Green energy, solar and wind are collapsing....it can't happen fast enough.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Solar, wind, geothermal.

But those aren't large scale or reliable.

 

[Hector12]

But those aren't large scale or reliable.

We need to make them large scale and reliable. Fossil fuels contribute to global warming. Nuclear reactors create nuclear wastes that are dangerous and remain dangerous for centuries.

Nuclear fusion rectors present a hopeful possibility. They do not produce nuclear waste. Their fuel is the most common element on earth, which is hydrogen. But they have not been developed yet.

Developing alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear reactors will need to be subsidized by the government before they are profitable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We need to make them large scale and reliable. Fossil fuels contribute to global warming. Nuclear reactors create nuclear wastes that are dangerous and remain dangerous for centuries.

Nuclear fusion rectors present a hopeful possibility. They do not produce nuclear waste. Their fuel is the most common element on earth, which is hydrogen. But they have not been developed yet.

Developing alternatives to fossil fuels and nuclear reactors will need to be subsidized by the government before they are profitable.

We need to make them large scale and reliable.

How do you make wind and solar reliable?

Nuclear reactors create nuclear wastes that are dangerous and remain dangerous for centuries.

Dangerous but easily managed. We need to stop CO2 quickly.
In the next few decades. Seems like nuclear is worthwhile.
Unless you don't like reliable energy?
What sort of backup do you suggest for your unreliable green energy?

Their fuel is the most common element on earth, which is hydrogen.

Actually, deuterium isn't all that common.

 

[Care4all]

We need to make them large scale and reliable.

How do you make wind and solar reliable?

Nuclear reactors create nuclear wastes that are dangerous and remain dangerous for centuries.

Dangerous but easily managed. We need to stop CO2 quickly.
In the next few decades. Seems like nuclear is worthwhile.
Unless you don't like reliable energy?
What sort of backup do you suggest for your unreliable green energy?

Their fuel is the most common element on earth, which is hydrogen.

Actually, deuterium isn't all that common.

Where does the nuclear waste go now?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Where dies the nuclear waste go now?

Stored on site.

It's killed around zero people in the last 70 years.

 

[Hector12]

We need to make them large scale and reliable.

How do you make wind and solar reliable?

Nuclear reactors create nuclear wastes that are dangerous and remain dangerous for centuries.

Dangerous but easily managed. We need to stop CO2 quickly.
In the next few decades. Seems like nuclear is worthwhile.
Unless you don't like reliable energy?
What sort of backup do you suggest for your unreliable green energy?

Their fuel is the most common element on earth, which is hydrogen.

Actually, deuterium isn't all that common.

Nothing that is dangerous for centuries is easily managed.

As a source of power, nuclear fusion has a number of potential advantages compared to fission. These include reduced radioactivity in operation, little high-level nuclear waste, ample fuel supplies, and increased safety.

Fusion power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Care4all]

Stored on site.

It's killed around zero people in the last 70 years.

The storage tanks are leaking and not meant for long term storage......

As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions

cen.acs.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing that is dangerous for centuries is easily managed.

As a source of power, nuclear fusion has a number of potential advantages compared to fission. These include reduced radioactivity in operation, little high-level nuclear waste, ample fuel supplies, and increased safety.

Fusion power - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We need to stop CO2 now. Or we're screwed. Right?
Use nuclear now, in 100 years when we get fusion, end nuclear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The storage tanks are leaking and not meant for long term storage......

As nuclear waste piles up, scientists seek the best long-term storage solutions

cen.acs.org

Well, Harry Reid was a twat.

 

[JBG]

Solar, wind, geothermal.

In other words, lockdown.

 

[the other mike]

The goal isn't to produce more, reliable, cheaper, efficient energy....the goal of the left is to limit access to energy to give them more control over the life choices we have....

Hopefully the scam of green energy will collapse at an accelerated rate...

Green Dreams Going Up In Smoke

Wind and solar are both terrible methods of generating electricity, both expensive and unreliable. The one thing that can make the situation worse is the drive to electrify everything, including mo…

www.powerlineblog.com

When American farmers start blocking the interstates and getting arrested Washington DC will see a REAL insurrection.

Before those critters can even say "cyber attacks from Iran or Russia"....or hide in the Vatican or Denver and start ww3

 

[JBG]

Green energy ain't working too well in cold. See Electric Car Owners Confront a Harsh Foe: Cold Weather. No pay wall on the linked article. Apparently, whether in Norway or Chicago mobility is linked to mild weather. How far do we want to roll back the Industrial Revolution?

 

[Mushroom]

Green energy ain't working too well in cold. See Electric Car Owners Confront a Harsh Foe: Cold Weather. No pay wall on the linked article. Apparently, whether in Norway or Chicago mobility is linked to mild weather. How far do we want to roll back the Industrial Revolution?

If I was to guess, most would be happy if it was to when Karl Marx was born.

 

[ReinyDays]

How far do we want to roll back the Industrial Revolution?

After 1796 ... we still want James Watt involving in beer brewing ... so stop the revolution anytime after that ...

 

[JBG]

After 1796 ... we still want James Watt involving in beer brewing ... so stop the revolution anytime after that ...

It's real hard not to use fuel when most of the world's population now lives in the temperate zone. Doing what the enviros want would lead to deindustrialization and depopulation.

 

[Mushroom]

Doing what the enviros want would lead to deindustrialization and depopulation.

Not even depopulation. It would require a population crash that takes us all the way back to the population levels of roughly 1800. In other words, around one billion people globally.

