Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The biggest difference between fossil fuels/nuclear versus solar, wind and lithium ion batteries is energy density.Does it hurt your back to stretch that far? It takes materials and energy to build fossil-fuel equipment as well. Then it requires FUEL. If you don't think that makes an enormous difference in the two technologies, you're either deluded or disingenuous.
I wasn't comparing materials I was educating you to the fact that so-called 'renewable' energy requires just as much, if not more, energy to produce the infrastructure needed to make it at least functional. Also, it is not 'renewable' in any sense. It will need to be replaced. In fact, fossil fuel byproducts are used in solar panels and wind mills. The big difference, and what you deny, is that petroleum provides more energy per unit as compared to solar or wind.Does it hurt your back to stretch that far? It takes materials and energy to build fossil-fuel equipment as well. Then it requires FUEL. If you don't think that makes an enormous difference in the two technologies, you're either deluded or disingenuous.
Lithium storage would not be feasible for a (for instance) huge 12,000 sq. km. wind farm. What would be needed is to store energy in the form of mega-hydrogen storage facilities.The biggest difference between fossil fuels/nuclear versus solar, wind and lithium ion batteries is energy density.
Just the oil and gas industry alone produces 32 billion barrels of oil and 3.85 trillion cubic meters of gas per year. That's a shitload of high density energy that's needed to be replaced by low density energy technology. I don't believe anyone has thought this through.
I agree but that's what they will need to do to be the stand alone power providers that they "aim" to be.Lithium storage would not be feasible for a (for instance) huge 12,000 sq. km. wind farm. What would be needed is to store energy in the form of mega-hydrogen storage facilities.
I don't think wind and solar are viable for stand alone power even with the storage. Just think of the large swaths of land that will be negatively impacted by huge solar arrays and wind turbine farms. All that land suddenly becomes un-useable. It could be millions of square miles. Simply, the technology is not yet here. All this predicated on the false science of human caused climate change and something called a 'consensus' which is the furthest thing from scientific principle you can find.I agree but that's what they will need to do to be the stand alone power providers that they "aim" to be.
Plus they will need to replace ICE vehicles so they will need lithium for that too.
It's a staggering number.
How is land negatively impacted by wind turbines? Obviously it gets shaded by PV panels, but there are the land itself is undamaged and there are crops that will grow in shaded conditions. It's certain less affected than by coal mines. And where you ever got the idea that YOU have the intellectual wherewithal to challenge the tens of thousands of degreed, published, PhD scientists whose work has led us to our understanding of AGW is a mystery that won't be solved.I don't think wind and solar are viable for stand alone power even with the storage. Just think of the large swaths of land that will be negatively impacted by huge solar arrays and wind turbine farms. All that land suddenly becomes un-useable. It could be millions of square miles. Simply, the technology is not yet here. All this predicated on the false science of human caused climate change and something called a 'consensus' which is the furthest thing from scientific principle you can find.
No one will be tilling anywhere near a solar array. The dust alone would be prohibitive. There are thousands of degreed scientists that don’t agree with the ‘consensus.’ Humans cannot control global climate. There has been no experiment yet proving the hypothesis.How is land negatively impacted by wind turbines? Obviously it gets shaded by PV panels, but there are the land itself is undamaged and there are crops that will grow in shaded conditions. It's certain less affected than by coal mines. And where you ever got the idea that YOU have the intellectual wherewithal to challenge the tens of thousands of degreed, published, PhD scientists whose work has led us to our understanding of AGW is a mystery that won't be solved.
The vast majority of published climate studies accept or support the conclusions of the IPCC. Not surprising since that is what the conclusions of the IPCC are based on. Humans cannot control climate, else we would have ended global warming. But out emissions have obviously affected it. And mountains of experiments, studies and observations support AGW.No one will be tilling anywhere near a solar array. The dust alone would be prohibitive. There are thousands of degreed scientists that don’t agree with the ‘consensus.’ Humans cannot control global climate. There has been no experiment yet proving the hypothesis.
