Why electric planes are inevitable

Cap'n Jack said:
but I do wonder what happens to the burned areas- do they become prairie?).
Click to expand...

A burned forest will come back as a forest, a burned prairie will come back as a prairie. The forest will take longer to come back, of course.

Selection pressures don't change that much in the short term, so whatever vegetation was favored in a given location before will probably be favored in the same location after. That, and all of the right seeds are already there.

Some pines, like lodgepole pines, can't reproduce unless there has been a fire--high heat is needed to release the seeds from the cones.
 
PaulS said:
Lol, I'm not going down this worm hole, Al said invented/created the internet, same thing, he said so as is posted here, period.

Had he said " During my service in Congress I created, or supported legislation that led to the development of the internet" I would give him a pass, but he is a wordsmith, he knew exactly what he was saying, and said it clearly and succinctly. Snopes, try as it might, can't change that, neither can either one else.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like wordsmiths are infallible.
 
Last edited:
Daleandee said:
You are playing "word police" to try and salvage a wrong. By definition Al was wrong misspoke as only the Creator has the power to create! So we are correct in stating that Al must have "invented" the internet.

... and I thank him for it! :happydance:
Click to expand...
You're mistaken.
 
During his time in the White House, Dwight Eisenhower took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
No, you don't need to cut down any forests. They must be almost gone by now, based on all the forest fires (I'm joking here, but I do wonder what happens to the burned areas- do they become prairie?). Who say you need to use lithium batteries? Your link is merely a aggregator, and doesn't list papers. It aggregates blogs, and has essays written by various people, but those aren't papers.
Click to expand...
There are many methods of energy storage, some have been in use for decades - pumped hydro power is used widely in Norway and other countries, there is even a plan for one of these close to me in NY. Other methods in development include a very low-tech tower crane that stacks actual blocks of concrete into a large tower and uses the potential energy to spin a generator as it lets the blocks fall back down to the ground. Requires nothing more than a standard tower crane, some concrete, and a generator.
 
Matthew Rogers said:
There are many methods of energy storage, some have been in use for decades - pumped hydro power is used widely in Norway and other countries, there is even a plan for one of these close to me in NY. Other methods in development include a very low-tech tower crane that stacks actual blocks of concrete into a large tower and uses the potential energy to spin a generator as it lets the blocks fall back down to the ground. Requires nothing more than a standard tower crane, some concrete, and a generator.
Click to expand...
Yes, very common. With many types of power (e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, wind) you can't easily turn them down at night during off-peak hours, so you want a way to capture some of that energy and make it available later at the next peak time. Pumping the water uphill with the surplus electricity at night, then letting it run downhill through turbines to provide extra energy during the day is a simple and effective way to recover some of it.
 
David Megginson said:
Yes, very common. With many types of power (e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, wind) you can't easily turn them down at night during off-peak hours, so you want a way to capture some of that energy and make it available later at the next peak time. Pumping the water uphill with the surplus electricity at night, then letting it run downhill through turbines to provide extra energy during the day is a simple and effective way to recover some of it.
Click to expand...
Matthew Rogers said:
There are many methods of energy storage, some have been in use for decades - pumped hydro power is used widely in Norway and other countries, there is even a plan for one of these close to me in NY. Other methods in development include a very low-tech tower crane that stacks actual blocks of concrete into a large tower and uses the potential energy to spin a generator as it lets the blocks fall back down to the ground. Requires nothing more than a standard tower crane, some concrete, and a generator.
Click to expand...
I know all this, but @Dan Thomas probably doesn't.
 
David Megginson said:
Yes, very common. With many types of power (e.g. hydroelectric, nuclear, wind) you can't easily turn them down at night during off-peak hours, so you want a way to capture some of that energy and make it available later at the next peak time. Pumping the water uphill with the surplus electricity at night, then letting it run downhill through turbines to provide extra energy during the day is a simple and effective way to recover some of it.
Click to expand...

Pumping is generally pretty inefficient.
 
GaryM said:
A burned forest will come back as a forest, a burned prairie will come back as a prairie. The forest will take longer to come back, of course.

Selection pressures don't change that much in the short term, so whatever vegetation was favored in a given location before will probably be favored in the same location after. That, and all of the right seeds are already there.