That is not a "depopulation", that is a population crash and close to an extinction level event. With 7 people out of 8 having to die. But that is something they refuse to ever recognize or acknowledge. That we have only achieved our current population because of industrialization. Remove it, and most of the humans on the plant will die.

Hell, it seems like every time I scan the news, I come across some article screaming about how something else is now raising the CO2 levels on the planet.

Nearly a quarter of the world’s wild-caught seafood is scooped up by bottom trawlers, fishing vessels that drag heavy nets over the seafloor. These boats fish the world over and support numerous global seafood supply chains. Yet critics have dogged them as environmentally unfriendly. Conservation experts say they can damage sensitive marine ecosystems, like deep-sea coral, and scoop up mobs of non-target species as bycatch. Research also suggests trawlers can disturb carbon deposits in seabed sediment, undermining the ocean’s ability to act as a carbon sink.

How much carbon does ocean trawling put into the atmosphere?

Nearly a quarter of the world’s wild-caught seafood is scooped up by bottom trawlers, fishing vessels that drag heavy nets over the seafloor. These boats fish the world over and support numerous global seafood supply chains. Yet critics have dogged them as environmentally unfriendly...

news.mongabay.com

So I guess we have to ban most forms of fishing as well as farming, livestock, and all the rest. Of course, they have no solutions but they still want to eliminate what they see as the problem. I just wonder how many are willing to sacrifice themselves as one of the 7 in 8 to die.

 

[Crick]

Not even depopulation. It would require a population crash that takes us all the way back to the population levels of roughly 1800. In other words, around one billion people globally.

That is not a "depopulation", that is a population crash and close to an extinction level event. With 7 people out of 8 having to die. But that is something they refuse to ever recognize or acknowledge. That we have only achieved our current population because of industrialization. Remove it, and most of the humans on the plant will die.

Hell, it seems like every time I scan the news, I come across some article screaming about how something else is now raising the CO2 levels on the planet.

How much carbon does ocean trawling put into the atmosphere?

Nearly a quarter of the world’s wild-caught seafood is scooped up by bottom trawlers, fishing vessels that drag heavy nets over the seafloor. These boats fish the world over and support numerous global seafood supply chains. Yet critics have dogged them as environmentally unfriendly...

news.mongabay.com

So I guess we have to ban most forms of fishing as well as farming, livestock, and all the rest. Of course, they have no solutions but they still want to eliminate what they see as the problem. I just wonder how many are willing to sacrifice themselves as one of the 7 in 8 to die.

Perhaps they "refuse to ever recognize or acknowledge" that because it simply isn't true. It doesn't require a population crash and that isn't their goal.

 

[ReinyDays]

It's real hard not to use fuel when most of the world's population now lives in the temperate zone. Doing what the enviros want would lead to deindustrialization and depopulation.

You're just now learning this? ...

Better ... tell us how large scale industry and runaway population growth is good for the natural environment? ... or is this some pathetic strawman argument ...

What's good for nature is BAD for your wallet ... what's good for humans is BAD for everything else ...

 

[Mushroom]

Better ... tell us how large scale industry and runaway population growth is good for the natural environment?

Want to hear a fact that you will more than likely not want to hear or recognize?

For the most part, "large scale industry" is better for the planet than what came before. Or what still goes on in less developed nations that do not have it.

Great example, just look at agriculture. In most of the developed world, they have maintained agricultural production on the same plots of land for a century or more. They know their land is a fixed and finite resource, so take great efforts to maintain it and keep it productive for future generations. Farmers rotate their crops, they put nutrients back into the soil, and do everything they can to ensure that it is productive this year, next year, and in 10, 50, or 100 years from now.

However, then look at such industry in other nations. Where slash and burn agriculture is still widely practiced, just as it was 200, 500, or 1,000 years ago or more. The land they are on has been destroyed by over farming and not taking care of it. So they abandon the now lifeless soil, cut down yet another area of forest, and repeat the process. Destroying yet more land and leaving behind nothing but waste.

And as technology has advanced, most industry in nations like the US now see it as their job to protect and restore the environment. Especially as that is how they actually make their money. A great example is the forestry industry. Most are not aware that they are actually responsible for over 40% of new trees every year. They plant far more trees than they even cut down, and that is nothing new. Most have been doing that for over a century now, because it is now viewed as essentially a long term agriculture process, like farming. Cut the trees in an area, plant new ones, and in a couple of decades you can return and repeat the process.

Yes, it was not always like that. But things have changed a hell of a lot in the last century and a quarter. And industry had to change and adopt, and stop simply extracting whatever they could in the US and moving on when the resources were gone. We are still repairing a lot of damage from the century and a half prior to that, but the improvements even by the 1970s were striking.

But the second part I find the most interesting. "Runaway population growth", what do we do about that? We have largely eliminated the two main causes of premature human deaths (disease and hunger), and the percent that die to the next largest cause (war) is a fraction of what it once was. So what do we do? Copy China, and forbid people from having kids? Globally?

Here is the amazing thing, the nations with the highest birth rates are almost always the most impoverished nations with the lowest rates of industrialization. Most of them have populations growing at an almost exponential rate, as in most women having between 4 and 7 children in their lifetime. The nations with the highest level of industrialization actually tend to have the lowest birthrates, generally only slightly more than their death rates. Some like Japan are even worried because they actually see their population shrinking and want to see it increased slightly.

So what do we do about the population growth? Force developing nations to sterilize women and forbid them from having kids? You point out a problem here, what is your solution?

 

[Hector12]

So what do we do about the population growth? Force developing nations to sterilize women and forbid them from having kids? You point out a problem here, what is your solution?

My solution is to deny third world countries foreign aid while keeping them out of first world countries.