“To put these things into simple perspective: just the production of cement for concrete production consumes about 2% of total energy consumption by now. 15-times more concrete would thus consume about 30% of fossil fuel energy, which we are consuming today - just for building pillars of wind plants, nothing else.”
All of that is utter nonsense. The notion that supports of wind turbines is other than a trivial fraction of global concrete use is absurd. Why do you keep making up this bs?
Zephir, I can highlight a part of your current post that is ignorant bullshit, namely:
"Right and Wrong", whether ethic or moral, is pretty much determined by the society one lives in. As in much of China, it is OK to kill female babies as coveted males are socially more important. That practice is repugnant to most western societies. Therefore, 86% adoptions from China are female.
Nature does not know right or wrong.... it is man's construct. It is part of religion and philosophy.... and it changes with the seasons and cultures."
All of those statements are views of only certain people and are by no means absolute truths but rather are claims about the nature of morality that can be and are disputed by many people.
Despite quoting a bunch of stuff about moral philosophy, you end up describing one particular philosophical view (moral relativism in the absence of divine guidance) as the only possible view to hold. This is patently false. There are many arguments against moral relativism that do not require the presence of divine guidance. Secular morality is a diverse field with many different formulations for why there are absolutes for what is right and what is wrong. In addition, one does not need to be an atheist to believe that there are moral absolutes independent of any god. On the other hand, if one is an atheist, that does not mean that one must be a moral relativist.
What is ignorant bullshit is that you are taking one particular position on the nature of morality and claiming it is universal. That is utterly false. That is why I suggested that you consult a moral philosopher so that you can realize that your view of the world is not universal and your-view of people who don't hold your particular view is false.
I already said it: overunity and maybe cold fusion (which could be abused easily though). Coal and fossil fuels in general is threat for geopolitical stability because of their limited reserves and volatile prices. But how else to handle "renewables" once they increase dependency on fossil fuels? The religion is opium of the people - and the "renewables" ARE religion.
And your religion is the absurd insistence that renewables increase dependency on fossil fuels, which is laughably, demonstrably and utterly false. And you are an extreme zealot in this cult with one member. 🥱
Bob#2: I suggest you contact a moral philosopher - any moral philosopher, even a mediocre one - and ask about your ideas about right and wrong. He/she will unquestionably tell you that you are utterly full of shit and ignorant. But I suspect you would rather revel in your smug ignorance. So never mind.
He's already said, very recently. He's in favour of LENR and other truly alternative sources.
It is hard to think of anyone more in favor of LENR than Jed, but that does does not cause him to attack wind and solar power with endless specious arguments.
Well, Ruby at least advocates for something (nuclear power.) Technical and economic issues aside, it simply is not going to happen in today’s geopolitical environment. Argue about it all you want, but there is zero support for building more nuclear power plants anywhere. But what about advanced reactor types (thorium or pick you own favorite)? When would you say such technology will be ready for mass deployment and how long will it take to deploy it? What do you suppose the state of the world will be at that point in the distant future?
As for Zephir, he is clearly a man with an agenda, but nobody can figure out what that agenda is. I will give him credit for having a great ability to misinterpret data and, better still, produce reams of irrelevant data all the while gloating about his rhetorical victories. I so wish he would tell us what in the world he actually advocates. It remains a mystery.
There are some amazing examples of skewed logic here. Zephir spends all his time quoting statistics that have virtually nothing to do with the points he is trying to make while somehow thinking they do. Ruby is skeptical about renewables because their ability to solve our problems is “based on conjecture “ but is convinced that LENR is what will solve our problems. That is a stunning example of inconsistent thinking.
Anyway, Zephir is in favor of overunity. I’m in favor of divine intervention. But, as a practical matter, I don’t plan to sit around and wait for it to happen.
Zephyr, you are something of a mystery. We have a pretty good idea of what you are strongly opposed to. Would you possibly share what it is you are in favor of?
Or
"Since the use of belts and airbags have increased since the 80's, but fatalities have been Essential flat, shows belts and airbags have had no impact. I.e. no point using them " 😂🤣🤪😱
No, if I understand Zephyr correctly, he believes that deploying renewables actually increases fossil fuel use. So, in the auto accident analogy, he would say the belts and airbags increase the number of accidents
So, by Zephr’s brand of reasoning, since U.S. annual traffic accident fatality numbers stayed essentially flat from the 1980s until 2000, seatbelts and airbags must have been causing the deaths.
