The Reason Renewables Can't Power Modern Civilization Is Because They Were Never Meant To
- Thread starter bone
- Start date
The Forbes article cites Der Spiegel extensively. Here's the Der Spiegel article cited by Forbes and translated for your own reference:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/148Lym3a487S8lha50QXGJfjQ1HmlNyj3QfLqAt0k0ng/edit
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/renewa...-65-percent-of-germanys-electricity-last-week
It is possible already today as shown, but true, currently not 65 at a sustainable level. I stand corrected. Thanks for the call out. This year it will most likely reach closer to 45-50%
It is possible already today as shown, but true, currently not 65 at a sustainable level. I stand corrected. Thanks for the call out. This year it will most likely reach closer to 45-50%
You are dancing around, I made a reference to Republican interest because it was the Forbes article you referenced. That the Forbes article in turn heavily relies on Der Spiegel article is irrelevant in this particular context.
Wind and solar are nice, but in order to meaningfully reduce fossil fuel use you need nuclear. France gets >70% from nuclear and has for decades.
Here in the U.S. we also waste fantastic quantities of energy keeping suburbia running. Good luck changing that, though sustained high oil prices would do the trick.
Here in the U.S. we also waste fantastic quantities of energy keeping suburbia running. Good luck changing that, though sustained high oil prices would do the trick.
Of course, is nuclear energy generation clean, the inconvenient fact that is often omitted is the uranium extraction and enrichment, and nuclear waste disposal. And, ups, the occasional, meltdown. That it has not happened in France so far has zero bearings on when it will eventually happen.
just google Al Gore $300m.
of course mega dollars changing hands in the petros... am not saying the petro people are angels.. but that does not negate the fact that CO2 is a lie.
so ill-informed where? the 2-inch CO2 layer, earth orbital cycles, solar cycles.. all are straight forward facts.
Re Gore: "Nobel prize winner and former Vice President Al Gore launched a three-year, $300 million advocacy campaign calling for the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions."
-> Gore does not collect a single penny personally on this campaign. Exposed Lie!
Re CO2: "CO2, or carbon dioxide, is the number one contributor to the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect is the Earth’s natural process of trapping gasses in the atmosphere in order to warm the Earth. Most environmentalists think it is the cause of the changing climate. The natural process is not harmful, but because of the excess emission of greenhouse gasses by humans, it has become harmful. The Earth is trapping too much gas in the atmosphere, which gradually warms the Earth. NASA monitors these changes and discovered that atmospheric CO2 levels have not been above 300 ppm for 650,000 years. They are now at 400 ppm, and have increased sharply in the last 50 years. The evidence shows that CO2 emissions is a current issue humans face and need to act against now."
-> The relationship between CO2 and an increased concentration of greenhouse gases is widely established and agreed upon by a large percentage of climate scientists. So is the effect of those concentrations on the changes in our atmosphere and rising temperatures. Exposed Lie!
-> Gore does not collect a single penny personally on this campaign. Exposed Lie!
Re CO2: "CO2, or carbon dioxide, is the number one contributor to the Greenhouse Effect. The Greenhouse Effect is the Earth’s natural process of trapping gasses in the atmosphere in order to warm the Earth. Most environmentalists think it is the cause of the changing climate. The natural process is not harmful, but because of the excess emission of greenhouse gasses by humans, it has become harmful. The Earth is trapping too much gas in the atmosphere, which gradually warms the Earth. NASA monitors these changes and discovered that atmospheric CO2 levels have not been above 300 ppm for 650,000 years. They are now at 400 ppm, and have increased sharply in the last 50 years. The evidence shows that CO2 emissions is a current issue humans face and need to act against now."
-> The relationship between CO2 and an increased concentration of greenhouse gases is widely established and agreed upon by a large percentage of climate scientists. So is the effect of those concentrations on the changes in our atmosphere and rising temperatures. Exposed Lie!
France grapples with its nuclear power dilemma
https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f326-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f
"Paris wants to avoid Germany’s mistake of scaling back nuclear in a hurry only to burn more dirty lignite."
https://www.ft.com/content/c7421fbe-f326-11e8-9623-d7f9881e729f
"Paris wants to avoid Germany’s mistake of scaling back nuclear in a hurry only to burn more dirty lignite."
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/...iberate-fraud-to-increase-governmental-power/
you so naive bro...
all the straight facts I listed went completely over your head.. and you are now citing NASA, that is in a funding crisis and looking for a reason for its existence.... think for a second... the human CO2, is 2% of all the CO2, and is 2 inches thick... humans contribute close to nothing to any warming.
have you noticed, they are not even calling it 'global warming' no more, because the warming stopped lol... now they are using 'global climate change'.... if this does not sound a bullshit alarm for you, I'd guess trading the market can be difficult lol... because trading is all about unfolding bullshit stories lol.
'large percentage of scientists'.... that sounds like Al Gore speak.. I actually have a PhD in Physical Chemistry... you need to do some independent fact finding... go talk to some real scientists and ask this question - is it possible to get research grant, to CONFIRM the CO2 effect on global warming; is it possible to get research grant, to DISAPPROVE the CO2 effect... what do you think the scientists purpose of existence? to do research for the goodness of mankind? or to get enough grant to survive for the next 3 years?
currently in the science community, it's about 50/50 split between the 'alarmist camp' and the 'doubter camp'... find out how many of the former are funded, and how many of the latter are funded... the findings will be jaw dropping.... another moment of disappointment for mankind, that 'scientists', those people we idolize when we were little kids, can be bot off in such massive scale, can all sell their soul to the dark side, just so that they can have enough money to buy bread for the next 3 years.
you are a trader right.... follow the money trail.... EVERYTHING will make sense.