In spite of Trump's efforts, 92% of new generation in the US last year was solar.

[Anomalism]

Which thread ?
I'm requesting plural, as for all your statements you want us to take as fact when not documented/proven.

In my main thread, which as far as I can see is the only time you asked for a specific source. Maybe I missed another post. Let me know what else needs to be sourced.

Do I need to source gravity and other uncontroversial science as well?

 

[luiza]

92% of new generation in the US last year was solar.​

Wow .
Never realised .
When did they officially give up on the normal procreation method ?
How exactly do the Sun's rays manage the task?
Are Quantum computers involved?

 

[Stryder50]

In my main thread, which as far as I can see is the only time you asked for a specific source. Maybe I missed another post. Let me know what else needs to be sourced.

Do I need to source gravity and other uncontroversial science as well?

I'm not interested in "following" you, so what is your main thread ?
Other posters who have responded to you and included sources cited, data excerpts quoted, graphs, charts, etc. should give you a clue to usual procedure, how to do it.

If you make controversial science claims, then back them up.
Note that consensus OPINIONS are not science.
Note that coincidence is not correlation or connection.
Above applies especially to the pseudo-science of CO2 as cause of ACC/AGW.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

We need more gas infrastructure capacity and nukes

We have all the natural gas we could ever need in this country it should be utilized

 

[Anomalism]

I'm not interested in "following" you, so what is your main thread ?

The one with over 500 posts that you've been posting in for days, obviously.

Other posters who have responded to you and included sources cited, data excerpts quoted, graphs, charts, etc. should give you a clue to usual procedure, how to do it.

If you make controversial science claims, then back them up.
Note that consensus OPINIONS are not science.
Note that coincidence is not correlation or connection.
Above applies especially to the pseudo-science of CO2 as cause of ACC/AGW.

Point to any specific claim and I’ll provide the data, the papers, and the measurements that support it.

You can give me a list if you want. I just need a request that's actually actionable, not vague nonsense about sourcing every word I've said in a week of debating, across hundreds of replies and multiple threads. But that's exactly what you're not going to give me, because you know I'll deliver.

 

[Stryder50]

The one with over 500 posts that you've been posting in for days, obviously.

Point to any specific claim and I’ll provide the data, the papers, and the measurements that support it.

You can give me a list if you want. I just need a request that's actually actionable, not vague nonsense about sourcing every word I've said in a week of debating, across hundreds of replies and multiple threads. But that's exactly what you're not going to give me, because you know I'll deliver.

Actually I'm fed up with dealing with your dodging and phony posts that you can't/won't support or provide valid proof for.
If you had the brains and concern you fake, you'd have known to do such citing from the start, exactly as shown by most others who have also responded to you.

Ramble on all the lies and pseudo-science you want, I'm not wasting any more time on a troll and attention seeker like you.

 

[Anomalism]

Actually I'm fed up with dealing with your dodging and phony posts that you can't/won't support or provide valid proof for.
If you had the brains and concern you fake, you'd have known to do such citing from the start, exactly as shown by most others who have also responded to you.

Ramble on all the lies and pseudo-science you want, I'm not wasting any more time on a troll and attention seeker like you.

You’ve proven me right. You can’t point to a single claim you think is wrong. You can’t engage with actual evidence, and now you’re retreating behind insults and accusations. That’s the hallmark of someone backed into a corner. Noise and dismissal replace argument.

I’ve repeatedly offered to provide the data, the papers, the measurements, every claim I’ve made can be sourced. The only thing you’ve delivered is frustration and bluster. If your goal was science, you’d ask for specifics. Instead, you’re waving your hands and crying troll, because confrontation with real evidence isn’t part of your agenda.

 

[Stryder50]

You’ve proven me right. You can’t point to a single claim you think is wrong. You can’t engage with actual evidence, and now you’re retreating behind insults and accusations. That’s the hallmark of someone backed into a corner. Noise and dismissal replace argument.

I’ve repeatedly offered to provide the data, the papers, the measurements, every claim I’ve made can be sourced. The only thing you’ve delivered is frustration and bluster. If your goal was science, you’d ask for specifics. Instead, you’re waving your hands and crying troll, because confrontation with real evidence isn’t part of your agenda.

