Wheres Chuck?

NW Sask is where they should be
Wont say anymore
FWIW the only person i have ever blocked is that whacked out glyphosate crusader, in response to the earlier post about blocking people or things
A neighbor here put up panels and said w/o the subsidy now they need 60 years to pay for themselves

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Quote Originally Posted by caseih View Post
I bet there are no solar panels there
Someone i know is going to check next time he is by there
These libtards dont usually like spending their own money

"The UK set a new solar power record on 20 April after solar farms generated more than 9.6GW of electricity for the first time."

Now I am confused. CaseIH says he will get someone to check if Chucks solar panels are real, and you respond with UK's solar output on April 20th. When did you move to UK, and what portion of the 9.6 GW is from your own panels?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

The economics of wind and solar are already better than new coal and gas in many places. They cant provide all our electricity needs, but matched with hydro and cleaner fossil fuels and technology they go along way to reducing emissions and reducing pollution.
.

Remember all the fun times you made this claim, and I challenged you to find a real world example of where adding wind and solar did not disproportionately raise electricity prices, and you failed to find even a single example that wasn't future tense? I won't bother asking again.

At least you are learning how to make posts that aren't so easily refuted, I see you now differentiate between pollution and emissions. By which I assume you mean actual harmful particulate pollutants, vs. vital harmless, colorless, odorless CO2. Well done, perhaps you can help our dear leader understand the difference too.

[chuckChuck]

The economics of wind and solar are already better than new coal and gas in many places. They cant provide all our electricity needs, but matched with hydro and cleaner fossil fuels and technology they go along way to reducing emissions and reducing pollution.

Resource extraction for materials is still a problem and has environmental risks. This is evolving technology and improvements in reducing environmental impacts is ongoing.

Nuclear may be an option but it is still relatively very expensive.

[jazz]

There are only 2 energy sources worth pursuing for grid supplied power, fission and fusion. We have one of those figured out.

The only energy source worth pursuing for transportation is hydrogen which will come from fossil fuels anyway.

Everything else is a virtue signalling expensive waste of time.

And now that the world has been shut down, we can see the real problems. Overuse of energy to feed a globalization scam. And the total lack of coverage about the real pollutants in our cities, NOx SOx and particulates.

Someone pitches a initiative to reduce those pollutants and everyone would be on board.

[sumdumguy]

Another is to stop the billions in subsidies for mature technology like oil, gas, coal. Also use that money to research new products. We have so much cheap energy, how delinquent is it of us not to use it to figure out new forms of renewable energy - because oil, gas, coal are definitely non-renewable.[/QUOTE]


Wd - research has been on-going but the fact is coal, oil, nat gas is the best dependable, safe storage of energy known to man at this time. In time, there will be viable alternatives but sun and wind don’t meet the criteria of dependable (proven over and over again in test trials and actual application). Why beat a dead horse?

[wd9]

I am fond of solutions - not continually re-stating the problem over and over. So we do nothing then?

Just assume our generation is good with oil and leave it to the generations to solve what to do when oil is close to running out?

Perhaps the first step is transparency on the efficiency of technology like solar and wind. It's full life cycle costs of energy. The worst thing you can do is bring out technology that actually uses more energy then it puts out - but the flip side is how do you research without starting at least.

It would seem subsidies for industries to "build a business and compete" would be far better spent on research to actually create a product that can be brought to market that can compete on its own.

Another is to stop the billions in subsidies for mature technology like oil, gas, coal. Also use that money to research new products. We have so much cheap energy, how delinquent is it of us not to use it to figure out new forms of renewable energy - because oil, gas, coal are definitely non-renewable.

[FarmJunkie]

Take away the sun then u have climate change. Pretty sure we will pay for that to.

[chuckChuck]

A5 Are you are regressing to insults and climate change denial rhetoric absent any scientific proof that climate change isn't occurring or that greenhouse effect isn't scientific fact?

"thinking they are saving the world from plant food." LMAO

Did you really study engineering? LOL

[foragefarmer]

Over 6000 views on a thread titled "Where's Chuck". I would say by far Chuck garners the most interest of any poster on Agriville and when he doesn't post for a day or two the search party goes out calling for him.

Turns out that all the name calling and threats about activating the Ignore Button regarding Chuck's posts were nothing more than B.S.

So Chuck just keep posting your opinions, as we all have different views and ideas! Freedom of speech makes Agriville the Farmer Chat line going.

Disclaimer., I do not know who Chuck is and never met him or even know where he lives. I read his posts and take what I want out of them and leave the rest.