LOL
You merely became weary of having your pathetic ass handed to you, cunt.
I understand. It’s a chronic problem for you.
Why Are Trump Supporters Anti-Science.
- Thread starter Highlight
- Start date
You merely became weary of having your pathetic ass handed to you, cunt.
I understand. It’s a chronic problem for you.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
The worm has definitely turned. When I grew up in the 50s and 60s, the Cold War was in full swing. Republicans at that time saw that the way to victory, at least in part, over communism was education. They were big on funding it. They esp. focused on science and math. During the 60s and 70s, it was the Left that distrusted science, particularly chemical companies that made things like napalm and Agent Orange. There was a "back to nature" meme in the late 60s into the 70s when vaccinations and pharmaceuticals were said to be not as "healthy" as natural remedies and vitamins. "Natural childbirth" w/o analgesics was also pushed. (I had my first two kids w/o any pain meds at all other than a local for stitches.) During this time, (R)s were also big on funding R&D in the sciences and in medicine.
What happened? Why the 180 degree switch?
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Oh please, may I?
Currently, no, but as technology improves that will change. We will struggle for a while though, to replace fossil fuels. We may never get there completely.
"Bad" is a silly and subjective term. Yes, nuclear energy can be dangerous, just as using coal has poisoned fresh water and the soil and the atmosphere around the globe. Ditto for crude. Everything comes at a price.
Why would anyone who knows where plastics come from believe that? Try harder to disparage the LW, Terry.
Again, TANSTAAFL -- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. The manufacture of wind and solar generating products does contribute slightly to climate change. However, overall fossil fuels contribute far more.
Of course it is possible, via hormones and surgery. Neither of those, however, change your DNA. A leaking nuke plant might, though. lol
Hyperbole that only cretins believe. Regular people do not. Try harder.
Many science-denying people believe this, both on the right and on the left. It is not true.
They are not 100% carbon neutral due to the manufacturing process. But they are still better than burning fuel oil or coal -- or using electricity generated from oil and coal to heat your home.
That's an impossible dream. Yet it is still better to strive to do so. The Republikkkan alternative is to do nothing. Look where that's got us.
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
He made a lot of ridiculous assumptions about what he thinks lefties believe. I answered him and set him straight. It won't take. lol
You can lead a MAGAT to facts, but you cannot make him think. (With apologies to Dorothy Parker.)
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
Which they use to post stupid things and make fun of science.
Baloney, they have risen 8-9 inches, average since then. That seems significant to me.
How fast are the seas rising? » Yale Climate Connections
Global sea level has risen 6.7 inches (170 mm) over the past 100 years, and by about 11 inches (280 mm) along the shores of the contiguous U.S. The rise has accelerated, and is now more than double the rate observed in the 20th century.
yaleclimateconnections.org
The cultists have been lead to believe that education, especially public education and elite university education is indoctrination.
Notice, too, that they all have a disdain for “experts” and do a joyful dance whenever those experts appear wrong. Doesn’t matter the subject. Greenhouse gases, climate, political stuff, vaccines, etc.
I believe a great deal of it has to do with class envy. Those that were never smart enough, motivated enough or financially able to get an education
That's an amusing statement coming from Kamala voters who think men can become women and compete in women's sports.
Or how about that scam that man is causing the planet to heat up and all the ice caps are melting? DUMB.
Projection
The process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.
Projection
The process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Why do you believe that the ocean has risen 8-9 inches? You believe this because you were told to believe it, and you OBEYED. Otherwise, you have no reason to believe this is somehow true.
The more important question is "Why is it important to you to believe this?" Your religious beliefs are obviously so profound that you are willing to deny your own observations.
The Victoria Quay in Perth, Australia, was built in 1890. It has not been altered structurally since. The museum has more than enough photography to show that the ocean has not risen discernibly since then.
Satellite photography shows that the sea level has not budged. Your religion says otherwise, you say? How interesting.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
We will NEVER get there. The watt density of wind and solar radiation are simply too low. You can never get more power out than you put in. Perpetual motion machines don't exist.
