|
Post by artraveler on Mar 26, 2024 10:49:06 GMT -8
There is a very small limited practical use for solar and wind but not on a massive level. Individuals who live off the grid in rural areas can benefit from these two forms of alternative power. However, it requires a considerable investment in money and time and very few "country" people have the thousands to put into it.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 26, 2024 10:56:26 GMT -8
The impetus driving these things are an anti-oil fetish and a "green energy" fetish with the magic word "sustainable" sprinkled over it like an incantation. It's become like a religious sacrament. Again, you heard it here first: If you want a "separation of church and state," I'm all for it. That alone would give us the power to disentangle all these Church of Global Warming schemes out of the infrastructure.
I've never read an honest and clear definition of "sustainable." It's another self-congratulatory word that simply means what one wants it to mean and, of course, it's a good thing by definition.
There is little doubt that the technology is progressing and both wind and solar have their uses. And those uses will likely increase. We can't imagine what technologies might arise to further refine them, although I do think wind is stretching it for any kind of cost-effective energy source for anything outside of pumping some water, today, tomorrow, or forever.
But whether technology can ever drive solar to replace oil, coal, gas, and nuclear is another question. There probably are just not enough batteries you can "sustainably" make to store what you need to store, even given increases in battery technology.
No worries. Fusion will be here someday. Maybe.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Mar 26, 2024 14:06:53 GMT -8
Only for the incredulous fools (mainly females) who believe you can get something for nothing. The whole "sustainable" BS came out of the U.N. back in the early 1970s. There might have been some concerned scientists involved. But what has been the U.N.'s biggest goal for the last 50-60 years? Arguably, the transfer of wealth from the West to the rest of the world. To convince the Western countries to go along with the "Green" agenda, while the rest of the world has built coal power plants in the thousands is pretty clever.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Mar 26, 2024 19:51:56 GMT -8
How ironic that "sustainability" isn't actual sustainable. You could go crazy dealing with these people.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Mar 27, 2024 9:34:58 GMT -8
I came across this in Breitbart today. A timely confirmation of the above observation.
Of course this has nothing to do with slavery. It is Marxism and racism combined to destroy the West. If one wishes to look at it from a more basic point of view, it is a huge grift.
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Mar 27, 2024 10:00:02 GMT -8
I saw it also. You nailed the reason.
|
|
|
Post by kungfuzu on Apr 25, 2024 12:41:31 GMT -8
I have never understood how companies, like Ford, could so completely fall for the Climate Con narrative. Ford has lost multiple billions on their EV venture. GM has lost less, but still some billions. Now we see that Hertz is eating a few hundreds of millions on their misadventure in saving the planet. Are the leaders of these companies that clueless or has the government been putting pressure on, or bribing, them to trod this insane path? It's only a couple of hundred million
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 11,047
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Apr 25, 2024 16:59:34 GMT -8
Who knew there were consequences to believing this left wing baloney? Some are finding out, although whether they really connect the dots or not is anyone’s guess.
|
|