Some pines, like lodgepole pines, can't reproduce unless there has been a fire--high heat is needed to release the seeds from the cones.
Click to expand...
I wonder if the selection pressures have changed. Those trees grew well, until they burned. Many of the trees were sick- was it because there were too few fires which allowed dead material to accumulate? Some places with fires, the trees were infested with beetles that killed many trees. It was too cold for the beetles to survive the winter in that area, now they live long enough to multiply and kill the trees. Maybe you won't get a prairie, but another forest, eventually, with different trees.
 
PaulS said:
Pumping is generally pretty inefficient.
Click to expand...
So is talking to most of POA, but I digress. Research shows that the difference in efficiency between batteries and pumped hydro is a few percent. Significant, but it scales better than batteries, especially if we run out of lithium.

Reversible pump-turbine/motor-generator assemblies can act as both pumps and turbines. Pumped storage stations are unlike traditional hydroelectric stations in that they are a net consumer of electricity, due to hydraulic and electrical losses incurred in the cycle of pumping from lower to upper reservoirs. However, these plants are typically highly efficient (round-trip efficiencies reaching greater than 80%), and can prove very beneficial in terms of balancing load within the overall power system. Pumped-storage facilities can be very economical due to peak and off-peak price differentials and their potential to provide critical ancillary grid services.
https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydropower/

Pumped-storage hydropower is more than 80 percent energy efficient through a full cycle, and PSH facilities can typically provide 10 hours of electricity, compared to about 6 hours for lithium-ion batteries.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/energy-storage-2019

The higher the round-trip efficiency, the less energy is lost in the storage process. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2019, the U.S. utility-scale battery fleet operated with an average monthly round-trip efficiency of 82%, and pumped-storage facilities operated with an average monthly round-trip efficiency of 79%.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756
 
Matthew Rogers said:
So is talking to most of POA, but I digress. Research shows that the difference in efficiency between batteries and pumped hydro is a few percent. Significant, but it scales better than batteries, especially if we run out of lithium.

Reversible pump-turbine/motor-generator assemblies can act as both pumps and turbines. Pumped storage stations are unlike traditional hydroelectric stations in that they are a net consumer of electricity, due to hydraulic and electrical losses incurred in the cycle of pumping from lower to upper reservoirs. However, these plants are typically highly efficient (round-trip efficiencies reaching greater than 80%), and can prove very beneficial in terms of balancing load within the overall power system. Pumped-storage facilities can be very economical due to peak and off-peak price differentials and their potential to provide critical ancillary grid services.
https://energystorage.org/why-energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydropower/

Pumped-storage hydropower is more than 80 percent energy efficient through a full cycle, and PSH facilities can typically provide 10 hours of electricity, compared to about 6 hours for lithium-ion batteries.
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/energy-storage-2019

The higher the round-trip efficiency, the less energy is lost in the storage process. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2019, the U.S. utility-scale battery fleet operated with an average monthly round-trip efficiency of 82%, and pumped-storage facilities operated with an average monthly round-trip efficiency of 79%.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46756
Click to expand...

I was in no way advocating battery storage for utilities, too expensive and too many headaches. I guess a case could be made for home sized units, I guess.

80 % total efficiency for pumping, then recovering electricity seems ridiculously high to me. But I haven't researched it. If you could point me to some info on it, I'd be interested.

I was a non believer in electric cars until I started seeing how efficient they are compared to ICE cars. The difference is startling.

Ooops, just noticed the links on PSH in your post, thanks, I'll check it out.
 
PaulS said:
I was in no way advocating battery storage for utilities, too expensive and too many headaches. I guess a case could be made for home sized units, I guess.

80 % total efficiency for pumping, then recovering electricity seems ridiculously high to me. But I haven't researched it. If you could point me to some info on it, I'd be interested.

I was a non believer in electric cars until I started seeing how efficient they are compared to ICE cars. The difference is startling.

Ooops, just noticed the links on PSH in your post, thanks, I'll check it out.
Click to expand...
Yeah, those figures are total round trip efficiency. TBH, it is higher than I would have thought. Battery storage is actually working very well in a few areas such as the large Australian Tesla battery project, but is not something that is necessary everywhere.