Coal is dirty. Any industrial process can be dangerous. Nuclear is cleaner and safer than the alternatives.
There seems to be those on the environmental Left that think that's all oil is for. They also don't recognize the costs involved in having a small production level versus a mass one.
Wind is becoming a major local contributor to Gorebal warming. Temperatures around wind farms rise as much a 1.5C because of the turbulence and decrease in wind flow down stream of them. Worse, the props used are made from fiberglass. As these wear, they scatter microplastics in their wake creating solid ground pollution.
Solar contributes significantly on a local scale by creating urban heat islands over and around the plant. These disturb local weather patterns significantly.
No, it isn't. You can only change your appearance and modify your behavior that way. Well, Chernobyl has modified some wildlife near the plant...
So, you recognize that not all vaccines are highly effective and some might not be worth taking then?
I can agree to that.
On the scale of operation they're at, they are worse, far worse, than burning coal. Wood, even pelletized, is a poor energy source and leaves considerable ash for its weight, more than coal. It is even worse compared to natural gas or even fuel oil. Yet, the greentards are claiming it's carbon neutral using pseudoscience.
Tell that to the EPA. They have been pushing to eliminate pollution by reducing emissions to zero across the board for decades.
I witnessed the glaciers melting first hand. I’ve seen Portage Glacier in Alaska practically disappear.
Disappearing frontier: Alaska's glaciers retreating at record pace - ArcticToday
ANCHORAGE — Alaska will soon close a year that is shaping up as its hottest on record, with glaciers there melting at record or near-record levels, pouring waters into rising global seas, scientists said after taking fall measurements. Lemon Creek Glacier in Juneau, where records go back to the...
www.arctictoday.com
Before and after images show glaciers vanishing before our eyes
They are melting like never seen before, changing landscapes around the world beyond recognition.
www.bbc.com
Climate change: World's glaciers melting faster than ever recorded
The planet's glaciers have lost 5% of their ice in little over 20 years, according to a major study.
www.bbc.com
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Did you also witness the glaciers that are accumulating ice? What does your watching of some ice melt somewhere have to do with your belief that the ocean is somehow rising?
Which glaciers have you also watched grow?
Eric Weinstein
https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
@EricRWeinstein
I devoted years of my life to the study of this question. Anyone who asks why we want our own STEM people to have AMAZING CAREERS in research like the 40s, 50s and 60s is accused of being a whiner. WTF? It’s so regular you can set your clock to it.Eff that. Someone is throwing this game. Why???? Why are we helping our rivals by destroying ourselves? Anyone?I can never get an answer. Why do we expect US STEM people to sign up for shitty precarious careers? Why is it the job of PhDs to invent a glorious prosperous future for others they are not allowed to share?We want to challenge and surpass our leaders like the old days, not peel them grapes, suck up to them and do their grunt work. It’s time to face facts: we are throwing the US science game for no known reason.I have addressed the National Academy 5 times on this and at the highest levels. I cannot get a straight answer.We are deliberately seeking less good conventional scientists from abroad over our own house brand of “FU take no prisoners yee haw cowboy scientists.” I never want to hear the “Best and Brightest” lie again in my life. You just can’t offer these shitty careers and say that with a straight face. Let’s go back to going after the top U.S. minds again and make MIT great again.
https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
@EricRWeinstein
I devoted years of my life to the study of this question. Anyone who asks why we want our own STEM people to have AMAZING CAREERS in research like the 40s, 50s and 60s is accused of being a whiner. WTF? It’s so regular you can set your clock to it.Eff that. Someone is throwing this game. Why???? Why are we helping our rivals by destroying ourselves? Anyone?I can never get an answer. Why do we expect US STEM people to sign up for shitty precarious careers? Why is it the job of PhDs to invent a glorious prosperous future for others they are not allowed to share?We want to challenge and surpass our leaders like the old days, not peel them grapes, suck up to them and do their grunt work. It’s time to face facts: we are throwing the US science game for no known reason.I have addressed the National Academy 5 times on this and at the highest levels. I cannot get a straight answer.We are deliberately seeking less good conventional scientists from abroad over our own house brand of “FU take no prisoners yee haw cowboy scientists.” I never want to hear the “Best and Brightest” lie again in my life. You just can’t offer these shitty careers and say that with a straight face. Let’s go back to going after the top U.S. minds again and make MIT great again.
