8,000 years ago by sailing on the water.
The wheel was invented 3500 years ago.
The Persians put the two together about 1600 years ago inventing windmills
Originally used for cooling homes, they expanded the use to grist milling and the water management for crops and homes.
The source of the energy is free but "they" complain about inefficiencies?
Once in place they are usually environmentally stable but "they " prefer strip mining for coal and "drill, baby drill" for oil and gas as their environmental choice.
It boggles the mind.
It really does....
If we humans could harness the power of the sun for just...one, (1), second, we would have enough power for all of humanity for the 8-10,000 years. And the sun wouldn't charge us a dime to use it.
to completely turn earth into a molten, lifeless, blob in the solar system. How would you safely store that much power for 8-10,000 years?
It is a good thing that the earth has done the solar collecting and storage for us over 4 billion years in the form of "fossil" fuels.
And the sun wouldn't charge us a dime to use it.
Someone will have to, that technology won't be cheap.
Wind power isn't "free", there are atmospheric trade offs. Conservation of energy stipulates that to get a unit of energy out there has to be an equal input of energy. The wind is in the form of kinetic energy of the moving mass, each turbine slows that mass down by resisting it in the amount that the load on the generator is requiring. All that resistance has to be anchored with a massive concrete block buried in the ground. An airmass coinciding with a storm will be slowed down causing it to precipitate out over a shorter distance which may cause localized flooding. Then there is the way the blades operate, the airfoils produce low pressure areas and in the low pressure the atmosphere loses heat and with that net heat loss, water vapor moves closer to its dew point which also enhances precipitation. Back when windmills were first used, there were maybe a few thousand worldwide, now there are hundreds of thousands and possibly millions in the near future, that is man's direct assault on the atmosphere.
There is also the environmental problems.
If we blanket a countryside with solar panels, or build wind turbine farms, what happens to the wildlife habitats that occupied the area?
What is done with the parts once they are replaced? Steel and copper can be recycled. But the blades (made of fiberglass/carbon fiber composites) are buried (causing more issues for wildlife habitats) or incinerated (causing other environmental issues that nobody has really addressed). The concrete bases are generally left in place, again causing other environmental issues that nobody has really addressed.
Solar panels are built with hazardous materials like lead or cadmium, making regular trash disposal illegal and harmful.
That is soon to be a reality here, there is nearly 5,000 acres slated to go under solar in the near future and the first thing to go up is the perimeter fencing which is not only meant to keep people out it also keeps everything larger than a mouse and doesn't fly out.
The problem I am facing is that my home will be surrounded north, east, and south by solar. This may mean I will have warmer winters, but also hotter summers and my property value will plummet for the next twenty years. I will attend the next twp. planning meeting and request that they look into how they assess the property taxes to reflect the impact this will have on my property. Another problem that needs addressing is how close to my house can they legally come.
You’re joking. You have to be joking. You cannot be serious. Is this satire?
This shit has been going on for almost two centuries:
But now …today…you’re worried about “man’s assault on the atmosphere.” Because of MFing windmills??? You cannot be serious.
And NOBODY is willing to talk about that. All because they have a narrative to push and will push it no matter the cost.
If you only keep looking for evidence to support your own confirmation bias, you will never learn anything.
Can wind turbine blades be recycled? | National Grid
How can companies recycle wind turbine blades?
When added to high strength concrete the recycled blade material can double the psi making it almost invulnerable.
That is the echoing of trump thought.
...and property values - compare the property values of a Gulf Coast view with some windmills to any property around the ten oil refineries in Port Arthur Texas;
compare the view, the odors, the light cycles and traffic.
I have a relative who ranches 100s of acres in TX and fought the wind and solar projects for decades. With all of the market upheaval 10 years ago he shut down
many oil pumps and added cattle; he bought an adjoining property for the water rights and added windmills there and a couple of solar projects assuming he could
use the write offs for tax purposes. He's making the most money off of the windmills and looking to add more while he phases out the cattle.
The improvement in the air quality is amazing we all agree and he says the ground water is quickly improving as well without the cattle and oil rigs.
Can't make this shit up!
LOL... Ok, free energy bad, paid for energy good... My god.. WOW!
And you think coal power plants are completely free of any hazardous material? Seriously? LOL
Wow, talk about completely missing the point...
I seeded an article this morning, about the rise of sodium-iron battery tech.
One of the objectives is to eliminate the dangerous elements in today's batteries.
You really need to make an effort to stay up to date.
Did a quick google search and that was the first link that it provided. How long did you dig for yours?
