diy solar

diy solar

Can Solar & Wind Fix Everything (e.g., Climate Change) with a battery break-through?

Svetz: Again, the goal is to stop burning oil... not to stop petroleum-based products.

What you need to understand, is that burning oil enables 90% of our civilization. Every single convenience you have is because we are burning oil (and Natural gas). If you dont understand the chain you need to seriously educate yourself on how most things are made and what goes into it, otherwise you are another one of those people who think electricity comes from the wall, and milk comes from supermarket (Like the vast majority of progressive leftists)

Until you PERSONALLY are willing to give up every wonder of "western" civilization (including toilet and running water), you are a BS Spewing hypocrite pushing a narrative consequences of which you know nothing about. Just like all of the megarich above.

Also laughing at lazard analysis "Under certain circumstances"
For what its worth, Lazard was my customer for 2 years (major IT project) and that company is so corrupt at all levels, anything they produce is not worth the paper (or digital bits) its written on.
 
Last edited:
From Lazard's, Solar PV is the lowest cost of energy ($-0.015/kWh) and for reliability with Battery storage is only slightly more than natural gas (+$0.007/kWh), as battery prices continue to fall, so will the LCOE. So, less expensive for worlds population:
1692636933758-png.163866



You're listening to ridiculous hysterical rhetoric that shouldn't fool anyone. Relax a bit!
It's not replace everything today, it's over the next 30 years as things naturally wear out replace them with green alternatives.


This is another ridiculous claim by hysterics.
It's not "Eliminate Oil", it's "Eliminate Fossil Fuels". Not burning oil doesn't mean you can't use oil to make plastics.


More hysteria.



Piling on yet more hysteria, based on an incorrect basis. BTW, even without oil we can make plastic from coal. Well, actually we can make it out of the CO2 in the air (interesting ref for geeks).


This is far from the actual problems associated with climate warming.

You are in fact already paying more for the impacts of climate than you are on reversing climate change.

This chart clearly shows climate change is increasing and has a real cost. In 2022 it cost over $400 billion. You know what's funny, we didn't spend anywhere near that on trying to slow/halt climate change. The longer we delay, the more we spend on costs to combat it.

2022_BDD_combo_histogram_costs_event.png


Weather impacts are just one area of increased costs. There's also biodiversity, military impacts, border security, increasing insurance costs, agricultural costs, and many many more. The University of Chicago estimates that 0.7 percent of GDP is spent for every 1°F increase in temperature on average ref.

At some point, impacts of climate change become so bad that we can't afford to fix the problem. For example:


Did I forget to mention how rich the residents are?
The average annual household income there is $54,963 ref. Their economy is centered on fishing, crabbing, and oystering ref.
If you ban fossil fuels by government decree, are you going to be the one making the investments to drill? If not you, than who?
The cost chart is made up bullcrap. Insurance covers most disasters. The government usually does squat. Just ask the folks in Maui.
Border security as weather related costs? Maybe in Ukraine, not here.

Even if we take your chart for granted, the estimated economic impact of green economy is in the TRILLIONS od lost revenue, or increased product costs.
Not only that, green appliances just dont work. Does your dishwasher dry your dishes? I still use an ancient old school dishwasher that works.

Plastics out of the air? Cool, when is that going to hit the market? I am sure all the factories can switch over to that tech tomorrow at no cost.

Replace a bit of the next 30 years? What about London fine cameras forcing folks not to drive or get a fine TODAY? Or no ice cars by 2030 mandate?

Tell you what, talk to Xi in China and have him force his country to adopt all these climate change mandates in HIS country as a test first, OK?

They are already communist, so it will be easier. Once we see how great it works out for them, then we can adopt it in the west! I am sure they would love to do it.

In the meantime, I would like the government to just LMTFA.
 
They do not give a shit about the environment. All they care about is control over you. And "green" activists are bought and paid for

Green Activists Silent as California Moves to Help Wind Farm Slaughter of America’s Iconic Bald Eagle​

America’s national bird, the bald eagle, along with golden eagles and other raptors, face mass slaughter in California’s wind farm avian graveyards following the State Democrat-controlled legislature’s decision to relax controls on wildlife protections. Signed into law last month, with little protest, Senate Bill 147 (SB 147) allows permits to kill previously fully protected species for renewable energy and infrastructure projects. The move comes as the Federal Biden Administration pushes ahead with ambitious plans to increase renewable energy harnessed from both onshore and offshore giant turbines.