Capacity factor. It is used in determining the average time online a plant operates. Nuclear plants run typically about 97 to 98% capacity factors. Most conventional plants like coal, gas turbine, etc., have capacity factors between 80 and 90%. Solar typically runs around 25% capacity factor.
Even the most basic source could have left you better informed.
Capacity factor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
You showed me a hyper-theoretical that bears no semblance to reality.
Converting salt water to fresh isn't a case of just boiling it. Normally, a saltwater to freshwater plant goes through a number of steps. First, you filter out all the sediments and other solids in the water. This typically uses a combination of settling tanks and sand / DE filtration. After that, you have to send the water through an RO system to remove the dissolved solids that filtration can't remove. The process isn't nearly as energy intensive as it is complex and requiring massive filtration systems.
Your continued flippant and vague answers to how things works shows you have no idea how any of this stuff works in any sort of detail.
That capacity factor is why you need, roughly, 5 KW of installed solar capacity to get 1 KWD (kilowatt day) of power, along with 3+ KWH of installed battery capacity. The combination drives the cost of a solar plant to astronomical levels that cannot be afforded.
You want the capacity for solar energy? Here it is. 100%! It's as easy as flipping a switch. Because as I said before, there are many ways of storing the excess energy. If you need the power, it will be there. Also, I don't remember if I brought this up before. But a solar panel lasts from 30 to 40 years. That will likely change as the technology is always improving. It takes anywhere from 1 to 4 years for a solar panel to produce the equivalent amount of energy that it took to create the solar panel to begin with. That is everything from mining the materials it is made of to the finished product. It is practically perpetual motion. Because you are getting more energy out of a thing than you put into it. Worst case scenario, that is 26 years of free energy.
Indeed, American's were "sold down the river." Having become used to it opened the door for a piece of shit like Trump.
They're called "batteries". They actually store electricity, and the ones hooked to solar systems are rechargeable even
Several of my friends and acquaintances in the Seattle area have already paid off their panels and are officially carbon neutral.
Oh, NO! TA wrong again? Say it aint so
A "bigoted" racist? OH NOES! That's the woist kind
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Energy storage, however you do it, is added unnecessary cost if you use conventional, sane, means of generation rather than intermittent, unreliable, solar and wind. Solar panels generally last 20 to 30 years right now and are subject to damage from severe weather regardless. Hail, microbursts, tornados, etc., all will damage or destroy solar and wind farms. Conventional generation can be built to survive almost all weather or be built in areas where it is unlikely that severe weather will occur.
Currently, neither wind nor solar components are recyclable, and both have to be produced in mass meaning a substantial increase in landfill.
But back to storage. Pumped hydro is only workable in certain suitable locations and for every kwh stored using this method, 2+ kwh of power is required to do it. You also have to install a kwh + of hydroelectric generation on top of that to use the stored energy in the system.
Batteries require 1+ kwh of generation capacity on top of the kwh of dispatched power to work, meaning you plant doubles in size to use it plus the cost of the batteries.
Centrifugal flywheels are the same way.
There are always costs to operating a powerplant, be it conventional generation or wind and solar, so the energy is never "free." Anyone who thinks that way is obviously naïve and uninformed.
Solar technology can NEVER produce more power than the watt density of sunlight at the location installed. Solar is NOT a perpetual motion machine. Given that the technology today is at 25 to 30% efficient at best, it's highly unlikely solar--after nearly 150 years of development--will suddenly exceed maybe 40% efficiency at most and likely won't reach that point in the next century.
Stop listening to the environmental retards on the radical Left on this. They're generally liberal arts majors and have no understanding of science or engineering whatsoever.