Point out where I said it didn't. I'll wait.
Congratulations. Does that change the fact that hazardous materials that are still being used?
You do realize the first two pictures most of the "smoke" is water vapor and only looks bad because the atmospheric dew point is close to the condensation point, similar to "chemtrails" which are just mostly water vapor condensing behind the jet as it moves into favorable conditions for condensation. The third picture looks to be a preventable accident and I do believe it only burned a short time and is now done.
And, yes I am serious. It has already been studied and there is a recordable temperature drop downwind of a wind turbine, the explanation given was atmospheric mixing of the blades without even looking at the series of low pressure zones extracting the heat from the atmosphere.
You know the saying, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"? You've just demonstrated that you will never drink.
I'll continue seeding renewable-energy progress. You will continue to spout out-of-date stupidity.
What I'm demonstrating that you all will avoid answering actual questions that don't support a narrative.
Good for you. Still didn't answer my question.
Dear God, Jeremy!! Watch the fucking video! It answers your question. We both know you will never "believe" anything I say, but maybe, just maybe, you can learn from an expert?
Nah....
Most of it? That makes it ok? It only looks bad because you can see it? I assume you’re old enough to remember the hole in the ozone layer. We couldn’t see that, but it was still bad for us.
Arguably, all accidents are preventable. And yet they happen. Guess how many toxic spills are caused each year by petroleum vs wind power? Guess how much toxic chemicals are put into the atmosphere by the petroleum industry versus wind?
Hey, I’m sure that’s true. We can measure a lot of things, but that doesn’t make them significant.
Clearly, you’ll believe whatever politics tells you to believe. For some reason - I assume it’s intense lobbying by the already absurdly wealthy petroleum industry - conservatives have been brainwashed into thinking that burning coal and oil is somehow good for the Earth and those of us who live here, but putting up a bunch of windmills is bad for the Earth and its denizens. Basic common sense should tell you that’s silly.
Let me show you another picture. This is Los Angeles, where I grew up.
That’s not fog or clouds. It’s smog. Air pollution from all the refineries and the cars and the trucks, etc., pump chemicals into the atmosphere, and they get trapped in the valleys and basins of California. There, our sunshine provides the energy for new photochemical reactions in our atmosphere that make new, even nastier air for us to breathe. This is why California has historically been allowed to make its own air quality standards that are more strict than the rest of the country. Our air quality has thus improved over the decades, but it is a never-ending battle. Trump, by the way, wants to end that for us. He wants us to live in this toxic cloud because it makes him and his rich friends even richer.
Conservatives have been gaslit into believing that these environmental concerns are woke bullshit. They think we want to kill industry to save some obscure fish or bird. But fish and birds aren’t the only ones living in that ozone-infused soup you see. Human beings are trying to breathe that shit, and I can tell you from personal experience that it is a painful way to live.
Oh the fkng irony.,
You claimed you seeded an article with no link then want to act out like a child because I didn't go looking for it. Then expect to be taken seriously?
I said "I seeded". Are you telling me that you do not know how to find an article recently seeded by a particular member here on NT? Really?
Never mind...
Have you watched the video now? Or will you insist on finding some way of remaining ignorant?
and I responded "Congratulations".
Do you assume you have some authority over me? Do you actually think that just because you say something I'm supposed to move?
You saying you seeded and article means absolutely NOTHING to me. I have no obligation to look up a goddamn thing.
I suspect 20 years of taking orders from people he thought didn't deserve their rank will do that to some people.
Absolutely not. You did that for 20 years and got nowhere apparrently.
Well, like I said about confirmation bias, the only person you might improve is yourself.
That's enough. Bye.
Exactly.
Did you know the "holes" (actually thinning) are still there? When the "holes" were first discovered the immediate blame and assumption was because of human activity without even thinking that the "holes" were always present before then. Upper atmospheric ozone is created by the UV from the sun and guess what is lacking in the polar regions for most of the year, direct UV from the sun. CFC's contribute to the destruction of the upper layer of Ozone, but humans aren't the only contributors to them.
but that doesn’t make them significant.
By just a thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand, million/s of wind turbines, when do you think it becomes significant? I'm talking common sense backed by Conservation of Energy, those wind turbines don't produce power from nothing, the atmosphere needs to lose something.
Oh and BTW, they're wind turbines not windmills as one of your vote ups took pains to inform me of a while back, but seems fine with what you claim they are.
A difference without a distinction? Wind mills can take mechanical energy and grind things, pump or manage water or create electricity at the bottom of the shaft.