Local lawyer Cox Castle explained that before SB 147, no authorisation existed for the slaughter of 37 fully protected native species, except for scientific research. This meant, they continued, that the presence of protected birds on a renewable energy development could stop the project in its tracks. “SB 147 creates more certainty for renewable energy and certain other project developers because it establishes a permitting process for these species,” it notes. Cox Castle also observes that the protected species list has been “updated” with the removal of the American peregrine falcon and the brown pelican.

Of course, the avian destruction has been going on for years, with giant turbine blades posing serious hazards to large birds such as eagles that rely on air currents for sustained flight. NextEra Energy is one of America’s largest utility companies, and last year it was fined $8 million after 150 eagles were killed at its wind farms across eight states. Almost all the deaths occurred when the eagles were hit by turbine blades. Because carcasses are not always found, officials told the court that the number killed was likely to have been higher.

It might be America’s national bird, displayed everywhere on coins, flags and official documents, but few activists seem to be able to rouse themselves to complain when the natural flight path of the bald eagle stands in the way of green progress. Audubon California claims its mission is to restore and conserve natural ecosystems, focusing on birds, other wildlife and their habitats for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity. But Policy Director Mark Lynes said he did not want to see eagle deaths “being used to push against clean energy”. Our position is that we need renewable energy resources, “but we also know that they can be sited and adequately mitigated so that we’re not causing declines in wildlife populations”. In addition, during the same interview, Lynes confirmed the scale of the slaughter of the golden eagle, noting that a wind farm complex in Altamont had been killing 75-100 golden eagles every year since the 1980s, according to the Golden Gate Audubon Society.

In total there are thought to be about 300,000 bald eagles in the United States but less than 30,000 golden eagles, mostly to be found in the West. Extermination on the scale recently identified from wind farms is likely to have a noticeable effect on future numbers. Needless to say, the destruction of wildlife by wind turbines is almost completely ignored by mainstream media, a situation unlikely to occur if, for instance, oil and gas companies were responsible for such carnage.

As the Daily Sceptic has reported in the past, it is not just large birds of prey that are at risk from onshore wind farms. Recent scientific work suggested that millions of bats across the world are killed every year by turbine blades. A recent German field study identified 55 casualties per megawatt generated. Britain currently has 14,000 megawatts of onshore capacity, although actual generation is less. Political pressure to boost this onshore capacity is growing and it would be helpful if a figure on the accepted bat butcher’s bill could be produced. For its part, the Bat Conservation Trust takes a sympathetic line noting that there has been evidence of bat collision with wind turbines for 20 years, but it supports the development of wind power. Sympathetic towards the highly subsidised wind energy business, it would seem, rather than the unfortunate bats.

Meanwhile, off the eastern coast of the United States whales continue to beach in unusually high numbers. The latest fatality was a humpback that was washed ashore on the New Jersey coast, bringing the total to around 300 fatalities in the last five years. Many suggest the deaths have been caused by massive offshore construction of wind turbine parks, with extensive sonar soundings and pile-driving causing havoc with aquatic feeding, breeding and migration up and down the coast. “This alarming number of deaths is unprecedented in the last century,” said Cindy Zipf, Executive Director of Ocean Clean Action, adding, “the only unique factor from previous years is the excessive scope, scale and magnitude of offshore wind powerplant activity in the area.”

The veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger has weighed in on official denials that the massive offshore building works are wreaking environmental damage. “They’re lying,” he charged, and he called the issue around the industrialisation in previously pristine waters, “the biggest environmental scandal in the world”.
 
This was the remark from Lucas when we at HQ were viewing the following.