As every vehicle transitions into an electric vehicle, using grid tied car batteries (during parking,charging,and overnight) as a means of distributed grid storage could be a means of having a huge amount of storage capacity and be efficient in that the capacity is always close to the demand. It has been proposed for a long time and may mean that we are already producing the necessary battery capacity with each and every can that rolls of the line.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I know all this, but @Dan Thomas probably doesn't.
Click to expand...
I do. Been to Grand Coulee and have seen it in action. I grew in in BC and have been to a few of the 29 dams there. The problem with pumped storage is terrain: you need a lake of significant size some altitude above the main reservoir, and in steep mountains that isn't available. Most lakes above these dams are small alpine glacier-fed ponds. I've flown over that sort of country.

And I knew about the towered weight affair, too. I just can't see such a thing storing large amounts of power unless it's huge. If they elevated one million pounds to 500 feet, and let it down over one hour, that's about 250 horsepower for that one hour. Not a lot of energy. Unless my calculations are way off. Are they using much more weight and altitude?

From Wiki:

Energy Vault is developing a crane that generates electricity from dropping blocks of concrete rather than water. Energy Vault has not specified a release date for its product, but prototypes are in the works and Energy Vault’s stacked blocks concept is being built to be a promising long-duration storage technology.[8][9][10] In late 2020, the Swiss company built in Arbedo-Castione six cranes installed in a 110-meter-high tower moving a 35-ton concrete block up and down that can store 80 megawatt hours of energy.

Can someone tell me how they get 80 megawatt hours out of 35 tons falling 360 feet?
 
Palmpilot said:
There's nothing to admit.
Click to expand...

Of course there is but you're too busy splitting hairs (as another astutely noted) and playing word police to try and dance around a well known and established fact.

FWIW - "Invent is a synonym of create."

Clarification: "Synonym definition is - one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses."

It really is that simple. You're not capable of seeing the truth. I have extended myself to try and bring you out of your darkness must I must digress.

I'll give you the last word, and you'll give it, because that's part of your MO ...

:rolleyes:
 
Daleandee said:
...playing word police...
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who started the dictionary quoting.

FWIW - "Invent is a synonym of create."

Clarification: "Synonym definition is - one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses."

It really is that simple. You're not capable of seeing the truth. I have extended myself to try and bring you out of your darkness must I must digress.

I'll give you the last word, and you'll give it, because that's part of your MO ...

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring the part of your own quote that says synonyms have the same or nearly the same meaning "in some or all senses."

"Create" has a broader range of senses than "invent," which makes it necessary to consider context. The context of his statement was set IN THE SAME SENTENCE, but people keep cutting that part out when they quote him. (Gee, I wonder why. ;))
 
PaulS said:
Found profitability, mostly by selling carbon credits. Folks paying inflated rates for electricity cover those profits.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the massive government subsidies, which are going to increase under the current administration. I don't think the wealthy need free money (proposed to increase to $15,000 per vehicle) to buy electric cars that cost well over $50,000.

I also think wind and solar are responsible for upending the environment in western states. The proposed amount of solar power farms will desecrate millions of acres of pristine desert.

Hundreds of miles of access roads for wind turbines are being cut through mountain forests with bulldozers, and they cause erosion which will result in the loss of surface soils and ugly scars. The turbines increasingly kill large avian raptors too.

It's funny the same people that decried the presence of billboards on interstate highways aren't bothered at all with the destruction caused by wind and solar installations.
 
Dan Thomas said:
I do. Been to Grand Coulee and have seen it in action. I grew in in BC and have been to a few of the 29 dams there. The problem with pumped storage is terrain: you need a lake of significant size some altitude above the main reservoir, and in steep mountains that isn't available. Most lakes above these dams are small alpine glacier-fed ponds. I've flown over that sort of country.

And I knew about the towered weight affair, too. I just can't see such a thing storing large amounts of power unless it's huge. If they elevated one million pounds to 500 feet, and let it down over one hour, that's about 250 horsepower for that one hour. Not a lot of energy. Unless my calculations are way off. Are they using much more weight and altitude?

From Wiki:

Energy Vault is developing a crane that generates electricity from dropping blocks of concrete rather than water. Energy Vault has not specified a release date for its product, but prototypes are in the works and Energy Vault’s stacked blocks concept is being built to be a promising long-duration storage technology.[8][9][10] In late 2020, the Swiss company built in Arbedo-Castione six cranes installed in a 110-meter-high tower moving a 35-ton concrete block up and down that can store 80 megawatt hours of energy.

