No argument. Again, that's not what we were were talking about. The utility of energy sources, and the damage they do to wildlife and the environment are two different topics.
Discussion
Am reading your convo andI love your stamina and patience. Even with someone who refuses to be convinced. 😉
Here maybe this will help you be less retarded:
I have no x, sorry
There's no justification for being insulting Judy because someone doesn't agree with you. This was a civil debate until you engaged in this unnecessary personal attack. BTW, the moment you pivoted to ad hominens is the moment you lost the argument. Do better.
*just, not Judy lol
Look, you’re entrenched in your leftist ideas.
Your leftist ideas are also retarded.
Hence, you’re retarded.
I didn’t pivot, just called out your retardation.
Also, your retardation doesn’t change the fact that your argument is retarded.
That type of thinking is, wait for it, retarded.
Look, you’re entrenched in your rightist ideas.
Your rightist ideas are also retarded.
Hence, you’re retarded.
I didn’t pivot, just called out your retardation.
Also, your retardation doesn’t change the fact that your argument is retarded.
That type of thinking is, wait for it, retarded.
---
Look what happened, your argument can be completely reversed, thus rendering it invalid as a argument in the first place. Bye, sleep well and have a nice life
Posted for those that won’t click on links:
I'm still amazed at how the unicorn fart theory of energy production people simply will not accept reality. Energy density, transmission, storage, none of it will penetrate their skulls. The convos tend to go like this:
Solar and wind produce intermittently and we have no storage capacity for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
BUT FREE AND RENEWABLE ENERGY WILL SAVE GAIA!
Exactly how will people be able to heat/cool their homes, refrigerate/cook their food without electricity?
THE PLANET IS BOILING AND WE MUST SAVE IT.
Even if every car were magically to become electric overnight, the grid would not be able to generate/transmit enough power to charge those vehicles. Rolling blackouts would become common and substation and other components would start to fail more frequently as they became overworked/overheated/overloaded.
THE GRID WILL DO WHATEVER ITS GOING TO DO WE MUST STOP BURNING FOSSIL FUELS WITHIN DAYS TO SAVE THE PLANET.
=============================
If we revamped our entire economy to start building solar panels/farms and wind turbines/farms, it would take us 25-30 years to be able to generate the electricity we need NOW. For the record, it seems unlikely that our energy needs will decrease during that time. And by that time, the solar panels put online today would need replacing. Which brings me to another point: exactly where are we going to get the solar panels? China? The amount needed will be staggering and you should know that the manufacture of said panels requires a lot of rare earth materials. And they aren't called "rare" ironically. This completely ignores the concrete, steel, and other equipment needed for generation and transmission. Also, for this to work, some magical storage mechanism that can be mass produced, cheaply and quickly, will have to be handwaved into existence.
I really wish there were some easy answers. There aren't. There are only tradeoffs until/unless we get some brand new energy breakthrough like, say, fusion, which has been only 10-15 years away for the last 50 years or so. People should accept this reality.
Why yes, I am pro-nuclear. Duh. And yes, I think the SMRs and advanced reactors, especially breeders, are the answer. Or maybe thorium reactors because that would mean that we would have enough energy for probably a thousand years or more. Oddly, many of the unicorn fart generation people oppose nuclear. I do see that changing now somewhat and hopefully that change will continue. Or it won't and the insane screeching will never end.
No one was claiming solar is the only solution, but it significantly reduce the need for fossil generated electricity. Nuclear also has serious downsides for future generations AND new reactors are powers more expensive than budgetted, while wind and especially solar can be produced relatively cheap if compared per MWh. In Dutch: https://decorrespondent.nl/15355/kernenergie-niet-nodig-niet-slim-en-niet-te-betalen/a95a368a-57e8-0a02-3771-a37846ed2fba
Nonsense all around.
Wind and solar are easily destroyed, can’t run all the time, backup power is insanely expensive.
I think there's a lot of fossil fuel energy required in the set up and maintenance of renewable energy projects as well. I could be wrong, but I think these projects typically require tax funds being appropriated to them to remain above board ,(i.e. they rarely if ever become profitable on their own). The exception may be nuclear. Small nuclear facilities may have a chance to augment fossil fuels. In the end, we are dependent on fossil fuels fir the time being and most renewable projects should be considered setbacks, as they waste funds and contribute little.
In the article from de correspondent i just posted this all addressed and debunked, only it's in Dutch
All right, suit yourself.