A wind turbine just creates electric power right in the hub which can in fact be used to grind things, manage water, create more electricity and much, much more.
Think of it as evolution...
wind turbines are commonly known as windmills, so you really have no point.
And I put your skepticism to ChatGPT. After a discussion about wind turbines, energy, mixing, interface friction, and documentation styles, it came up with a passible paragraph about the points which you were trying to make.
To wit:
And, on a related front (no pun intended), the opposite of windmills, fans, have been used to keep crops from freezing for years. Think citrus groves.
Since I’m not the one claiming that it is significant, that doesn’t seem like my job. And even if it were significant, you would then further need to demonstrate that the pollution created by other forms of energy generation (like burning oil, gas, or coal) are somehow preferable.
You need to take that up with TiG.
wind turbines are commonly known as windmills, so you really have no point.
Again, TiG would probably disagree with you.
Because the fans are adding energy to the atmosphere. Does a fan in a room cool the room or heat the room? It heats the room. The energy used to turn the fan is turned into kinetic energy moving the air and the series of high pressures adds heat to the air as well as the laboring motor. And this is the very important point, the windmills (since I can use this again, it is so much easier to type this out than wind turbine) are doing the exact opposite, other than the generator laboring against its load.
WTF are you talking about?
I do not know what you are referring to, so leave me out of this.
"Common sense" tells us the Sun revolves around the Earth. It tells us that an anvil falls faster than a feather. It tells us many, many things that are not true.
"Common sense" is a terrible basis for policy. It is usually just another way of saying "completely baseless gut-feeling".
Competent policy-makers replace "common sense" with scientific measures.
ChatGPT (I added the bold emphasis):
Of course, you can always fall back on the standard denialist argument, "I don't trust science". You would be recognizing that you are a standard denialist.
Questioning ChatGPT takes only seconds. There is no excuse for not knowing better than "common sense".
I went back to my comment history and unfortunately NT only goes back one year. What I am referring to was an article similar to this 1-1/2 - 2 years ago and I kept using windmill and instead of debating on the subject at hand you took me to task that they are not windmills and the proper term was wind turbine and I have used the term wind turbine ever since. So thank you I learned something.
Here is an article I seeded on wind turbines. You participated significantly in this article and you and I engaged in discussion. Not once did I say anything about windmills. This was four years ago.
Regardless, this is chickenshit. If I corrected your use of windmills it would have been at best in passing and I would not have made a big deal about it unless you (for some unknown reason) insisted that windmill was the correct term. Given we discussed this on my seed of four years ago, I doubt that would have happened.
So, in short, leave me out of this.
Thank you. Now we know that wind farms do effect local climates, as I pointed out in 5.1.1, and Thomas found that there are temperature drops.
Now what happened in Michigan, May of 2020, I lived it. A storm was approaching from the south into Michigan, it was forecast to drop 3-4 inches of rain in our area much of the northern half of the LP. The storm passed over and through three wind farms and instead of 3-4 inches we had 11-12 inches in 24 hours causing extensive flooding and dam failures. The storm was to keep moving northward but ended up stalling over us. Now was it because of the lost kinetic energy and dew point change, its hard to say.
What part of "The effect is real, well-understood physics, and nowhere near large enough to affect regional or global climate" do you not understand?
What did the weatherman say? Or are you just using your "common sense" again?
WTF did I just read?
Which one causes more pollution: Windmills/wind turbines or coal power plants?
Hint: It's coal power plants.
Conversation over.
That is quite a cause/effect leap. Don’t you want some hard scientific evidence before making such a speculation?
Well, you can believe this, but it is a clear misrepresentation of my comment. Do yourself a favor and read the citations. There is a heating effect also present and both are due to mixing, not addition or subtraction of energy (Baidya Roy et al., 2010, pp. 17901–17902; Wu et al., 2021, pp. 844–850).
According to everything I’ve read, unless there are a staggeringly large number of turbines directly interacting with the same air mass, the cumulative atmospheric effect remains negligible (Tomaszewski & Lundquist, 2021; Wallace & Hobbs, 2006, pp. 362–368). Even a relatively small local storm contains enormous energy, and storm motion is governed primarily by steering winds aloft, not by near-surface friction or mixing (Wallace & Hobbs, 2006, pp. 8–11).
The documented cases of wind-farm interactions involve smaller, localized features (e.g., outflow boundaries), and the observed impacts are on the order of minutes, not hours (Tomaszewski & Lundquist, 2021).
