The Physical Impossibility of Renewable Energy Meeting the Paris Accord Goals

[Truth Detector]

Not sure what you can say to stupid arrogant people that think renewables are the Holy Grail. Sadly I suspect nothing will convince them until the inevitable failure and several trillions go down the crapper.
https://www.instituteforenergyresea...s-accord-goals/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The only thing you can do with morons; point at them and laugh. Sad that they are destroying their economies while looking like morons.

 

[Truth Detector]

"Solar farms in space could be renewable energy's next frontier
China wants to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050 and is building a test facility to find the best way to send power to the ground."
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...e-renewable-energy-s-next-frontier-ncna967451

 

[Truth Detector]

Wind turbines are pie in the sky virtue signaling for a naive society. Not only have they ruined the Germany countryside but you’re correct - they’ll never pay for themselves much less any affect on the weather. We’ll just have to get used to the fact that any presently dry land not flooded in 12 yrs will go up in flames at that time.

Nothing says irony than clueless leftists twits claiming that the ancient forms of energy, wind and solar, are the future.

 

[Truth Detector]

The hypocrisy of man caused global warming theories exposed Below:

Nitrogen -- N2 -- 78.084%
Oxygen -- O2 -- 20.9476%
Argon -- Ar -- 0.934%
Carbon Dioxide -- CO2 -- 0.0314%
Neon -- Ne -- 0.001818%
Methane -- CH4 -- 0.0002%
Helium -- He -- 0.000524%
Krypton -- Kr -- 0.000114%
Hydrogen -- H2 -- 0.00005%
Xenon -- Xe -- 0.0000087%
Ozone -- O3 -- 0.000007%
Nitrogen Dioxide -- NO2 -- 0.000002%
Iodine -- I2 -- 0.000001%
Carbon Monoxide -- CO -- trace
Ammonia -- NH3 -- trace

29% of Earth is land mass. Of that 29% humans occupy less than 1% of that area. Of the remaining 28% about 40% is pure wilderness. 14% is true desert and 15% has desert like characteristics. 9% is Antarctica. Most of the remaining 22% are agricultural areas. There may be other areas with a human footprint of some kind.

The notion that man is causing the planet to heat up based on CO2 that amounts to less than 1% of the gas in oxygen can only be believed by morons.

 

[Into the Night]

"Solar farms in space could be renewable energy's next frontier
China wants to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050 and is building a test facility to find the best way to send power to the ground."
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...e-renewable-energy-s-next-frontier-ncna967451

One single control failure would render this system into a terrible disaster as it fried whatever the concentrated solar energy passed over as it wandered aimlessly across the surface.

...and people worry about nukes!

 

[Into the Night]

"As the green energy revolution accelerates, solar farms have become a familiar sight across the nation and around the world. But China is taking solar power to a whole new level. The nation has announced plans to put a solar power station in orbit by 2050, a feat that would make it the first nation to harness the sun’s energy in space and beam it to Earth."

Piddle power is piddle power. A single natural gas plant can replace ALL of the existing wind and solar farms of an entire State.

 

[Into the Night]

"Every disaster movie starts with the president ignoring a scientist. But humanity’s survival isn’t a movie. If any U.S. president in the last five decades had had the foresight to take space-based solar power technology seriously, the incoming man-made climate disaster could already have been averted with a clean, constant, and limitless power source that costs less than burning fossil fuels—and the United States could be leading the field."

It's a National Priority. This needs to be Funded by the DOD (Department of Defense). Other than Havana, anybody against 'America First'.

Fossils aren't used for fuel. Fossils don't burn.

Wind and solar are the most expensive sources of energy, joule for joule. Coal, oil, and natural gas are MUCH cheaper.

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, the presidents in disaster movies listen to the "scientific consensus" instead of the one guy that disagrees with the "expert consensus".



Do you know how expensive it is to put shit into space?

Let China spend the R&D dollars. We can "borrow" their tech once it's completed.

See "Mars Attacks". THERE's a scientist that SHOULD have been ignored!

 

[Into the Night]

If you have loads of money to spend look to the tides.
Ebb and flow is as constant as it gets and given the timing of shift from ebb to flow varies by geography the need for storage is minimized.
Salt water is always problematic given its corrosive nature but that can be managed.
Its not cheap but neither is nuclear.
But wind and sun just wont get it done.

You need a solid anchor point. Not cheap.

 

[Sailor]

If you have loads of money to spend look to the tides.
Ebb and flow is as constant as it gets and given the timing of shift from ebb to flow varies by geography the need for storage is minimized.
Salt water is always problematic given its corrosive nature but that can be managed.
Its not cheap but neither is nuclear.
But wind and sun just wont get it done.

Tidal turbines. These have shown incredible promise and reliability. As you so correctly state, tides are known and do not change. When you consider the mass and weight of tides and the power behind them, this makes the most sense. Why are we not seeing more of it? Not a big enough lobby with money.

 

[Sailor]

You need a solid anchor point. Not cheap.

That is not correct. Anchoring those is a piece of cake.

 

[Cinnabar]

That (and Brexit) seem to be your forte.

You mean shill threads.

 

[Sailor]

You mean shill threads.

So what do you have to argue against his points? Or facts? So far all I see is little witless comments.

 

[cancel2 2022]

So what do you have to argue against his points? Or facts? So far all I see is little witless comments.

She can't, rant and rave is her default setting.

 

[Celticguy]

You need a solid anchor point. Not cheap.

Correct. Note I said you needed loads of money.

 

[Celticguy]

Tidal turbines. These have shown incredible promise and reliability. As you so correctly state, tides are known and do not change. When you consider the mass and weight of tides and the power behind them, this makes the most sense. Why are we not seeing more of it? Not a big enough lobby with money.

No lobby i would imagine though army corp would know the particulars if anyone was interested.
Mainly its very costly and waterfront property doesnt come cheap

 

[Sailor]

No lobby i would imagine though army corp would know the particulars if anyone was interested.
Mainly its very costly and waterfront property doesnt come cheap

They do not need to be on or near waterfront property. Any navigable waters will do.

 

[Into the Night]

That is not correct. Anchoring those is a piece of cake.

How would you do it? Remember, you need to have a place where there is a strong current to driver your machine.

 

[Into the Night]

You mean shill threads.

Buzzword fallacy. You have no idea what a shill is. Try English. It works much better.

 

[Celticguy]

They do not need to be on or near waterfront property. Any navigable waters will do.

Not seeing the difference here.