There is simply no scientific proof of that. The IPCC is political and only thrives on the AGW lie. Idiots fall for it.The vast majority of published climate studies accept or support the conclusions of the IPCC. Not surprising since that is what the conclusions of the IPCC are based on. Humans cannot control climate, else we would have ended global warming. But out emissions have obviously affected it. And mountains of experiments, studies and observations support AGW.
There is simply no scientific proof of that. The IPCC is political and only thrives on the AGW lie. Idiots fall for it.
If it was ‘actual science’ it would include the results of experiments where they were successful in manipulating global climate.That is wrong on every count. I suggest you review "The Physical Science Basis" from the IPCC's AR 5 and the upcoming AR6 if you'd like to see some actual science.
Yes, green in some respects, but is it the green that will be chosen for the long run? Some countries have already found the way around the need for nuclear and are quite resigned to resisting the temptation.
And in fact, we should be able to imagine that the war in Ukraine is now being fought for the main purpose of the world's remaining dependence on petroleum based energy and not accepting nuclear. The US one of the best examples, so far at least.
A discussion on the pros and cons of nuclear would be useful, if this thread was actually created for that purpose?
Nope. Tha isn't science. It's propaganda.That is wrong on every count. I suggest you review "The Physical Science Basis" from the IPCC's AR 5 and the upcoming AR6 if you'd like to see some actual science.
BULLSHIT. Look at the reference list for that document: dozens and dozens and dozens of peer reviewed studies from refereed science journals. YOU'RE the one putting out propaganda. There's a reason we "warmists" have no problem giving links to published studies supporting the points we make and you and yours give us articles from WUWT or worse; that reason being that you do NOT have any science behind your nonsensical positions. That YOU are putting out unsupported lies and propaganda.Nope. Tha isn't science. It's propaganda.
BULLSHIT. Look at the reference list for that document: dozens and dozens and dozens of peer reviewed studies from refereed science journals. YOU'RE the one putting out propaganda. There's a reason we "warmists" have no problem giving links to published studies supporting the points we make and you and yours give us articles from WUWT or worse; that reason being that you do NOT have any science behind your nonsensical positions. That YOU are putting out unsupported lies and propaganda. The fossil fuel industry realized long ago that arch conservatives were the perfect useful idiots for their cause - that they could convince you that AGW was a political issue and that saving the fossil fuel industry despite the threat they've created to you and yours was your patriotic duty. And you're bitter political beliefs combined with your abysmal science knowledge left you wide open for the case they made.
BULLSHIT. Look at the reference list for that document: dozens and dozens and dozens of peer reviewed studies from refereed science journals.
YOU'RE the one putting out propaganda. There's a reason we "warmists" have no problem giving links to published studies supporting the points we make and you and yours give us articles from WUWT or worse; that reason being that you do NOT have any science behind your nonsensical positions. That YOU are putting out unsupported lies and propaganda.
What part of that insupportable, completely out of hand, blanket rejection can't be exactly as accurately applied to the nonsense YOU'RE trying to use as a reference source. Well, I suppose you'd have to pass on the peer reviewed comments since none of your sources ever get checked by anyone prior to publishing. And you think your sources don't know each other? Considering their constitute about one one-thousandth the number of mainstream scientists who accept AGW, it'd be a hell of a lot easier for them to be conspiring with each other to pass bullshit off on fools like you.That's an old trick. Every Marxist "economist" can produce a book with thousands of sites that proves the laws of demand and supply are invalid. All these books are pure propaganda.
They aren't "peer" reviewed. They are pal reviewed. All the so-called "peers" belong to a small click of people who are all friends with each other. They spend their days reviewing each other's papers and confirming the accepted dogma.
Yes, we know you have no trouble giving links to your propaganda. That's why it exists, so you can pretend there is something credible about it. In the end it's nothing but a great big appeal to authority - a logical fallacy. A theory isn't proven right because some blowhard reviewed some paper. Logic and the facts are what prove it right, and you have got nothing but phoney homogenized data and blowhard "climate scientists.
