I think that's something you read into it; you'd have to link it up for me to know the context.
I don't know how easy or hard it will be, but from the LCOE numbers solar and wind have been less expensive than fossil fuels for years, that adding in a battery isn't an order of magnitude more expensive with existing tech, that it won't send us to the stone age to accomplish, and that it's something we need to do. It also is something that can be done over the next ~30 years. |  |
Unsubstantiated opinion with no facts from creditable sources to back it up; and overwhelming evidence to the contrary, see the
recap for links.
Agreed, even says so in the recap.
Unsubstantiated opinion with no facts from creditable sources to back it up; and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Unsubstantiated opinion with no facts from creditable sources to back it up; and overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In fact, the evidence suggests we'll be in trouble if we don't switch.
Can we remove the trillion spent on oil subsidies too?
Elon Musk estimated it would only take 10 Trillion or so to replace fossil fuels, so moving those subsidies to renewables it would be paid for with just 10 years of oil subsidies, after that the subsidies could finally end and taxes could be lowered ; -)
(yeah we'll probably never get rid of oil subsidies, but at least they should go down at some point)
This is a quarter-truth at best mixed with a whole lot of lie. It is true some panels with rare metals (e.g., cadmium) are considered hazardous waste IF the amount is high enough; but those types of panels are not common. The average silicon solar panel is not toxic. But, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be properly recycled so the materials can be reused.
Next, you need to compare the harm against what it replaces. Oil spills that devastate coastlines. Coal that contains trace radioactivity that by itself isn't a big deal...but when you burn tons of it the place becomes more radioactive than a nuclear power plant. There's also the air pollution:
(and I didn't even mention that pesky global warming)
The land use problem isn't as big of a deal as people like to make it out to be. If you do
some quick math you'll see if the U.S. roadways consumer 2.5x the space that would be
needed for the power we consume.
If we put that much asphalt down and took up that much space for cars, we can do it for
solar.
Doesn't even need to be on land, some places have put them over lakes. California is
talking about putting panels over aqueducts to minimize water loss ref.
To the right, the red dot represents what Elon Musk estimates is required. Be generous
and double it, yeah... still not that much. | |
If you search for things on the web you can find whatever you want it to say. This particular site is a media site designed to instruct voters on how to think about issues and is funded by, among others, the Koch brothers who have a somewhat vested interest. The earlier links you provided from more reputable sites listed fossil fuel failures, mismanagement, and global warming.
Another Koch brothers media site with the sole purpose of instructing voters on how they want you to think about issues.
It was refuted a few posts back showing the data to be erroneous.
He's just a clickbait media consultant. He makes money getting people to click his links with outrageous conspiracy theories. He has no scientific background, but he does follow the PR playbook of discrediting the science. A lot of what the "experts" he has on the show say about the fallacies of the scientific process are in fact true (or at least partially true); but they apply to all science and it hasn't stopped us from putting men on the moon, selling microwave ovens, building nuclear reactors, polluting the atmosphere, etc. The process is what is, not perfect, but the best we have been able to come up with.
Nowhere in the article does say renewables are causing problems. What it says the outages are caused by are:
- In October, Pacific Gas and Electric cut off power to homes across California to avoid starting forest fires.
- had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states
- didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices
- California’s anti-nuclear policies also contributed to the blackouts.
He does make an interesting point that climate change is affecting the viability of wind and solar in the state which therefore affects the economics and there are similar warnings in the IPCC. So, it's possible. But I'd be leery of calling such a small sample set as proof of change or that it's directly attributable to global warming. Unfortunately, his conclusion is nuclear is better isn't really good because as we know that technology isn't viable due to upcoming fuel limitations as was in both your recent link on materials and Sabine's
video (that is it takes technology we don't have to sustain nuclear, but people are working on it. If it wasn't so expensive I'd be more for it.).
...
well shoot,
@MurphyGuy posted before me and it looks like we're saying the same things so I'll just stop here after a proof-read.
