And don’t forget they only last abt 20 yrs before they need replacing
I still can’t get my head around the fact that Michael Moore produced that film.
he’s the king of the global warming empire FFS
Talk abt the king has no clothes.
I feel another sum coming on …
Can a PV panel produce more electricity (in worth) than it cost to make it ?
I’ll be back with an answer in a bit.
I was pondering your previous suggestion about the Wind Turbine issue and how they affect birds of prey and on what color the blades should be painted. A lot of birds see a different light spectrum such as ultraviolet, so painting them Black or Purple not sure those colors would work.
A scientific person opined some years ago that ‘white’ is a bad choice. Presumably birds consider white objects in a similar classification as clouds, and therefore not a threat. That person mentioned purple. I cannot see why that or black is a poor choice since it would be visible against the sky as a background, and typical target birds would certainly be aware of dark objects coming out of the sky. Probably also true for predators at the top of the food chain.
IIRC the aforementioned person also said that the best colour for birds was also attractive for insects.
Guess you can’t win them all.
Economics of PV panels
If a panel generates 1kWh per day, on average, and that energy is costed at half the retail rate; the return against the one-off retail price of a panel over 20 years is approximately 700%.
So yes the PV panel easily pays for itself over 20 years.
One could argue that a commercial installation would not pay retail rates for panels, but a commercial installation would equally not receive anything like retail rates for electricity. So that 700% is probably a reasonable figure.
Interesting tidbits there Exodus. I never took a stance against alternative sources of energy, in fact I am fully am on board in this endeavour. The part of the movie that really irks me is this fraud being perpetrated by so called experts and supporters of saving the environment while pushing for Bio-Mass plants that is chopping down trees at unprecedented rates. This to me represents the greatest threat to our environment not fossil fuels. It’s trees that are vital to absorbing co2 emissions more than man himself and the movie does a good job of exposing this one salient fact.
Hmmm its almost if we where on track for an ice age in 10 thousand years but because of humans the opposite is happening.
What? You are basing your ice age argument on data based on less than 100 years? Sorry, but that is pretty funny!
correction- the next ice age was supposed to happen in 1500 years from now and I’m referring to scientist , not my self.
I am just going by what you provided as an argument. The last ice Age happened thousands of years ago, and didn’t suddenly appear as a phenomenon over night as it was gradual. Why that perspective is left out in any context of the lefts arguments when it comes to environmental issues is always a losing proposition that begs that question to be asked. If only such people can present any argument that is not partisan or intellectually dishonest then perhaps such dialogues on the issues can be productive.
The same scientists who said that by 2020 Glacier National Park wouldn’t have any more glaciers, no doubt
1 Like
All I am tryna say is Climate change is caused by humans and I also have no clue why this is a partisan issue when it was republicans who were the first to raise awareness about it until they realized it would hurt oil and natural gas industries.
1 Like
Retreat of Glaciers in Glacier National Park
1 Like
There is no supporting evidence that climate change is caused by humans, its merely a theory that is highly debatable to which world leading scientists have not agreed with. Republicans? Right! Here you are making it a partisan issue by putting forth such accusations based on hyperbole!
97% of scientist believe climate change is caused by humans and if that can’t convince you I wont waste my time trying to. And also say it was some how not caused by humans what do you have against green energy cause its not like all the pollutants from fossil fuels magically disappear.
I have done the research on this subject and that simply is not true. There are over 500 world leading scientist that disagree with this assertion and the fact you are trying to assert that as being true only reveals you own bias and intellectual dishonesty on the subject matter. If this was a cut and dry issue that is supported by scientific consensus then this wouldn’t even be an issue.
What I also find most amusing about your argument is that I am almost betting shit to shinola that you are also a hypocrite. How many household items are in your possession or you use that says “made in China?” The fact you even mention the word “Republican” means your focus is strictly American centric, when in fact America’s green house emissions have actually declined in recent years. Why is it then the same leftists are so willing to give China a pass on the green house emissions that they produce to which they lead the world in producing as such? Hmm? Care to answer that?
You entire argument here is not only grossly misinformed but built on a false pretense.
Professor Bob Carter, geologist
“Saying CO2 causes global warming is like saying lung cancer causes smoking.”
(There have been increases in CO2 after periods of warming in earth’s history)
ABC he is referring to is Australian Broadcasting Corporation
