ThatOwlWoman (05-03-2022)
I honestly think that the Chinese may have had it right with one and done.
And given the trends, who would want to procreate at all in today's environment?
Irresponsible procreation is without question the number one cause of human suffering globally.
World wide, especially in the third world, people without the means to properly take care of themselves feel entitled to be breeders.
Where's the morality in that?
The Gestapo and I, both only children ourselves, had two, basically replacing ourselves, but I would have been financially screwed if I had siblings mooching on my inheritance.
My lifestyle certainly wasn't based on my own income potential!
My kids must have agreed with my point of view because, to the disappointment of the Gestapo, neither of them wanted kids of their own.
I would have probably been a lousy grandfather anyway. It's dogs with whom I do well.
As an aside, golf season is back and I can't seem to play for shit anymore. I was once a seven handicap. [That's very good recreational level golf for you non-linksters.]
Now my goal is mainly to not have back spasms. Sometimes we stick around for too long, perhaps.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969
ThatOwlWoman (05-03-2022)
Solar is winning-- no energy source is being rolled out more rapidly right now.
Yes. With pumps, or any storage, you lose some of that power to inefficiency. But, with solar, the cost of the power is low enough that you have power to burn -- even after factoring in the losses to storage, you wind up with competitive prices.That means you need more solar panels providing the power to pump that water at far less than 100% efficiency.
I don't have an issue with nuclear. If there were any reason to think major expansion of nuclear was politically viable, I'd be on board with it. But the momentum there is the other way, unlike with solar. Sometimes you have to go with a practically achievable solution, rather than fixating on something you'd rather have that just isn't in the cards any time soon.Nuclear is safe, reliable, and environmentally friendly compared to solar or wind too.
ThatOwlWoman (05-03-2022)
An irrelevant appeal to popularity. Solar is winning because idiots on the Left have been able to market it. It is a loser solution.
Again, not true. Solar is not reliable so you need other, reliable, sources to back it up. That is duplication of generation and adds cost. Solar arrays are not free, the land they sit on isn't free. For pumped solar you need a retention system like a dam constructed along with DC to AC conversion systems, pumps, piping, etc. It all adds up to a high cost per installed KW output and that's before having to duplicate the generation for reliability.Yes. With pumps, or any storage, you lose some of that power to inefficiency. But, with solar, the cost of the power is low enough that you have power to burn -- even after factoring in the losses to storage, you wind up with competitive prices.
Good, then advocate for it and oppose solar. Solar is not a practical or achievable solution, and never will be. It's that simple.I don't have an issue with nuclear. If there were any reason to think major expansion of nuclear was politically viable, I'd be on board with it. But the momentum there is the other way, unlike with solar. Sometimes you have to go with a practically achievable solution, rather than fixating on something you'd rather have that just isn't in the cards any time soon.
Popularity is entirely relevant to my point. I'm trying to figure out a practical way forward to an environmentally sustainable energy future. Options that are unpopular (e.g., we should give up on the idea of single-family homes and just move everyone into big, energy-efficient apartment buildings) may work just fine on paper, in terms of the economics and the science, but if they're political non-starters, then it's all just theoretical chatter. Solar is popular and growing more so, and that makes an environmentally sustainable future with it more realistically achievable than trying to reverse massive momentum against nuclear to revive and then grow that dying industry.
Yes -- and those sources can include things like pumped storage.Solar is not reliable so you need other, reliable, sources to back it up
Yes, and solar is so cheap now that it remains economically viable even after considering that duplication.That is duplication of generation and adds cost.
I advocate for both. But when it comes to solar, I'm urging along a phenomenon that already has accelerating momentum behind it, which makes me hopeful it really will be a big part of the medium-term solution. With nuclear, it's more like trying to slow a rapid move in the opposite direction. Trying to create momentum for new nuclear generation is like trying to push a vehicle up and icy hill into a headwind with the parking brake on. Even if I can manage to get that brake to disengage, it's still a lot of effort that may see no return.Good, then advocate for it and oppose solar.
Maybe keep at it and see if you don't limber up a bit.
Mr. Owl came from a large family of six kids. He and one brother have no kids. One brother has one, the other three. His two sisters each have only one child. For him, having a masters degree and no kids left him with a very nice retirement nest egg. But the rest of his siblings seem to have done well enough too, esp. the ones content to live in rural Illinois.
"Conservatism is the blind and fear-filled worship of dead radicals." -- Mark Twain
Solar isn't popular. It's being forced on people through government mandates and subsidies. Try selling your house if you have leased solar panels on it. You'll be hating solar in a second.
And when people are paying triple what they are now for electricity, it won't be very popular either. Look at California. What will people in colder areas heat their homes with? They can't afford solar to do it.Yes -- and those sources can include things like pumped storage.
