Largest Wind Farm Built At Once In North America Now Running In Oklahoma

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Profreedomokie

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
6,440
Reaction score
10,579
Location
Ponca City,OK.
I did not even notice a link but I do agree that modern nuclear is the best bet. Especially if they keep pushing electric cars. That will be the only way to produce enough power to run them. Wind and solar will never do it. I am wondering about the new air independent hydrogen engines they are putting in modern subs. Could they be a source of clean, reliable energy?
Even if there was enough power to charge millions of EVs ,the power grid can't handle it.
 

Snattlerake

Conservitum Americum
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
20,695
Reaction score
32,282
Location
OKC
“More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.

Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.

source: Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought
What a bunch of eggheaded fools attempting to make themselves more important all while bilking monies from endowments and grants to perform unnecessary inaccurate research on a problem that does not exist.


In other words,

This is pure bullsh*t.

Thanks, @Slim Deal!
 

chuter

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
5,322
Reaction score
7,742
Location
over yonder
“More than 8 million people died in 2018 from fossil fuel pollution, significantly higher than previous research suggested, according to new research from Harvard University, in collaboration with the University of Birmingham, the University of Leicester and University College London. Researchers estimated that exposure to particulate matter from fossil fuel emissions accounted for 18 percent of total global deaths in 2018 — a little less than 1 out of 5.

Regions with the highest concentrations of fossil fuel-related air pollution — including Eastern North America, Europe, and South-East Asia — have the highest rates of mortality, according to the study published in the journal Environmental Research.

source: Deaths from fossil fuel emissions higher than previously thought
That must come from the same folks that figured covid deaths.
 

HiredHand

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
6,359
Reaction score
2,743
Location
Tulsa Metro
What a bunch of eggheaded fools attempting to make themselves more important all while bilking monies from endowments and grants to perform unnecessary inaccurate research on a problem that does not exist.


In other words,

This is pure bullsh*t.

Thanks, @Slim Deal!
There it is! I love it when you all resort to fallacies.
 

HiredHand

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
6,359
Reaction score
2,743
Location
Tulsa Metro
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christ...ort-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/
“Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. “
 

cowadle

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
3,454
Reaction score
4,608
Location
not available
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christ...ort-tallies-up-the-carbon-cost-of-renewables/
“Good news: amortizing the carbon cost over the decades-long lifespan of the equipment, Bernstein determined that wind power has a carbon footprint 99% less than coal-fired power plants, 98% less than natural gas, and a surprise 75% less than solar. More specifically, they figure that wind turbines average just 11 grams of CO2 emission per kilowatthour of electricity generated. That compares with 44 g/kwh for solar, 450 g for natural gas, and a whopping 1,000 g for coal.

But beating them all is the original large-scale zero-carbon power source, nuclear power, at 9 g/kwh.

Thanks to technology, these stats aren’t static. Offshore wind turbines are becoming enormous, with General Electric’s GE -2.9% Haliade X featuring blades 360 feet long and generating 14 megawatts. The carbon footprint of such monsters could get as low as 6 g/kwh. “
wind turbines don't last very long
 

Snattlerake

Conservitum Americum
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
20,695
Reaction score
32,282
Location
OKC
100% this.

You are being manipulated.
More like led.

1650749399456.png
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom