Bumpyroad wrote:
pitch wrote:
I do not think that article is in the ballpark, let alone correct. That article was authored and published by people with an agenda.
all of these articles are produced by people "with an agenda". regardless of which side of the discussion they support. and seditious, you gotta be kidding.
bumpy
Yep, the problem with science is that one can cherry pick the data needed to support their view.
At my age I have seen the all the great new Eco friendly ways to create electricity.
Hydro was the big idea in the 30's to 50's, clean and reliable, created lakes for recreation, BUT without fish ladders killed off fish.
50's to 70's it was Nukes, Clean and safe, then came Three Mile Island, and the issue of storage of the spent fuel.
70's to 2000's cleaner fossil fuels, more efficient ways of burning coal, oil and natural gas.
2000's to present, wind and solar, we are faced with ugly fields of solar arrays and wind generation farms. Wind is have unexpected issues with the blades breaking down faster then expected, solar has the issue of disposing of old panels.