You know what the same people wanting solar so badly have come up with in Europe to heat their homes? Wood pellet stoves. There's an environmental disaster and a half. Making the pellets is so environmentally bad and onerous, that the European counties have turned to places like the US to do the manufacturing.
Name a country where the cost of electricity went down as the amount of solar production went up. The most expensive electricity worldwide is in the nations leading in solar usage. The same is true in the US. California leads in solar usage and has some of the highest priced electricity in the US now.Yes, and solar is so cheap now that it remains economically viable even after considering that duplication.
I advocate for what works and that is not solar. It is the single worst way to generate electricity there is. Enthusiasm for nuclear goes way up when people see what solar really costs. Like so much else the Left does, they push what they want not what works. When it fails, as it almost always does, the Left walks away from the wreckage as if it never happened.I advocate for both. But when it comes to solar, I'm urging along a phenomenon that already has accelerating momentum behind it, which makes me hopeful it really will be a big part of the medium-term solution. With nuclear, it's more like trying to slow a rapid move in the opposite direction. Trying to create momentum for new nuclear generation is like trying to push a vehicle up and icy hill into a headwind with the parking brake on. Even if I can manage to get that brake to disengage, it's still a lot of effort that may see no return.
It's popular enough among those needed to get those mandates and subsidies in place, and those who vote for them, that it's actually happening. Nuclear, by comparison, is unpopular with the voters and the politicians, and has been going nowhere for decades. If you have a plan to change that, I'm all ears, but I haven't seen anything to suggest a viable path.
The promise isn't that electricity won't go up. It's that it will go up moderately, while emissions will come down, which will be a net gain for society.Name a country where the cost of electricity went down as the amount of solar production went up
Not even close. Check out tar sands or coal. The issue there is that they disperse their negative effects broadly, while internalizing their savings, which convinces people who want to ignore those negative effects that they're fine. But they're a climate disaster and also a health disaster.It is the single worst way to generate electricity there is
No, electricity prices will between triple and quadruple using solar and wind. That's been the case everywhere it has been pushed. Electricity becomes unaffordable.
Tar sands produces oil and coal is cheap to for electrical production. Solar and wind are environmental disasters too. Look at the Ivanpah "bird cooker." Or, the decimation of bat and bird populations by wind turbines. Or the destruction of environment both cause as they gobble up huge tracts of land to be put on. Rooftop solar creates more urban heat island effects and ozone. Here in Arizona, Solara the largest solar array in the state is also the state record holder for the largest environmental fine ever levied by the state against a company.
The problem right now is that the environmental retards are calling the shots. Every time--EVERY TIME-- I meet that sort at political get togethers, rallies, townhalls, etc., I get the same thing from them. The minute I start pulling out the math, data, facts, and then point out that nuclear and natural gas are the solution, they roll their eyes and act like I'm from another planet. There's no articulate rebuttal, no counter facts, nada, nothing. It's just insults and ad hominem from them.
They have nothing to support their arguments for solar and wind except desires and emotion. They can't even discuss nuclear power intelligently. Beyond "It's bad" they know nothing. This is who is setting our energy policies today.
Last edited by T. A. Gardner; 05-03-2022 at 04:50 PM.
Could you give an example of a place where electricity costs quadruple what it did before solar and wind?
Tar sands produce horrific air pollution and climate change. We're not talking, there, about a focused, geographically narrow impact, as with wind turbines taking out birds and bats. It's a global impact that causes devastation everywhere.Tar sands produces oil and coal is cheap to for electrical production
No. The problem right now is that too many climate-change deniers are involved in calling the shots, which means we're trying to save the coal industry, ramping up tar sands, and doubling down on the strategy of long-term natural gas use. Yes, nuclear could be part of the solution if a certain kind of environmentalist were less effective (mostly graying Three-Mile-Island era activists). But I think the reason they're so effective isn't any particular PR brilliance on their part -- and certainly not because they had massive money behind them. Rather it's because their message harmonizes with the public's perceptions. The public is quick to regard nuclear power as horribly dangerous, facts notwithstanding. I don't know how to change that, but until it changes, I'm wary of putting our climate eggs in a basket that relies on a new mindset forming among the public.The problem right now is that the environmental retards are calling the shots.
With a global economy that currently puts out vastly more pollution than is ecologically sustainable, and which thus drives us towards catastrophe, this is the exact opposite of a marginal topic. It's absolutely crucial -- it's a more important topic, in fact, than 99.999% of what gets discussed here. We're not talking about some petty pissing and moaning about something trivial like having to endure slightly-above-average inflation rates for a year or two thanks to supply chain snags. We're talking about something that matters on an historic scale.
No. It's scientific fact, and I'm not arguing in favor of mass murder. I'm arguing in favor of economically incentivizing people to use birth control to have smaller families -- rather than our current situation, where unlimited child tax credits and other subsidies for children incentivize large families.
Bookmarks