RobertBryant: I agree with most of what you said. My annoyance is with people who quote statistics about how little the global share of energy use comes from solar and wind as evidence that they cannot end up with a huge share. They already are a huge share in a growing number of places and the only salient common feature of those places is their willingness to deploy renewables in a big way. If countries refuse to do so and keep burning coal, that is their stupidity, not a fundamental shortcoming of renewables. Now if we want to debate whether stupidity can be mitigated on a global scale, that is a much tougher nut to crack. All things considered, I can’t say I’m optimistic.
Ruby, regardless of what the prospects for LENR may be, the notion that it is the only solution for the world’s energy problems Is just silly and nearsighted. If LENR somehow manages to become reliable, repeatable, and scaleable anytime soon, then sure, it would no doubt have enormous advantages. But meanwhile, renewables absolutely can do the job and will, provided politicians, entrenched fossil fuel interests, and just plain stupid people get out of the way. Or do you think we should just give up unless LENR rides in on a white horse?
Of course it isn't - but "renewables" increase its consumption, not decrease it. I don't like "renewables" just because I don't like fossils. Am I only person at the whole world who can see it?
I think, as a matter of fact, that you are. As a rule, if you are the only person in the world that sees something, it is likely that it isn’t actually there.
Of course it isn't - but "renewables" increase its consumption, not decrease it. I don't like "renewables" just because I don't like fossils. Am I only person at the whole world who can see it?
How does this chart support the point you are making?? (rhetorical question - it doesn't) Nothing in it suggests that renewables increase fossil fuel consumption. That's because they don't.
However, the chart hides the real disturbing fact: global energy use has nearly tripled since the early 70s. That's the real problem and is all the more reason to reduce fossil fuel usage ASAP.
Because it's unsustainable environmental fiasco.
Impressive unsupportable polemic you got there.
Most of the arguments against wind and solar power are demonstrably false and rather easily at that. Why are so many people so determined to reject technology that is growing rapidly, improving all the time, and getting cheaper by leaps and bounds? I understand why fossil fuel people are desperate to stop the renewables train, but what’s with the other folks? I suppose it is the tribalism that is rampant in today’s society. If you are on team nuclear, team geothermal, team LENR, or whatever, then solar and wind must be the enemy. What’s really rampant in society, obviously, is stupidity.
With regard to capacity factor, the annual average for the U.S. wind fleet over the past decade has been 28 to 35%. By comparison, the U.S. hydroelectric fleet operated at 35 to 43% of capacity during that period. So, wind power is actually not that much less a steady source than hydroelectric power and nobody worries about that.
The arguments against renewable energy get more feeble all the time. Of course, it was just a few years ago that these “experts” were warning that power grids would crash if renewables exceeded 10% of the generation capacity.
Wind and solar are usually asynchronous, storage is becoming increasingly cost effective and scaleable, and demand management can provide significant load shifting. Putting these things together, concerns about base load are fading away. As Jed points out, making economic arguments against renewables is predicated on the absurd notion that the cost of pollution/greenhouse gas emissions can be ignored whereas, of course, they will far exceed anything we might spend on green energy sources if we don’t stop them.
“But "renewables" are not actually renewable, and, they don't come close to providing what humans want from power.
Transportation alone is using so much gasoline and coal is powering the majority of systems.
The facts remain, only the energy density of nuclear power will give us the power humans want at this time.”
These “facts” are nothing more than highly debatable opinions. Ruby, you should at least describe them as such because most knowledgeable people would declare them to be demonstrably false. You are free to hold those opinions and promote them, but don’t present them as any sort of facts.
I realize that this is an LENR site and for many if not most people here, LENR is the answer - often regardless of what the question is. But let’s talk about LENR and global energy.
I direct the following to those who accept the overwhelming evidence of AGW. To those who don’t: move along. It is a waste of time to reason with you.
When promoting LENR as an alternative to renewable energy sources, consider their relative status in terms of what can be done NOW or at any predictable point in the future and read this article:
