Renewables are useless: The Evidence is Overwhelming

Milagro said:
Thingy, I like you but you're a stubborn son of a bitch sometimes. I posted that link about there being no equivalent of Moore's Law in energy production and indeed Google themselves, who were heavily into solar power, have decided that it is a technological dead end.
Click to expand...

You're mischaracterizing Google's position, and even if they were as definitive as you say, I wouldn't be that persuaded. There were entities that were just as big & powerful who saw no future in TV, pc's or the internet.
 
It's ridiculous that you're so ready to go to the mat on this. What is it about renewables that you oppose? Our investment is pretty paltry. Is it because you see them as some sort of "hippie" thing?

They're the future. Deal with it.
 
Thing1 said:
It's ridiculous that you're so ready to go to the mat on this. What is it about renewables that you oppose? Our investment is pretty paltry. Is it because you see them as some sort of "hippie" thing?

They're the future. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I oppose them because they don't make economic sense, it's as simple as that.
 
Celticguy said:
Renewable is not technology.
Turning corn into gas is renewable.
The reason fossil fuel is much more efficient is its had thousands of years to distill itself.
Solar came into being before pcs were made. They got better, solar, not so much.
Click to expand...

This is complete and utter bullshit.
Photo-voltiac effineicies has been growing by leaps and bounds,
just surpassed 40% and is a few years away from 45%.

Your outright lie is dismissed.
 
Milagro said:
Google proved that when you take into account the whole energy life cycle of renewables like wind turbines then they actually use more energy than they produce. It is a complex argument which is why the treehuggers like Rune have difficulty understanding it.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
Click to expand...

Hey retard; solar panels have yet to stop working.
It is cheaper to install off grid solar than to put up two electric poles.
Your argument is bunk.
 
Thing1 said:
Like I said - paltry investment overall.

If you're really concerned about the budget, there are about 1,500 other items that you should put higher on the list.
Click to expand...

That depends upon where one lives.
The cost of energy varries by region.
 
Milagro said:
Google proved that renewables are untenable and they've put their money where their mouth is, unlike Scientific American.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Google proved it was an untenable business model for Google.
Did you even read the article?
"If we were to convert all means of production including all forms of transportation and heat....
Right. The grid couldn't handle that but no one is proposing that.
All forms of production can't be efficiently switched to electricity.
All forms of transportation shouldn't be electric, it wouldn't be practical or possible.
Laughingly, especially all forms of heat shouldn't be electric.
Co-generation, passive and active solar and geo-thermal are being totally ignored by this model.
In northern New England a form of superinsulated houses with no heat input other than body and appliance waste heat are very popular.
Like most of the bullshit you post, the study is simply incorrect.
Proof of such is the fact the solar panels don't stop producing so there is no built in endgame.
How can something cost more energy to make than it can create if it doesn't stop producing?
 
Rune said:
Wrong.
Google proved it was an untenable business model for Google.
Did you even read the article?
"If we were to convert all means of production including all forms of transportation and heat....
Right. The grid couldn't handle that but no one is proposing that.
All forms of production can't be efficiently switched to electricity.
All forms of transportation shouldn't be electric, it wouldn't be practical or possible.
Laughingly, especially all forms of heat shouldn't be electric.
Co-generation, passive and active solar and geo-thermal are being totally ignored by this model.
In northern New England a form of superinsulated houses with no heat input other than body and appliance waste heat are very popular.
Like most of the bullshit you post, the study is simply incorrect.
Proof of such is the fact the solar panels don't stop producing so there is no built in endgame.
How can something cost more energy to make than it can create if it doesn't stop producing?
Click to expand...

Somebody needs to tell this clown that Google invested $168 million in the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility!! Geothermal power does have merit in that it is dispatchable and cheap to run. However I am surprised that the treehuggers haven't got on their case as they have with fracking, I wonder why not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top