And this beauty…



Then this


While on the topic of imbeciles, morons, and clowns, there’s also this:


The mine is so important for Warsaw that it has in effect been paying the EU to keep it open. Poland defied the court’s 2021 interim order for it to stop mining and refused to pay the resulting daily fine of €500,000. In response, the European Commission began deducting the fine from EU funds earmarked for Poland — withholding €68mn in total — while Poland separately paid €45mn to the Czech Republic in compensation for environmental damage and to get Prague to drop its lawsuit.
Brussels has also excluded the region around Turów from EU subsidies for places that transition away from fossil fuel production.
It’s almost as if they need coal.

Speaking of which, Turkiye, a country I’ve been telling you is NOT going to go along with the woke ESG shullbit, just tossed the climate alarmists aside like a rag doll.

Jeez! Doesn’t he realise the existential threat to humanity here? Clearly an unhinged extremist. Probably misogynistic, too. Definitely actually, after he arrested all the pink-haired folks who were trying to parade their bits in front of children in Istanbul during pride month.

From the article:

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Monday dismissed environmental protests over the felling of trees to expand a coal mine in southwest Turkey, saying the campaign was led by “marginals”.
Marginals? So he’s not going to let a few radicals dictate to the majority? Must be undemocratic.

This power plant, which produces almost two-thirds of the electricity consumed in the southern Aegean, contributes around one billion dollars annually to our country’s economy,” Erdogan said in a televised address after the weekly cabinet meeting.
He said the power plant needed to continue production with new coal basins as the existing reserves were close to depletion.

Coal power plants have become once again a major source of energy in European countries after the crisis that broke out with the Russia-Ukraine war,” he said.
“Although some are constantly and persistently trying to re-play the same scenarios with different skins, nobody is deceived by this game anymore,” Erdogan said.
He can’t possibly be referring to the Soros-sponsored “NGOs” that have actively been working throughout Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Nah, that’s crazy talk.

Now, to be clear… before we get any hate mail telling us what a bad man little Erdy is, realise this. They are ALL power hungry psychos. They are simply psychos with differing agendas, and it is our job to arbitrage those agendas for our own prosperity and freedom where possible.
 

Patrick Frank is a physical methods experimental chemist. BS, MS, San Francisco State University; PhD, Stanford University; Bergmann Postdoctoral Fellow, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. Now Emeritus scientific staff of the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory and the Department of Chemistry, Stanford University. He has 67 publications in bioinorganic chemistry including among others the unusual metal active site in blue copper electron transport proteins, the first X-ray spectroscopic evidence for through-sigma-bond electron transfer, falsification of rack-induced bonding theory, deriving the asymmetric solvation structure of dissolved cupric ion (which overturned 60 years of accepted wisdom), and resolving the highly unusual and ancient (Cambrian) biological chemistry of vanadium and sulfuric acid in blood cells of the sea squirt Ascidia ceratodes. He also has peer-reviewed publications on the intelligent design myth, the science is philosophy myth, the noble savage myth, the human-caused global warming myth, and the academic STEM culture of sexual harassment myth.
Hey @svetz, will you be including this report in your next summary? Its obvious the science is NOT agreed upon. It may be a way to control people, and create a generation of useful fearful lemmings. I would take Frank's data over Greta's any day!
 
If you ban fossil fuels by government decree, are you going to be the one making the investments to drill?
Copper, gold, magnesium, nickle, silver... they're all commonly mined and have embedded exploration costs. Oil should be no different. When we eliminate oil being burned we'll use a lot of less of it. That means the existing sources will last much longer.

Border security as weather related costs? Maybe in Ukraine, not here.
Here are some U.S. Headlines:

Even if we take your chart for granted, the estimated economic impact of green economy is in the TRILLIONS od lost revenue, or increased product costs.
No, that's B.S. Electrification saves us money.

Not only that, green appliances just dont work. Does your dishwasher dry your dishes?
Sure does! Why wouldn't it? Electrification doesn't mean having less power available.

Plastics out of the air? Cool, when is that going to hit the market? I am sure all the factories can switch over to that tech tomorrow at no cost.
It's cool, but I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. That's why we will continue to use oil. We just won't be wasting it by putting it into the air.

Replace a bit of the next 30 years? What about London fine cameras forcing folks not to drive or get a fine TODAY?
Considering the smog there that's a good idea. London is a lot like New York where most use the underground. Mainly it's a tax to encourage people to shift. Hopefully, we'll do something similar.

Or no ice cars by 2030 mandate?
It's not no ICE cars by 2030, that's just hysteria. Countries that have the mandate (the U.S. does not) mandate that new ICE cars won't be sold after 2030, and usually that's only passenger cars. California has adopted a similar law. So, all that means is that at some point you won't be able to buy an ICE vehicle at some point.

Personally, I think that's stupid and sabotages the green fuel industry and hurts farmers. I'm hoping the U.S. comes up with an official stance that just declares net-neutral is fine.

Tell you what, talk to Xi in China and have him force his country to adopt all these climate change mandates in HIS country as a test first, OK? They are already communist, so it will be easier.
So true. I can't believe the number of idiots in our government.

As to China, they're actually doing more than the U.S. at this point. Here are some headlines:
Once we see how great it works out for them, then we can adopt it in the west! I am sure they would love to do it.
This is why Murphy gets upset, the attitude that we should just roll over and let China become the uncontested world leader. If they have cheap reliable power (we already know renewable LCOEs are cheaper than fossil) and are not beholding to anyone for fuel, then what happens to countries that are held hostage to other powers for energy (you know, like Ukraine now, or the U.S. in the '70s?).
 
Last edited:
I would take Frank's data over Greta's any day!
Greta doesn't produce data, she just protests government officials denying settled science. Incorporating lies into the summary isn't in the best interest of thread IMO. You guys feel free to lie and be as hysterical as you like to cover any bases you feel are missed, people have fun disproving them and poking at their gullibility.
 
Copper, gold, magnesium, nickle, silver... they're all commonly mined and have embedded exploration costs. Oil should be no different. When we eliminate oil being burned we'll use a lot of less of it. That means the existing sources will last much longer.


Here are some U.S. Headlines:


No, that's B.S. Electrification saves us money.


Sure does! Why wouldn't it? Electrification doesn't mean having less power available.


It's cool, but I wouldn't expect it anytime soon. That's why we will continue to use oil. We just won't be wasting it by putting it into the air.


Considering the smog there that's a good idea. London is a lot like New York where most use the underground. Mainly it's a tax to encourage people to shift. Hopefully, we'll do something similar.


It's not no ICE cars by 2030, that's just hysteria. Countries that have the mandate (the U.S. does not) mandate that new ICE cars won't be sold after 2030, and usually that's only passenger cars. California has adopted a similar law. So, all that means is that at some point you won't be able to buy an ICE vehicle at some point.

Personally, I think that's stupid and sabotages the green fuel industry and hurts farmers. I'm hoping the U.S. comes up with an official stance that just declares net-neutral is fine.


So true. I can't believe the number of idiots in our government.

As to China, they're actually doing more than the U.S. at this point:


This is why Murphy gets upset, the attitude that we should just roll over and let China become the uncontested world leader. If they have cheap reliable power (we already know renewable LCOEs are cheaper than fossil) and are not beholding to anyone for fuel, then what happens to countries that are held hostage to other powers for energy (you know, like Ukraine now, or the U.S. in the '70s?).
Its actually kinda funny, how Murphy is anti religion, but climate change is his religion, and yours so it seems.

Migration to the US is caused by climate change? Does the climate not change in the US too? See how silly that is? If it changes everywhere, then why the migration? Or are we just special because our government gives out free shit to illegal aliens, and do not uphold our border laws?

Shaking my head at all the gullible lemmings being manufactured by the dept of education.
 
...Migration to the US is caused by climate change? Does the climate not change in the US too? See how silly that is? ...
What's silly is you don't see it. When infrastructure breaks here because of climate change we fix it. In other countries they can't so conditions get worse. As it spirals more and more it's easier for them to dare the border than try to fix things. Also, if you look at the maps, you'll see North America has been relatively untouched by climate change so far (despite spending 400 billion just last year). The grass truly is greener here (perhaps not as green as in Ireland ; -) and that's why smart people are worried about the borders.