Can someone tell me how they get 80 megawatt hours out of 35 tons falling 360 feet?
Click to expand...
Go to the original reference. It's not one block, but many blocks of 35 metric tons each, they have 6 cranes in the linked reference from the portion you quoted.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/energy...ea-to-store-green-power-for-the-grid/45467684
https://spectrum.ieee.org/gravity-energy-storage-will-show-its-potential-in-2021

Having said that, I think we both are making the same error somewhere since I get 188.6 kilowatts for your million pound example, which is about 250 HP, as you stated. That seems low to me- Grand Coulee isn't that high. How much water goes through it? Is it a million tons per hour?
 
3393RP said:
Don't forget the massive government subsidies, which are going to increase under the current administration. I don't think the wealthy need free money (proposed to increase to $15,000 per vehicle) to buy electric cars that cost well over $50,000.

I also think wind and solar are responsible for upending the environment in western states. The proposed amount of solar power farms will desecrate millions of acres of pristine desert.
Click to expand...
Which solar farms are these?

[QUOTE="3393RP, post: 3148082, member: 12824"Hundreds of miles of access roads for wind turbines are being cut through mountain forests with bulldozers, and they cause erosion which will result in the loss of surface soils and ugly scars. The turbines increasingly kill large avian raptors too.

It's funny the same people that decried the presence of billboards on interstate highways aren't bothered at all with the destruction caused by wind and solar installations.[/QUOTE]
Which wind projects are those?

In both questions, I'm just asking
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Which solar farms are these?

Which wind projects are those?

In both questions, I'm just asking
Click to expand...

For scale, note the dirt roads that delineate sections of land. A section is one square mile. It is unarguable that the amount of land required to implement the planned massive solar projects will destroy the desert environment, which is quite fragile.

roserock-solar-farm-texas-2020.jpg


Wind farm access roads are being cut everywhere, and again, with the number of turbines planned to explode, they will cause much destruction. This photo is an exemplar of the damage they cause. Those native grasslands will require years to heal, and in the meantime, rains will cause erosion of the disturbed soil.

3d97f911-594f-4257-880c-d9aa1c6da22d.jpg
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Go to the original reference. It's not one block, but many blocks of 35 metric tons each, they have 6 cranes in the linked reference from the portion you quoted.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/energy...ea-to-store-green-power-for-the-grid/45467684
https://spectrum.ieee.org/gravity-energy-storage-will-show-its-potential-in-2021

Having said that, I think we both are making the same error somewhere since I get 188.6 kilowatts for your million pound example, which is about 250 HP, as you stated. That seems low to me- Grand Coulee isn't that high. How much water goes through it? Is it a million tons per hour?
Click to expand...
The million-pound weight in a 500-foot tower was my hypothetical example. Grand Coulee pumps its water only about 280 feet up. A 24% loss in efficiency. The six pump-generators can generate over 300 MW, which sounds high but isn't. Grand Coulee itself generates 6800 MW. https://www.nwcouncil.org/sites/default/files/MarkJones_1.pdf
 
3393RP said:
For scale, note the dirt roads that delineate sections of land. A section is one square mile. It is unarguable that the amount of land required to implement the planned massive solar projects will destroy the desert environment, which is quite fragile.

roserock-solar-farm-texas-2020.jpg


Wind farm access roads are being cut everywhere, and again, with the number of turbines planned to explode, they will cause much destruction. This photo is an exemplar of the damage they cause. Those native grasslands will require years to heal, and in the meantime, rains will cause erosion of the disturbed soil.

3d97f911-594f-4257-880c-d9aa1c6da22d.jpg
Click to expand...
Again, which projects? The second looks like Altamont, which has been in California for decades.
 
Dan Thomas said:
The million-pound weight in a 500-foot tower was my hypothetical example. Grand Coulee pumps its water only about 280 feet up. A 24% loss in efficiency. The six pump-generators can generate over 300 MW, which sounds high but isn't. Grand Coulee itself generates 6800 MW. https://www.nwcouncil.org/sites/default/files/MarkJones_1.pdf
Click to expand...
That's my point. We only have a 280 foot change in elevation here, and there have been various "gravity batteries" for many decades, yet they do better than our calculations would suggest. When my calculations suggest something doesn't work, and someone else has it working, I tend to suspect my calculations are wrong.:)
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Again, which projects? The second looks like Altamont, which has been in California for decades.
Click to expand...

If you read more carefully, I specifically said I was referring to future projects. As of 2020, wind/solar projects provide 13% of utility scale power in the US. With the government claiming that number will increase to 50% by 2030, it's obvious that many more of these abominations will be built in the next ten years.

The Biden administration and Democratic Congress are planning to pass new laws that give the industries billions in subsidies, an action unneeded if solar and wind are going to become widespread as its proponents proclaim.

This photo of Hanwha Energy's Unit 174 in Texas is a better example of my complaint. Hundreds of acres of native vegetation was bladed under to build it. To keep the area under the solar panels free of vegetation regrowth, it's a given that herbicides like glyphosate and 2,4,D are being heavily applied on the soil here and at every other solar farm.

28ba32f426ab8c7c3155c8851a9aa544.jpeg


Hanwha and French petroleum giant Total plan to build over a dozen of these solar farms, initiating the wholesale destruction of millions of acres of land now vacant or being farmed.

French refiner Total SE and South Korea’s Hanwha Energy Corp. have agreed to set up a joint venture to build solar power plants and storage centers in 12 US locations, in projects worth around 2 trillion won ($1.8 billion).

The 50:50 JV will build solar energy facilities with a combined power generation capacity of 1.6 gigawatts (GW) to provide electricity to 300,000 households annually in six US states, Total and Hanwha said in a joint statement on Jan. 14.

https://www.kedglobal.com/newsView/ked202101150004

This photo clearly illustrates the desecration that turbines will visit on every ridgeline in the Southwest. As is typical across the country, none of the access roads to these several hundred turbines are paved. Little or no engineering was done when they were constructed, and where the roads pass small valleys on the mountain, no relief culverts have been installed.

Spoils from the grading of the roads is simply pushed into these valleys. These turbines will require blade replacement at some point in the near future. The heavy trucks that will haul them to the turbine base and the huge cranes that will lift them into place will further exacerbate the erosion of soil

106216240-1572537090795gettyimages-1139164884.jpeg



Websites like this one trumpet the proliferation of "the dramatic growth of clean energy." There is no mention of environmental stewardship, just bromides about the "clean, renewable energy."

https://environmentamerica.org/feature/ame/renewables-rise-2020
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
If you read more carefully, I specifically said I was referring to future projects. As of 2020, wind/solar projects provide 13% of utility scale power in the US. With the government claiming that number will increase to 50% by 2030, it's obvious that many more of these abominations will be built in the next ten years. The Biden administration and Democratic Congress are planning to pass new laws that give the industries billions in subsidies, an action unneeded if solar and wind are going to become widespread as its proponents proclaim.

This photo of Hanwha Energy's Unit 174 in Texas is a better example of my complaint. Hundreds of acres of native vegetation was bladed under to build it.

28ba32f426ab8c7c3155c8851a9aa544.jpeg


Hanwha and French petroleum giant Total plan to build over a dozen of these solar farms, initiating the wholesale destruction of millions of acres of land now vacant or being farmed.

French refiner Total SE and South Korea’s Hanwha Energy Corp. have agreed to set up a joint venture to build solar power plants and storage centers in 12 US locations, in projects worth around 2 trillion won ($1.8 billion).

The 50:50 JV will build solar energy facilities with a combined power generation capacity of 1.6 gigawatts (GW) to provide electricity to 300,000 households annually in six US states, Total and Hanwha said in a joint statement on Jan. 14.

https://www.kedglobal.com/newsView/ked202101150004
Click to expand...
One estimate is that 34% of the necessary electricity capacity of the country can be had using rooftop solar. So that takes care of 1/3 of your gripes.

An alternative is to do nothing and just burn all the oil and coal, leading to much hotter and drier summers and winters across the west, leading to the entire western forest entering a more frequent and destructive burn cycle. Another option.

A more productive option would be to remove cattle farming operations and replace them with solar farms. Cattle being the lest efficient, and most greenhouse intensive way to produce food, removing them and replacing them with solar would have a huge net benefit. But that requires a bunch of old white men to change their eating habits, which we all know is anathema.

Since you are so concerned with roads through the West, I assume that you oppose all forms of motorized recreation across the intermountain west and desert regions. So no dirt bikes, ATVs, off-road vehicles, jeep trails, etc. To be honest, this is a great idea for wildlife as the greatest threat to their well-being is humans, even the occasional passing.

Thanks for making your post political as well - since of course no Republican ever wants solar (except Bush who added solar panels back on the White House that Regan ripped off). Maybe the moderators will take notice.
 
PaulS said:
Pumping is generally pretty inefficient.
Click to expand...
Sure, but it's energy that would otherwise be lost completely — you can't shut down a nuclear reactor every night when demand falls off.

FWIW, fossil fuels are pretty inefficient, too (our ICE engines use <30% of the available energy in the fuel, and just spew the rest out the exhaust).
 
3393RP said:
...Wind farm access roads are being cut everywhere, and again, with the number of turbines planned to explode, they will cause much destruction. This photo is an exemplar of the damage they cause. Those native grasslands will require years to heal, and in the meantime, rains will cause erosion of the disturbed soil....
Click to expand...
Here's some more environmental destruction caused by wind farms. ;)

Bird.jpg
 
Matthew Rogers said:
An alternative is to do nothing and just burn all the oil and coal, leading to much hotter and drier summers and winters across the west, leading to the entire western forest entering a more frequent and destructive burn cycle. Another option.

Thanks for making your post political as well - since of course no Republican ever wants solar (except Bush who added solar panels back on the White House that Regan ripped off). Maybe the moderators will take notice.
Click to expand...

It's an irrefutable fact that adopting wind and solar exposes the country to blackouts. This was underscored by the recent power interruptions and price spikes in Europe caused by the disappearance of wind in the North Sea.

The sudden slowdown in wind-driven electricity production off the coast of the U.K. in recent weeks whipsawed through regional energy markets. Gas and coal-fired electricity plants were called in to make up the shortfall from wind.

Natural-gas prices, already boosted by the pandemic recovery and a lack of fuel in storage caverns and tanks, hit all-time highs. Thermal coal, long shunned for its carbon emissions, has emerged from a long price slump as utilities are forced to turn on backup power sources.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/energy...-records-after-wind-stops-blowing-11631528258

It's hardly political to name the current president or the goals of his administration and Congress. I stated facts, not opinion, and did not use any negative language in doing so.

Matthew Rogers said:
Cattle being the lest efficient, and most greenhouse intensive way to produce food, removing them and replacing them with solar would have a huge net benefit. But that requires a bunch of old white men to change their eating habits, which we all know is anathema.
Click to expand...

Your derogatory mention of "old white men" is political. Besides that, I wasn't aware that eating beef is limited to those you denigrate. The ranching of cattle for a protein source is ubiquitous worldwide. Destroying that source would negatively affect those that can least afford to lose the sustenance provided by beef.

Like many people, you consider the removal of oil from society as a minor inconvenience. You fail to consider that it provides feedstock for thousands of essential products, like plastics. In addition, petroleum energy sources provide inexpensive and reliable power to billions of people living in poverty across the world. Efforts by governments around the world to remove it from everyday life is ridiculously naive and shortsighted. It would punish those least able to lose it.







 
3393RP said:
The ranching of cattle for a protein source is ubiquitous worldwide. Destroying that source would negatively affect those that can least afford to lose the sustenance provided by beef.

Like many people, you consider the removal of oil from society as a minor inconvenience. You fail to consider that it provides feedstock for thousands of essential products, like plastics. In addition, petroleum energy sources provide inexpensive and reliable power to billions of people living in poverty across the world. Efforts by governments around the world to remove it from everyday life is ridiculously naive and shortsighted. It would punish those least able to lose it.
Click to expand...

Good information in your post! I'm certain as a society that there are gains to be made but some of the ideas being put forth as rational simply are not.
 
Wind and solar are not viable. It’s one of the primary reasons the oils and gas companies contributed heavily in anti-nuclear and pro solar /wind movements. They effectively built support for competition from energy sources that can never replace them and made the one that could become an evil in our society.
 
WDD said:
Profits and economics - not government planning - drive innovation and progress.
Click to expand...

Yes. Add 'war', where the war causes actual concern that we'll lose the country - ww2, cold, and you have most of it. Internet? DARPA. Space program? Without the cold war, it would've been a way slower thing. It has been very expensive. But private sector, separately, made those inventions less expensive and more practical.

Solar, wind? Mostly things to make people feel better about themselves, in my view. In the grand scheme of things, I see it as roughly equivalent to putting a bunch of helium party balloons in the back of your 182 to get better fuel economy.
 
3393RP said:
It is unarguable that
Click to expand...

no commentary on this, but to me, any statement phrased this way becomes something to be doubted. I hear “I don’t want you to question this because I cannot really prove it”. It’s right there with “it’s settled science” in terms of red flags of weak arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top