One well-known observational/modeling study (Tomaszewski et al., 2021) found that a wind farm slowed a segment of an outflow boundary by >20 km h⁻¹, delaying surface wind, temperature, and moisture changes by up to ~6 minutes. The precipitation impacts were localized and transient, with no change to total rainfall accumulation across the model domain (Tomaszewski & Lundquist, 2021).
References (APA, with page specificity)
Baidya Roy, S., Pacala, S. W., & Walko, R. L. (2010). Can large wind farms affect local meteorology? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107 (42), 17899–17904, esp. pp. 17901–17902 .
Tomaszewski, J. M., & Lundquist, J. K. (2021). Observations and simulations of a wind farm modifying a thunderstorm outflow boundary . Wind Energy Science, 6 , 1–13.
Wallace, J. M., & Hobbs, P. V. (2006). Atmospheric science: An introductory survey (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
– Steering flow & synoptic-scale dynamics: pp. 8–11
– Atmospheric kinetic-energy budgets & circulation scales: pp. 362–368
Wu, S., Luo, T., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Observed impacts of wind farms on boundary-layer structure and surface temperature . Monthly Weather Review, 149 (3), 837–856, esp. pp. 844–850 .
The citations were added by AI.
Now, if you feel that I have misrepresented the science, by all means, post the scientific research articles and they will be evaluated.
TiG apparently already agreed by voting up my comment.
Something about using LED televisions to heat our cities?
/S
I have listened to bad weather reports my whole life. I have lived through hurricanes, earthquakes, landslides, a dam failure and a dozen flooding incidents in the first 50 years of my life before "Wind Turbines" were ever larger than a single 25 feet tall tripod and produced just enough power to keep a 1HP water pump running.
To blame the new wind farms for your experience with a scientific sounding argument just sounds silly.
Mercury in the air and slurry ponds in the creeks.
How about if we didn't attempt to harness 100% of the power of the Sun for one second. How about if we just attempted to harness only a teeny-weenie part of the Sun's power-- but instead of doing that for one second we did it most days for the entire day?
(Of course we would a name for that...hey I have an idea-- we could call it "Solar Power"! And I have another wild idea-- we could solar cell on roofs of buildings).
(How come no one ever though of tht before?)
Neither is Coal...or Gas..or OIl.
Perhaps that's fairly common on many social media sites . . ???
Of course fans heat the room..
Everybody knows that!
Which is why intelligent people only turn on room fans in the winter (to heat the room) and put the fans away in the hot summer because then they're not needed!
Yet OTOH, this is true of oil wells:
Oil wells significantly harm the environment by polluting air, water, and land, destroying habitats, and contributing to climate change through methane and greenhouse gas emissions, plus risks from spills, leaks, toxic chemicals, and extensive infrastructure development that fragments ecosystems .
Impacts include ecosystem damage from roads and pipelines, water contamination from wastewater, and threats to wildlife from habitat loss and pollution, affecting biodiversity and human health
Of course... civilized countries sort their trash... I recently seeded a video on the recycling of solar panels, which can now reach 99% efficiency.
Your EPA article is recent, and therefore not trustworthy. (That's such a terrible thing to say, but it's true.) Once again, if you want to know the truth, you must take more care in your choice of sources.
But the Sun charges us big bucks for the metals in the solar panels. And for the wages of people who manufacture them.
And ship them to uses.
And setting them up.
(and repairs if necessary).
TANSTAAFL!
There are those among us who will NEVER change their mind on any issue. They, like Trump, believe that they have all the answers, and lap at Trump's INSANITY!
I use Trump to establish my moral code. Anything he's for, l'm against.
[deleted][✘]
Yea, like backing the people that flew planes into buildings on 9/11.
Link?
You're kidding right? LOL
No. Show a link where Trump backs the ACTUAL people that flew planes into buildings on 9/11.
Honestly, I have never seen that.
you never will, and even if you did, you'd lamely disavow whatever it was and then maga-deflect ...
Thanks for admitting 5.2.3 was a lie.
19 of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis.
Who loves the Saudis more than his own people?
What the hell does that have to do with 5.2.3?
figure it out
OK so you don't even know what you meant
Got it
the eternal optimist ...
Of course they're all dead . . .
Well that definitely proves . . . what exactly?
That sounds like a bit of Zen Buddhism. (Sorta like "What is the sound of one hand clapping").
He can't back them-- they're all dead!
Good policy!
that's a safe bet every time ...
All Saudi's are dead? Holy shit.
That sounds like a bit of Zen Buddhism. (Sorta like "What is the sound of one hand clapping").
trump on the shitter in his bathroom at 4am ...