cancel2 2022 (01-25-2021)
cancel2 2022 (01-25-2021)
I read the paper. Bet you didn't. Sovacool makes a fatal error in his paper. He considers the entirety of both nuclear and oil use to include all ancillary and production cycle effects while only considering the in use risk for wind turbines. Wind power, like any other technology involves considerable mining and use of things like heavy metals, rare earths, etc. So, the paper is badly flawed to show what the author wants it to show.
cancel2 2022 (01-25-2021)
Not to mention that they need dispatchable power as backup, which invariably means gas, coal or at a stretch, nuclear. To recover lanthanides like dysprosium and neodymium requires huge amounts of energy. Areas of north China have turned into a dystopian wasteland, processing one ton of rare earths results in 2000 tonnes of radioactive toxic waste.
Last edited by cancel2 2022; 01-25-2021 at 12:26 AM.
anatta (01-25-2021)
My reading skills are just fine. I don't need your help. How many solar panels would be needed to maintain enough current to charge 3 cars such large batteries on cloudy days on end? How much do solar panels cost? How much room will they take up? You want to take up your whole yard with solar panels? Not me. I have a nice lawn.
No, there are no fluids or ignition components to maintain. So only liberals maintain their vehicles? Okay! Annual inspections are just another tax on us motorists here in PA. Changing brake pads it easy of you have a big enough C-clamp. And a hex bit (for some cars).
You must live in a warm climate.
Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.
cancel2 2022 (01-25-2021), Lightbringer (01-25-2021)
You're FOS, YOU know better than the rail industry?
A broken isn't the leading causes of accidents, it's ONE of the leading causes.
"And it is politicians that put bribes and donations over public safety".
I can believe that.
JULY 17, 2015
Washington, D.C. – At a time of record auto recalls and high-profile train wrecks, Republicans are working on legislation to roll back safety regulation of the auto and railroad industries.
A bill approved this week on a party-line vote by a Senate committee brims with industry-sought provisions that would block, delay or roll back safety rules. The measure is to be part of a must-pass transportation bill that GOP leaders hope to put to a vote in the Senate as early as next week.
They are under pressure to act quickly because authority for transportation programs expires on July 31. Without a cash infusion, the government will have to delay highway and transit aid to states.
FEBRUARY 26, 2018
The rules that have been impacted by President Trump's quest to roll back regulations would have addressed dangerous safety problems from speeding tractor-trailers to sleepy railroad engineers. There have been no significant new safety rules approved during his term.
The sidelined rules also would have required states to conduct annual inspections of commercial bus operators, railroads to operate trains with at least two crew members and automakers to equip future cars and light trucks with vehicle-to-vehicle communications to prevent collisions.
The author's conclusions were vetted and peer reviewed by independent experts in their scientific field, and accepted for publication in a reputable scientific journal.
You posted your opinion on an obscure message board
You should write a paper, submit it for review by independent experts, and get it published.
Only then will your opinion be given equal weight with peer reviewed scientific papers.
Phantasmal (01-25-2021)
Temporary, short term construction jobs.
The U.S. State Department says only 35 permanent jobs will be needed to operate the finished pipeline.
When Hyundai builds plants here, they make it a point to report how many thousands of good paying permanent they will create. Why are retreating to use a radically different measure of job creation?
Yea, peer reviewed... There's a joke, and that extends to virtually all peer review. It's an almost meaningless process today.
https://www.enago.com/academy/is-pee...rocess-a-scam/In 2005, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) created a software program called SCIgen that randomly combined strings of words to generate fake computer science papers. The objective of the exercise was to prove that the peer review process was fundamentally flawed and the conferences and journals would accept meaningless papers. After being notified by other researchers who were deliberately tracking SCIgen papers, journals were still quietly pulling articles as late as 2014.
The media attention that this simple exercise “to maximize amusement” generated has brought the peer review process under considerable scrutiny. Are journals really making a concerted effort to review submissions? Or is it just a perfunctory exercise implemented to add a perception of academic quality for the journal?
failure of peer review
Today Science is up on a pedestal. A new god has appeared; his high priests conduct the rituals, with nuclear reactors, moon-probing rocket ships, cathode tubes and laser beams. And their territory is sacrosanct; laymen are denied entry.
Bruce Cathie
https://globalfreedommovement.org/th...f-peer-review/The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine)
The defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of critical editorials and studies in the literature over recent years. The notion of peer review occupies special territory in the world of science. However, investigation of suppressed innovations, inventions, treatments, cures, and so on rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better at one thing above all others: censorship. This can mean censorship of everything from contrarian viewpoints to innovations that render favored dogmas, products, or services obsolete (economic threats) depending on circumstances. The problem is endemic, as many scientists have learned the hard way.
https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley...1002/lob.10217
https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffre...h=1cdbc5cf463e
While I can only speak to my own experience with this in military history, peer reviewed books are often some of the least useful, most poorly researched on the market. Like this tripe:
Mosier is an English professor and his book is just terrible. When I had a personal discussion with him on that, he pulled the logical fallacy, as you did, of Appeal to authority. He said he was a PhD, I wasn't and that the book had been peer reviewed. No attempt to defend the positions he took in the book, no refutation of my criticisms, just appeal to authority.
Doesn't change his book is crap.
Same thing here.
You posted an opinion on an obscure message board on a scientific topic you spent ten minutes thinking about.
The authors are trained experts who spent years training to work in this scientific discipline, had their research vetted by independent experts, and got published in a reputable technical journal.
There is no comparison in credibility whatsoever.
I know statistics quite well. When you don't make equal comparisons, you skew the statistics. The paper did that in favor of wind generation. That's pretty common with green technologies that can't compete on an level playing field.
That aside, you keep making the same argument that Mosier did: Appeal to authority. They're scientists, you're not. You are wrong. That's a pure logical fallacy. It doesn't matter who they are or what their credentials are. If they are right, they're right. If they're wrong, they're wrong. They are wrong because they used an invalid statistical method to compare generation methods.
No, it's not proof of the opposite. All you did was provide a video proving that electric cars are not indestructible and if it is damaged, insurance covers it. You do realize that flood damage doesn't occur in a hard rainstorm or driving through a puddle, right? ICE vehicles are also damaged by floods and totaled by an insurance company when that happens. Based on the video I would be more likely to buy a flood damaged electric car that has been repaired than a ICE one.
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."
Did you listen to the guy? The cars in his shop are "bricked." That is, their owners failed to maintain a proper charge on them and they became undrivable. He mentions various modules necessary to operate the vehicle and how owner private data is stored on some of those.
https://www.brickedtesla.com/
https://www.carscoops.com/2019/10/pr...storage-chips/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...emory-problem/
No internal combustion engine vehicle made today becomes undrivable--permanently--and needing massively costly repairs, often tens of thousands of dollars worth, to restore it because the battery died or it ran out of gas.
This study also does not take into account the ratio of wind turbines to nuclear or fossil fuel generation. It is the same simple math I showed above. If wind turbines were to provide the same
amount of energy as Nuclear or FF generation they would be far deadlier than either. There is no getting around the math. Each and everyone of these studies deliberately leave that part out.
Shiny baubles for the uniformed. Works every time.
I heard the Pipefitters' Union is unhappy with the usurper they endorsed all of a sudden.
What did they think would happen to their jobs?
Bookmarks