re: How exactly are we supposed to jump to renewable sources of power?

quote:

---

Wind? - Most wind farms have been decimated by the fact that the windmills actually take more money to maintain than they generate in power generation.

Solar, to my understanding, is still extremely inefficient. The amount of power it takes to build solar panels compared to the power that they generate is a net loss

---

Everything you said there is wrong. I tell you this as a conservitive who works in the solar and wind industry as a field technician.

Solar panels repay manufacturering costs in energy within the first 4 years of their 20 to 25 year lifespan.

Wind O&M costs have been driven down significantly industry wide primarially due to my companies efforts as the largest green energy generator in north america. Wind is profitable without the PTC but the ptc makes building new assets happen faster. no one ever factors in with oil the cost we spend with our military maintaing open sea navagation, including the gulf of hormuz.


We also have nuclear and significant gas generation as well as gas pipeline all across the south.

The facts are even if we got to 50% renewable we still do not have the technology to get away from fossil fuels. period. and to get to 50%, at the rate we are building will take 4 or more decades and that doesnt consider the lack of infrastructure to transmit the power. we need to increase our distribution infrastructure 150% just to suppoer those idiots ideas of having 100% EV by 2035.

Wind, The American taxpayer pays the subsidies to cover the loses incurred during production. Because of the subsidies, wind farm owners can report a profit. The only reason. The cost to operate for only 8-10 hours a day don’t come near the need to replace fossil fuels.

Solar farms only productive while the sun is up. The biggest decline factor in solar panels? Heat. Heat.

Does anyone have numbers (U.S.) on the amount of energy consumed by work done via electrical motor vs the amount of energy consumed by work done via internal combustion engine?

quote:

---

Well if people were reasonable and we went back to the Dark Ages, we could easily achieve this. Electricity would be for the elites, the peasants get to starve and freeze.

---

I think the Democrats accept this, and see it as a good thing.

quote:

---

Well if people were reasonable and we went back to the Dark Ages, we could easily achieve this. Electricity would be for the elites, the peasants get to starve and freeze. I think the Democrats should run on this in 2022.

---

They have no choice, this is a top down revolution.

quote:

---

Nuclear is clean particularly modern reactors

This country should be 90% nuclear.

---

Until the operators and engineers have to go through Diversity training and people are hired based on some physical trait rather than their ability to stop a frickn nuclear meltdown.

IMO, even the refinery's and chem plants are no place for hiring based on this.

The accidents we hear of now days, I would wager a fair amount, are not from people regardless of race or sex that actually know what's going on but more of people hired to fill some quota.

And I mean hell, what about big rigs, the ones that distribute our essential goods throughout this vast land of ours, are there electric 18-wheelers that I'm just unaware of? Or are they not in the equation by way of exemption?

quote:

---

Well, if you significantly reduced the amount of people

---

Actually, that is the only way to save the environment. Overpopulation will always be the number one problem...

Chemistry and Physics puts the bounds on what is possible . Engineering puts the boundary to work on what is economically viable.

liberal arts politics is what screws it all up.

No one has yet put together an R&D level calculation of what a 100 ppm co2 change does to earths temperature based on insufficient transmittance and reflectivity data to meet order of magnitude calculation rules.

Its all a scam.