Solar vs. Wind energy

Status
Not open for further replies.

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
Actually, I mentioned NOT putting things in the landfill. That means "not trash."
You said, "You do realize that in the 21st century, we don't put exotic metals in the landfill, right?" and LDC3 is challenging that assertion by pointing out that even if all of the laws prohibit exotic metals from being put in a landfill, that from a practical standpoint there is little to actually prevent it and plenty of avenues for it to end up there, including residential garbage collection.

It's like saying that because the law prohibits the disposal of CFLs in the trash that we don't need to consider the possibility of CFLs ending up in the landfill.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
You said, "You do realize that in the 21st century, we don't put exotic metals in the landfill, right?" and LDC3 is challenging that assertion by pointing out that even if all of the laws prohibit exotic metals from being put in a landfill, that from a practical standpoint there is little to actually prevent it and plenty of avenues for it to end up there, including residential garbage collection.

It's like saying that because the law prohibits the disposal of CFLs in the trash that we don't need to consider the possibility of CFLs ending up in the landfill.
That's baloney. Nobody challenged whether or not there are avenues for it to end up in a landfill. He asked about 'trash', which was clearly not what I referred to in my post. And I never said we don't need to consider what goes in the landfill. As we are discussing how to use solar energy in a proper and sustainable way, then what I wrote makes perfect sense to anyone with basic reading skills.

You might argue we aren't talking what's proper or sustainable, if so, there would be no need to discuss the topic at all. In other words, the very topic insinuates proper an correct methods of deploying the technology. Otherwise, it's stilly and useless.

Really, I don't need you to interpret my discussions for me, not now, not in the future.
 

WBahn

Joined Mar 31, 2012
29,976
That's baloney. Nobody challenged whether or not there are avenues for it to end up in a landfill. He asked about 'trash', which was clearly not what I referred to in my post. And I never said we don't need to consider what goes in the landfill. As we are discussing how to use solar energy in a proper and sustainable way, then what I wrote makes perfect sense to anyone with basic reading skills.
You might argue we aren't talking what's proper or sustainable, if so, there would be no need to discuss the topic at all. In other words, the very topic insinuates proper an correct methods of deploying the technology. Otherwise, it's stilly and useless.
Really, I don't need you to interpret my discussions for me, not now, not in the future.
You stated categorically that exotic metals are not put in landfills. It is that assertion that is baloney. If you want to only consider a fantasy world -- one in which merely talking about a topic assumes that everyone plays by the rules you want them to play by --then you should so state. If you are trying to talk about the real world but want to insist that the proper and correct methods of deploying the technology will be used, then you are right, that discussion is silly and useless.

And too bad. We all have to interpret what is said by others. You have certainly chosen to insert yourself into many discussions I have been involved in, so get over yourself.
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
You stated categorically that exotic metals are not put in landfills. It is that assertion that is baloney.
Go on pretending that every comment only has meaning in a strict literal sense, and the context, eg the post to which I was responding, has no meaning.

If you want to only consider a fantasy world -- one in which merely talking about a topic assumes that everyone plays by the rules you want them to play by --then you should so state.
Sorry you can't keep up. But considering you can't, you're not qualified to lecture me on what my posts means.

If you are trying to talk about the real world but want to insist that the proper and correct methods of deploying the technology will be used, then you are right, that discussion is silly and useless.
Proper and correct refers to my post, not what I insist on. But if you want to discuss improper and incorrect methods, go right ahead. Just leave me out of it.

And too bad. We all have to interpret what is said by others. You have certainly chosen to insert yourself into many discussions I have been involved in, so get over yourself.
Well I don't need you help to interpret what is being said. Nothing to get over.

In the past, I've responded to comments you made or questions you asked. I no longer do that.

Ok I'm through with this discussion. (with you, not the thread in general) Go ahead and make as many sarcastic comments as you please. You haven't impressed my yet, and little chance you will.
 
Last edited:

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
Whats more interesting than anything in this "Thread" the OP is none existent.

Thread starter and the "Troll" just sits and waits. Another energy almost thread to be deleted.

kv
 

Brownout

Joined Jan 10, 2012
2,390
I wouldn't delete it just because the OP is AWOL. There might still be something valuable in it for readers. I have been doing some reading ( as I always do when these topics come up ) So far, nothing to add to our body of work, this thread and others. But I might run across something, and if I do, I'll share.
 

killivolt

Joined Jan 10, 2010
835
I think I miss interpreted the OP; I just read his first "Thread" my apology's.

I believed this was targeted at another energy solution debate; that would lead nowhere.

kv
 
Last edited:

profbuxton

Joined Feb 21, 2014
421
Comment regarding the deadly (to birds) wind turbines. I have seen these turbines in action up close and I don't see how any bird could not easily avoid the blades. They rotate rather slowly compared to a birds flight speed and birds have excellent vision. I sure I could even dodge the blades if I were up that high. And the blades are speed limited. We are not talking about turbines as fitted to cars which do have rather high rotational speeds.
Some studies done in OZ have refuted all the claims about wind turbines causing death and destruction among our feathered friends and all sorts in induced illness in those living in the vicinity.
 

Georacer

Joined Nov 25, 2009
5,182
This thread has degenerated into a "Who said what" competition, which isn't very health discussion.
I hope after 3 pages the OP got some answers for his question. Otherwise, if he can PM a moderator to re-open this thread.

It's always hard to have the last word in an internet thread. Discussions usually last several days and interlocutors can hope to outlast the opponent by sleeping for the night.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top