Shaking my head at all the gullible lemmings...
See, we have things in common! ; -)
 
Last edited:
Yeah. NPR.
NPR does lean left, but which part regarding the candidates' responses did you think was biased? I didn't watch the debate, so might have missed something - but the report aligned to what I've read about the candidates' stances on climate change so figured it was fair enough to post.
 
Last edited:
NPR does lean left, but which part regarding the candidates' responses did you think was biased? I didn't watch the debate, so might have missed something - but the report aligned to what I've read about the candidates' stances on climate change so figured it was fair enough to post.
Here is another perspective:
 
Here is another perspective:
Were you open minded enough to actually watch that clip all the way through? Are you in agreement that the government needs to steal your property for Climate Change? How about de-population? Maybe ovens like in the 40's?

Did you do your share yet by stopping all travel, and now eat bugs cause no meat or dairy? Have you thrown out all your peteoleum based products?

Maybe best to sit in the middle of the road to stop all that ICE traffic which is destroying the earth? Or throw shit at oil paintings in France?
 
Were you open minded enough to actually watch that clip all the way through? Are you in agreement that the government needs to steal your property for Climate Change? How about de-population? Maybe ovens like in the 40's?

Did you do your share yet by stopping all travel, and now eat bugs cause no meat or dairy? Have you thrown out all your peteoleum based products?

Maybe best to sit in the middle of the road to stop all that ICE traffic which is destroying the earth? Or throw shit at oil paintings in France?
Why is everything so black and white with you folks? If we support efforts to mitigate climate change, then we're guilty of hypocrisy if we don't stop driving and eat bugs?

WTF is wrong with you? When they say "common sense" is no longer common.. this is what they mean...

Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.. this is a perfect example of it.
 
I said this before and i will say this again - Until Svetz and the like agree to personally give up all the advances of modern civilization that were enabled and are still supported by burning conventional fuels they are just a bunch of progressive liberal hypocrites who do not know what they are talking about.
But with them being shills i expect nothing of the sort. Just empty demagogy typical of the left.
 
Why is everything so black and white with you folks? If we support efforts to mitigate climate change, then we're guilty of hypocrisy if we don't stop driving and eat bugs?

WTF is wrong with you? When they say "common sense" is no longer common.. this is what they mean...

Irrational beliefs cause irrational behaviors.. this is a perfect example of it.
I guess its because climate change alarmists become activists, and try to FORCE people to align with their fears and do their bidding.

They dont know how to just leave people alone.

Jamie Diamond wants the government to seize property for climate change? The VP espouses de-population as a solution?

That is some evil scary shit.

This is why I would ask those who believe its a hair on fire emergency to lead the way by example, instead of hypocrisy.

Spend trillions to MAYBE change the temp by a degree? How about using that money to create wealth for the masses? Invest in research? Find new habitable planets and build a way to get there?

Or even better, STOP SPENDING other peoples hard earned money, let the folks keep the fruits of their labor, and let the free market dictate which technology wins!

In the US, follow the constitution, and get the hell out of peoples way. Look what Elon Musk accomplished. The Government is now suing SpaceX for political reasons. I say defund the government, let charity work to help people, and let the economy boom to bring others out of poverty. We can then all work together to assure a better world for our children.
 
I guess its because climate change alarmists become activists, and try to FORCE people to align with their fears and do their bidding.

They dont know how to just leave people alone.

Jamie Diamond wants the government to seize property for climate change? The VP espouses de-population as a solution?

That is some evil scary shit.

This is why I would ask those who believe its a hair on fire emergency to lead the way by example, instead of hypocrisy.

Spend trillions to MAYBE change the temp by a degree? How about using that money to create wealth for the masses? Invest in research? Find new habitable planets and build a way to get there?

Or even better, STOP SPENDING other peoples hard earned money, let the folks keep the fruits of their labor, and let the free market dictate which technology wins!

In the US, follow the constitution, and get the hell out of peoples way. Look what Elon Musk accomplished. The Government is now suing SpaceX for political reasons. I say defund the government, let charity work to help people, and let the economy boom to bring others out of poverty. We can then all work together to assure a better world for our children.
Once again someone is doing there homework. The VP thing was.......
 