Post #125 here, clown;

Antarctica has grown ice for more than 2.7 million years, disproving "interglacials" completely​

 

[Anomalism]

Post #125 here, clown;

Antarctica has grown ice for more than 2.7 million years, disproving "interglacials" completely​

I answered that post, but it doesn't specify a claim you'd like sourced. You'll have to let me know specifically which part of what I said you need sourced and explained to you.

By the way, didn't you just rage quit? Back already? Lol

 

[SaxonJackson]

Solar and wind, the quickest to install, the least costly to build and maintain, racked up 92% of new generation in the US last year. And now battery storage has also plunged in price, and is considered an essential part of solar installations.

"For all the turbulence in Washington, the capacity figures tell a different story. Let me start with the numbers that clean energy analysts highlight: During a year full of headline grabbing destruction of U.S. clean energy policy, renewables still led new power additions, a trend detailed in an assessment that begins, “Let’s start with the numbers,” and notes that During Trump’s latest push against climate policy, renewables still expanded. One analysis of grid data found that 92% of all new electricity capacity added in the US was solar, with Trump’s efforts to slow the sector only making it more expensive for America to cling to older fuels."

MSN

Goody. This is great news for our bird friends. And they're so environment friendly too:

 

[Anomalism]

Goody. This is great news for our bird friends. And they're so environment friendly too:

View attachment 1218904
View attachment 1218907
View attachment 1218909
View attachment 1218910

Modern wind turbines convert about 35-50% of wind energy into electricity under ideal conditions, and that drops a lot if the wind isn’t steady. You also run into intermittency issues, maintenance headaches, and lifespan limits. Blades only last 20-25 years and the mechanical systems are stressed constantly. There are literally graveyards of these things, broken down and abandoned.

Wind ain't it.

That being said, solar and nuclear are very promising. Solar improves every year across multiple dimensions while wind turbines rot in fields.

 

[Hafar1014]

In my main thread, which as far as I can see is the only time you asked for a specific source. Maybe I missed another post. Let me know what else needs to be sourced.

Do I need to source gravity and other uncontroversial science as well?

States that have the most solar have higher energy costs and nations that have the most renewable energy also have higher costs.

 

[Anomalism]

States that have the most solar have higher energy costs and nations that have the most renewable energy also have higher costs.

Yeah, that's because it's expensive. Wind turbines in particular are trash. Solar improves every year though. Eventually it'll be a very powerful technology. For now, we should be focusing on nuclear while we develop solar more.

 

[Hafar1014]

Yeah, that's because it's expensive. Wind turbines in particular are trash. Solar improves every year though. Eventually it'll be a very powerful technology. For now, we should be focusing on nuclear while we develop solar more.

Solar will never work on a large scale until the sun shines at night

 

[Anomalism]

Solar will never work on a large scale until the sun shines at night

I disagree. With improved storage and even better panels (who knows how good they will be in 20 years?), I think people will be shocked.

 

[Hafar1014]

I disagree. With improved storage and even better panels (who knows how good they will be in 20 years?), I think people will be shocked.

We will have nuclear in 5-10 years, cleaner better lower cost and reliable and it works at night without toxic expensive batteries that last 10 years

 

[SaxonJackson]

Modern wind turbines convert about 35-50% of wind energy into electricity under ideal conditions, and that drops a lot if the wind isn’t steady. You also run into intermittency issues, maintenance headaches, and lifespan limits. Blades only last 20-25 years and the mechanical systems are stressed constantly. There are literally graveyards of these things, broken down and abandoned.

Wind ain't it.

That being said, solar and nuclear are very promising. Solar improves every year across multiple dimensions while wind turbines rot in fields.

Nuclear is the best option. Solar takes it's share of regular maintenance and I've read that they can burn birds to death mid-flight.

 

[Anomalism]

Nuclear is the best option. Solar takes it's share of regular maintenance and I've read that they can burn birds to death mid-flight.

I think you're underestimating solar's upward momentum, but we're mostly in alignment on this.

 

[Hafar1014]

Nuclear is the best option. Solar takes it's share of regular maintenance and I've read that they can burn birds to death mid-flight.

We can also repurpose old reactors from retired submarines and carriers. They are very much like the modular reactors.

 

[Anomalism]

We can also repurpose old reactors from retired submarines and carriers. They are very much like the modular reactors.

Does that create ideal conditions, or is it just an option?