Renewables are useless: The Evidence is Overwhelming
- Thread starter cancel2 2022
- Start date
"
Ever heard of NASA retard?
Wasted a lot of your tax dollarsthere to.
Ever heard of subsidies for oil companies?
You don't actually believe gas costs the same as a gallon of water do you?
Now and then I get pissed off about the oligarchy running this place and then a dumbass like you makes it clear why we actually need elitists in charge.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Absolutely, ever been to a rail yard? We currently have electric motors and vehicles that can tow far more than 10,000 lbs. that's not the limiting factor though. Infrastructure to supply electricity for vehicles from point of generation to point of service is the problem.
You also then have the issue of how the electricity is ultimately generated. If it's from coal, then by mass balance calculation you really haven't made significant gains in pollution prevention. If that were the case why would you disrupt the current infrastructure for another with all the disruption that would cause?
This is where Toms argument falls apart in that he's condemning developing technologies over issues such as infrastructure, logistics and supply chain development. Certainly those are serious issues that would need to be addressed but they are hardly in surmountable and currently lack serious economic incentive to develop given the current low cost of fossil fuels.
That can change and as we currently know fossil fuel cost are becoming rather volatile. Cheap one day and expensive enough another day to drive economic development of alternatives.
My point being is if we currently had the economic incentive to invest as much capital as we currently do in fossil fuel exploration and development you'd see huge advances in alternative energy development.
It's a situation not unlike fracking. If the cost of oil or gas falls below a specific level, as it currently is, than the economics driving fracking technology are not there.
Everything other than oil is the same as DC?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Don't make me laugh, wind turbines have been around for at least 30 years now and they aren't much efficient now than they were back then. The trouble with you is that you're only seeing one aspect and not looking at the energy and resources needed to produce them. How much do it cost in terms of energy to produce neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium for the magnets? What about the steel and the shipping costs from China? Do you know that a 3 MW wind turbine can use up to 2,700 kg of NdFeB magnets, so will rare earth oxides always be cheap and plentiful? Have you factored in the environmental cost, probably not because you just off-shored the pollution to the Far East?
Oh and by the way, it isn't just Google that have such a dim view of renewables even James Hansen shares a similar view as do a number of environmentalists like George Monbiot.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
I'm curious if Tesla chose to name it the Model 3 because it already used the letters S & X, or because at $35,000, it doesn't consider this model to be the true economy class car. Musk has said in interviews that he expects Model 3 to pay for the development of an even cheaper car which will be much more accessible to the masses.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Yes and all you are saying is that you want a carbon tax to make wind and solar more competitive, exactly the same argument that Al Gore and Goldman Sachs would use and they stand to make a fuckton of money off carbon credits. If you diverted that investment into 4th gen nuclear instead you would get a far greater return, China and India are already doing just that whilst idiots are still tilting at windmills. Another advantage of 4th gen reactors is that they will be able to reuse spent fuel rather than storing it for long periods of time. If you read this article from the Brookings Institute you will see that they were far more imaginative back in the 1950s.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/essays/2014/backtothefuture#
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Nuclear energy can be managed safely and is certainly viable but has other problems associated with it. Primarily two.
#1. When incidents do occur they tend to be extraordinarily catastrophic.
#2. The waste generated, though small in volume, are highly hazardous and extremely difficult and costly to manage safely.
So what your actually suggesting are bridge technologies until more efficient technologies can be developed.
My point is that your claim that renewable sources are a dead end is specious. They may be a long way from being economically viable but they are also in their infancy of development.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Thats primarily an infrastructure issue. The same issue existed at the dawn of the automobile industry in the supply and distribution of fuel. That is undoubtably an issue that can be solved given the will and economic incentive. Currently that doesn't exist but that can change.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
It is silly Tom. You condemned renewables, not just a specific form of the technology. You couldn't possibly know we're technological advances in renewables can lead at its current state of development. That's very short sighted.
It was going to be model E, but ford has the trade mark
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Well allow me to clarify then, I exempt hydro and geothermal for the most part as they are capable of providing a consistent baseload albeit they are not cheap options especially the former. Solar and wind are not though and won't ever be until a cheap form of storage is found, that is many decades away in my estimation. I already said that there is a use for wind power to provide hydrogen for cars and I even pointed out that there is one already in England. You obviously didn't look at it, as is your won't so maybe you can watch a video instead. Again I will reiterate that the future is in 4th generation nuclear technology and that is what the smart money should be concentrating on, not technological blind alleys.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-34278051
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
How is that an infrastructure issue? It is a technological one with all-electric powertrains, in that the batteries need time to recharge even with the much vaunted super chargers that Tesla have announced. To go say 2000 miles would need around 10 recharges, at best taking around 12-15 hours. That would also mean another overnight stay and hence a 2-3 day journey would end being 4-5 days! Now if you say that nobody would consider doing that then all well and good but stop trying to bullshit me. I am assuming that would be driving for around 10 hours a day and keeping to speed limits.
Wind turbines have been around hundreds of years and turbines in general for thousands of years.
They have served their purposes in spite of being ONLY renewable powers for ages.
Even the industrial revolution was powered by water turbines.
You are so totally full of shit right now that you can't tell the truth about anything.
Windmill efficiences have doubled in the last thirty years you dirty liar.
Solar is most productive at the time of highest demand.
All sources don't need to be baseload as long as there is some.
Yes we will need more nuclear but hydro is a far superior baseline and should suffer total buildout.
If the issue of high pressure storage of hydrogen is solved then you will have also resovled the solar storage issue as well as simplying the use of hydrogen as an ICE fuel.
As it is 165 nuclear plants are under construction or plannd at this time so there will continue to be "events" to stimulate the gene pools.
Your math is fucked.
First of all most Teslas have a 400 mile range or higher.
Even most Model S have a much higher range. Only the cheapest Model S has only a 200 mile range.
Next you are not allowing for meal stops. 3 decent meals a day and a couple overnights sounds like a typical trip across the country to me. A trip most Americans make once or twice or never in their lives.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
It's absolutely incredible that 2 dudes at Google - who were talking about the PRESENT - have you convinced that most renewables are "blind alleys."
It's really silly. You are the guy who called TV a novelty, and who couldn't see a practical use in the internet.
Nukes are irresponsible to future generations. Non-starter for anyone who is serious about replacing fossil fuels as an energy source.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
God you are hard work, it isn't just two dudes from Google though. Read the article again!!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/29/renewables-are-useless-the-evidence-is-overwhelming/
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
Last edited:
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The 1st article says renewables aren't viable in their "current form." I agree. Going from that to concluding that they're some kind of dead end or "blind alley" is a gargantuan stretch.
As for the 2nd article, like I said - nuclear is a non-starter. It's is hopelessly irresponsible to future generations.
It's like people stuck in this mindset can't comprehend anything beyond a 5-10 year window.