I guess its because climate change alarmists become activists, and try to FORCE people to align with their fears and do their bidding.
In every demographic, every career, and ever political view, there are always extremists who dial up their rhetoric to 11 thinking it will convince others of something.

Your behavior just exasperates such behavior by adding to it. If you want to throw gasoline on the flame, that's a good way to do it, but its only going to make things worse. And worse yet, you look like an idiot for doing it..

They dont know how to just leave people alone.
Well, in all fairness, neither does your ideology so you have that in common.

Jamie Diamond wants the government to seize property for climate change? The VP espouses de-population as a solution?
Yea, and some democrats want to ban all guns, some republicans want the church to set law, and some other politicians think Jewish space lasers are responsible for forest fires.. bla bla bla.

Just because someone is an idiot, doesn't mean you need to join them.

That is some evil scary shit.
There are extremists on both sides..

This is why I would ask those who believe its a hair on fire emergency to lead the way by example, instead of hypocrisy.
Then ask THEM to do that.. Don't spread that bullshit to everyone else just because we think we need to mitigate the damage we're going to the climate.

Spend trillions to MAYBE change the temp by a degree? How about using that money to create wealth for the masses? Invest in research? Find new habitable planets and build a way to get there?
Yes, the world spending trillions to change 1 degree would be a good idea. That 1 degree change would pay for itself in fewer climate related natural disasters. It would even pay back individuals with lower electrical bills trying to cool their homes and lower food prices. It doesn't take a genius to run that math, just a bit of research.

Find new habitable planets and build a way to get there? Dude, I get that science isn't your thing.. but seriously, you should do some basic study so you understand what you're saying. There is a very distinct possibility that the laws of physics may not even allow interstellar travel.. The idea is so disturbing that most physicists won't even address it, but the more we learn about the nature of the universe, the more likely such restrictions look.
We squishy humans are delicate and easily killed.. and the universe is an extremely damn hostile place in its own. The distances involved are so vast and extreme that human brains simply can not comprehend them with anything more than numbers.

It boils down to this: We humans are either the first species in the galaxy, or travel is impossible.. Why? because at 13 BILLION years old, any species that obtained interstellar travel would have already occupied every bit of the galaxy. Look up "Von Neumann" and get some books and read.. you'll understand then.

In other simple terms, if interstellar travel is possible, then our Galaxy should look something like Star Trek or Star Wars, or some other quasi-similar galactic population plot. That's where these stories originate from..


Or even better, STOP SPENDING other peoples hard earned money, let the folks keep the fruits of their labor, and let the free market dictate which technology wins!
The free market doesn't work in such circumstances. Taxes are how society secures its own future. Humans always pick the lowest hanging fruit first.

In the US, follow the constitution, and get the hell out of peoples way. Look what Elon Musk accomplished. The Government is now suing SpaceX for political reasons. I say defund the government, let charity work to help people, and let the economy boom to bring others out of poverty. We can then all work together to assure a better world for our children.
You're reading too many radical right wing websites... They don't like Musk because he's all about science, and the religious right wing is definitively anti-science.
And if it was up to Elon Musk, your gas car would have already been banned..
 

Someone should get there facts straight.
 
In every demographic, every career, and ever political view, there are always extremists who dial up their rhetoric to 11 thinking it will convince others of something.

Your behavior just exasperates such behavior by adding to it. If you want to throw gasoline on the flame, that's a good way to do it, but its only going to make things worse. And worse yet, you look like an idiot for doing it..


Well, in all fairness, neither does your ideology so you have that in common.


Yea, and some democrats want to ban all guns, some republicans want the church to set law, and some other politicians think Jewish space lasers are responsible for forest fires.. bla bla bla.

Just because someone is an idiot, doesn't mean you need to join them.


There are extremists on both sides..


Then ask THEM to do that.. Don't spread that bullshit to everyone else just because we think we need to mitigate the damage we're going to the climate.


Yes, the world spending trillions to change 1 degree would be a good idea. That 1 degree change would pay for itself in fewer climate related natural disasters. It would even pay back individuals with lower electrical bills trying to cool their homes and lower food prices. It doesn't take a genius to run that math, just a bit of research.

