Research analysts at Morgan Stanley believe that renewable energy like solar and wind power are hurtling towards a level of ubiquity where not even politics can hinder them.
Except a lot of politics, at least until recently maybe, were HELPING to push this. But it was to the point that a lot of "renewable" energy companies wouldn't stay in buisness without the government holding their hand. The point is this isn't some conspiracy where if only the government wasn't in the way we'd be pure solar and wind by now.
Renewable energy is simply becoming the cheapest option, fast. Basic economics, the analysts say, suggest that the US will exceed its commitments in the Paris agreement regardless of whether or not president Donald Trump withdraws, as he’s stated he will.
This is so false I could almost laught until I cry.
Neither wind nor solar are anywhere close to being a viable replacement for oil and coal. and here are just a few reasons why
1. Solar and wind are highly dependant on weather conditions to operate but rarely if ever does it get close to 100% of their predicted efficency. You can look at charts of math claiming to put out power all you want but the reality is they tend to work far below predicted levels. Especially in areas that don't get good wind or sun for large chunks of the year.
2.The amount of space needed for solar and wind farms is no joke and even if we double or tripple efficiency the amount of land taken up by these things destroys more of the enviroment than any plant would.I'm not talking just a few hundred feel I'm talking spaces you could fit cities in being devoted to solar or wind farms.
3. Solar and wind power had a lot of hidden consequences to the enviroment. For example various toxic chemicals are used and produced while creating solar panels and these solar panels have a very limited life span. The worst part is when solar panels break most of it either isn't or can't by recycled so places like china just strip out the copper wire, junk the rest, and make more. As for wind farms those massive turbines create dead zones where no wind flows. This causes any bird that wanders into these zones to lose the wind they are pushing on to fly and they fall to their deaths. Meaning wind farms can be devastating to local wild life.
Again these are only a few issues. There are other more complicated stuff that I won't bother getting into.
BTW just to be clear I am not saying I am against the concept of renewable energy. I'm just saying don't buy into this pro renewable propoganda. Don't think renewable energy is some kind of pure cause to save the planet. most of the researchers and companies involved are in it for the money. Especially as long as the government keeps giving out money and tax breaks to anyone using "green energy".
The most laughable thing is this
“We project that by 2020, renewables will be the cheapest form of new-power generation across the globe,” with the exception of a few countries in Southeast Asia, the Morgan Stanley analysts said in a report published Thursday.
2020!?! At least try to make yourself sound believable to anyone who knows better! The level to which solar and wind are at are no where close to passing oil and coal in just three years!
And if you want proof on how solar isn't some kind of "magic" solution just waiting to be taped into look into the solar roadways fiasco. It highlight a lot of the short commings of solar power and three years is far from enough to overcomming all that.
In all honesty I hope the US withdraws from that paris farse thing. Creating innovations in technology to do something like reduce polution which we've struggled with for decades can't be forced into a schedule like that. It takes real time and effort as well as inspiration to innovate. Sure MAYBE we'll end up meeting the requirements. But maybe we won't or maybe we'll have to make major sacrifices that won't be worth the gain just to meet the agreement. So the idea of saying "yeah reduce emissions by this much in a few years" is really just an insult to science.
Stopped reading your post after the part where you said wind turbines stop wind and therefore make birds fall to their death. Try to get scientific info from somewhere other than Breitbart or Infowars please.
Wind turbines do stop normal flow of the wind. Many birds glide on wind currents and if that wind current goes into a wind farm then there is a good chance they can be hit with or almost get hit with one of the blades. When wind hits the turbine the flow of wind gets redirected around the turbines path, which also. causes the cooling of crops that help them grow.
The fact that your angry at Breitbart and Infowars about common science shows how little you know about the subject.
Out of curiosity, how is a bird impacting a turbine blade the same as falling to it's death? Secondly, wind farms do studies and make sure that there are no dead zones created from the turbines being spaced too close together, this would lessen the amount of energy harvested after all.
PS 2-3 times a year I drive past a very large wind farm on the Columbia River, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biglow_Canyon_Wind_Farm and have actually been on-site at a turbine for an unrelated matter. Dead zones are created from spacing the turbines too close together and wildlife impacts can be minimalized to levels far below the impact of coal or even natural gas power plants on a per MW comparison. Also, I'm not "angry" at Breitbart or Infowars, but do find it rather sad that so many people read the trash they publish and just assume it is fact, similar to some of the mainstream media stuff.
What is my Purpose? You pass butter. Oh my god.
That's good news and who wants to pay 45 dollars a month for electricity? screw fossil fuels for making people pay as much or more. I know I don't want to pay 45 bucks monthly for electricity.
finding time for charcoal drawing