Find new habitable planets and build a way to get there? Dude, I get that science isn't your thing.. but seriously, you should do some basic study so you understand what you're saying. There is a very distinct possibility that the laws of physics may not even allow interstellar travel.. The idea is so disturbing that most physicists won't even address it, but the more we learn about the nature of the universe, the more likely such restrictions look.
We squishy humans are delicate and easily killed.. and the universe is an extremely damn hostile place in its own. The distances involved are so vast and extreme that human brains simply can not comprehend them with anything more than numbers.

It boils down to this: We humans are either the first species in the galaxy, or travel is impossible.. Why? because at 13 BILLION years old, any species that obtained interstellar travel would have already occupied every bit of the galaxy. Look up "Von Neumann" and get some books and read.. you'll understand then.

In other simple terms, if interstellar travel is possible, then our Galaxy should look something like Star Trek or Star Wars, or some other quasi-similar galactic population plot. That's where these stories originate from..



The free market doesn't work in such circumstances. Taxes are how society secures its own future. Humans always pick the lowest hanging fruit first.


You're reading too many radical right wing websites... They don't like Musk because he's all about science, and the religious right wing is definitively anti-science.
And if it was up to Elon Musk, your gas car would have already been banned..
Funny, I thought the government just confirmed UFO's and Aliens. More fake news I guess.
 
Funny, I thought the government just confirmed UFO's and Aliens. More fake news I guess.
They did confirm UFO's.. They did not confirm aliens.. When listening to such things, one must listen very carefully to the words being spoken. UFO stands for UNIDENTIFIED flying object.. In other words, if the object isn't identified, then its a UFO.

Trust me on this one.. No aliens are visiting Earth..

Here, let me break it down in simple terms.

1)
The first thing to understand is that our planet does not have anything that can't be found EVERYWHERE else in the cosmos.. Not somewhere else, everywhere else. We used to think water was a defining attribute of our planet, and that's a big NOPE.

There is absolutely nothing on our muddy dirt ball that is special or that can't be obtained somewhere else in a more pure form. So aliens would never come here for resources.

2)
An argument could be made that aliens would study us.. In the context of the way that argument is made, it wouldn't be any different than suggesting that YOU would go study an ant hill in your back yard.. There is nothing special about us..

2a)
A similar argument could be made that aliens are interested in us BECAUSE we are about to have a technological breakthrough that will enable us to join the galactic community. (There was even a Star Trek episode dedicated to this one)

The problem is that technological breakthroughs on the level we're discussing don't happen in that way. We won't all of a sudden discover an anti-gravity drive or wormhole technology. These breakthrough earth changing discoveries used to happen with simple things we take for granted today, and even then, the change was slow.. They're the types of discoveries that happen with simple things.. That is no longer true and hasn't been since the 1950's or so. Technological advancements happen in baby steps, very small baby steps, and we're not even close.

And no aliens are ever going to fly into our atmosphere knowing it is populated with a bunch of screeching monkeys who like to hit each other with sticks.. and who possess nuclear weapons..

3) This is the scary one.. It is most likely that any species which evolved to dominate their own planet is a predator. And we also know that when a more advanced society encroaches on a more primitive society, the primitive society is screwed.
If aliens ever did show up in our solar system, I seriously doubt they'd be coming to share a beer.. Far more likely they'd wipe us out and occupy our habitable planet. Our planet being habitable is the only "reasonable" thing that might make us special.. And we would never see them coming.. Far more likely they would just grab a bunch of rocks and adjust their orbits to intersect with our planet.. No aliens = no nuclear war = no contamination. Wait a few years for the dust to settle and then move into their new apartment.

Aliens make for good movies because they push our imaginations.. but that's about it.
 

Non-Human Body Recovered From Crashed UFO, See The Video From Government Hearing​


ROFLMAO.. Sounds like someone is working on a book deal..

Seriously, are you really that gullible? Wait, what am I saying.. Of course you are.. I've read your other posts..
 

diy solar

diy solar
Back
Top