Texas urges residents to cut power usage as prices surge

[QP!]

Of the green tech areas VC are betting on Solar more than any other.

So again Terry can you explain how you can say to all these people definitively that no breakthru's are happening. That it is not just your opinion or guess or bet and that you KNOW, no breakthru's will happen?

 

[Into the Night]

You are a delusional idiot. Solar is a pretty much dead end technology, as is wind. There's no technology for China to overtake. At the same time, if China wants to mass use an inefficient and marginal technology like solar and wind, why should we stop them?

China tried to do that, but it failed miserably. One of the wasted costs the government over there has to deal with.

 

[Into the Night]

Let them. We should focus on increasing nuclear and natural gas. Solar and wind should be kicked to the curb.

Nah. Let people buy what they want. Eliminate all subsidies.

 

[Into the Night]

There are tens of thousands of acres of solar panels

A drop in the bucket, so to speak.

 

[Into the Night]

Of the green tech areas VC are betting on Solar more than any other.

So again Terry can you explain how you can say to all these people definitively that no breakthru's are happening. That it is not just your opinion or guess or bet and that you KNOW, no breakthru's will happen?

Why do you keep quoting random numbers from propaganda sites?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Hydrogen is not a pollutant.
Oxygen is not a pollutant.
Water is not a pollutant.
These are the ONLY materials involved in creating hydrogen by electrolysis.

The gas industry touts “blue hydrogen” as a climate-friendly solution because theoretically, carbon dioxide is removed and stored during the hydrogen production process. However, recent research indicates that producing blue hydrogen does not actually reduce climate emissions compared to using methane gas. In fact, using hydrogen made from gas with or without CCS at a power plant actually produces more emissions than burning gas alone at that power plant, due to the emissions intensity of creating blue or gray hydrogen. Even if leakage is reduced to 1.5 percent (an optimistic assumption), one study found that using blue hydrogen still created more emissions than using gas. This means that as a power plant uses increasing amounts of blue hydrogen mixed with gas, its lifecycle emissions will actually increase.

https://www.sierraclub.org/articles...try touts “blue,compared to using methane gas.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring gas absolutely essential for life to exist on Earth.

Going to mostly nuclear would reduce CO2 emissions from electrical generation. For those who obsess over such things, it's a selling point. For the rest of us, it really doesn't matter.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I never said it had no uses, only that the technology is a dead end. There isn't any foreseeable massive improvement in how solar power is generated on the horizon.

I'm looking forward to your steam-powered rocket ship ideas, Terry.

No doubt the Chinese will have a food court and a mall on the Moon by the time you arrive.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Gas leaks and explosions are rare. If they weren't they wouldn't lead on the news.

Nuclear fusion would be great, but in the interim, nuclear fission is the best choice, backed by natural gas because natural gas peaking plants can be brought online and taken offline quickly. Nuclear produces say, 70 to 80% of our energy needs. Screw wind and solar, they are useless.

...and spectacular when they happen.

What are you plans for nuclear waste? Leave it to your great-grandkids to figure out just like global warming?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Buzzword fallacy, Sock. You can't even define 'technology'.

YALSA

YALSA

YALSA.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have asked you this before but how do you see the future?

A statement of 'no future develops will happen' is truly astounding in its ignorance. even Marjorie Greene would likely say WTF as no person can speak definitively about the future when surprise breakthru's happen all the time.

My question is serious. Do you say such manifestly stupid things because you honestly believe your self psychic or something like that and think you know the future?

I see several potential ones coming in the near future:

Solar and wind will be failures as they scale up. The result will be something, likely natural gas and nuclear will replace them and the costs of that failure will be a net drag on economies that invested heavily in them.

The battery car thing, likewise will find itself increasingly a non-solution to transportation needs, just as railroads won't work in large nations unless heavily subsidized and forced on the population by government.

Battery technology will improve incrementally, but won't be justifiable in situations where charging is difficult to obtain or takes too much time. There are drawbacks to batteries and they aren't likely to get sufficiently better that they can remain justifiable for use in vehicles with no alternatives given. The problem with batteries is you CANNOT get around chemistry and physics.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

...and spectacular when they happen.

What are you plans for nuclear waste? Leave it to your great-grandkids to figure out just like global warming?

Reprocess it, and for what can't be reprocessed, store it in casks. No big deal. Gorebal Warming (aka anthropogenic climate change) is bullshit. The climate changes, but man's effects on that are minimal at best.

Long-term radioactive isotopes are no big deal. They're all low rate of emission alpha and beta radiation.

It's the pathological fear of things nuclear, like YOU Doc have, that is the roadblock to using nuclear power. It is only the greentards and know-nothing idiots like YOU that keep it from being used more widely.

 

[Nomad]

More proof renewables can't supply all of our power. Texas gets 24% of their electricity from wind and it can't keep up when wind speeds are low.

More proof redneck red state leaders can't manage their infrastructures and power grids because they're too obsessed with reelecting Trump, blocking Mexicans and writing laws and regulations which allow themselves and their corporate CEO buddies to line their own pockets instead of keeping things up to date.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Reprocess it, and for what can't be reprocessed, store it in casks. No big deal. Gorebal Warming (aka anthropogenic climate change) is bullshit. The climate changes, but man's effects on that are minimal at best.

Long-term radioactive isotopes are no big deal. They're all low rate of emission alpha and beta radiation.

It's the pathological fear of things nuclear, like YOU Doc have, that is the roadblock to using nuclear power. It is only the greentards and know-nothing idiots like YOU that keep it from being used more widely.

Translation: Let the grandkids figure it out.

LOL

Pathological fear of nukes, Terry? Now you are proving you're more of a BM than an EM, Terry. I have no problem with nukes, as weapons or power plants, but I do see the problems of both. You're as full of rainbows and unicorns as the fucking Democrats. LOL

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Translation: Let the grandkids figure it out.

LOL

Wrong answer. We have already figured it out, fucking retard. Storage of unusable long-term decay isotopes is perfectly fine. There's no danger in that solution. Only scientific illiterates and deniers can say otherwise.

 

[QP!]

I see several potential ones coming in the near future:

Solar and wind will be failures as they scale up. The result will be something, likely natural gas and nuclear will replace them and the costs of that failure will be a net drag on economies that invested heavily in them.

The battery car thing, likewise will find itself increasingly a non-solution to transportation needs, just as railroads won't work in large nations unless heavily subsidized and forced on the population by government.

Battery technology will improve incrementally, but won't be justifiable in situations where charging is difficult to obtain or takes too much time. There are drawbacks to batteries and they aren't likely to get sufficiently better that they can remain justifiable for use in vehicles with no alternatives given. The problem with batteries is you CANNOT get around chemistry and physics.

that is not what i am asking you.

You have stated as definitive fact that you know the future and that future will not see any big advancements in Solar.

How do you get future information? What is your source that you can speak on the topic in a way that is not opinion?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Wrong answer. We have already figured it out, fucking retard.

Storage of unusable long-term decay isotopes is perfectly fine. There's no danger in that solution. Only scientific illiterates and deniers can say otherwise.

We? You and your fellow BMs of the Rainbow and Unicorn Club?

The fact you become so angry and upset tells me you're lying, but if you can prove it, I'd be very interested in reading about it.

 

[Into the Night]

The gas industry touts “blue hydrogen” as a climate-friendly solution because theoretically, carbon dioxide is removed and stored during the hydrogen production process. However, recent research indicates that producing blue hydrogen does not actually reduce climate emissions compared to using methane gas. In fact, using hydrogen made from gas with or without CCS at a power plant actually produces more emissions than burning gas alone at that power plant, due to the emissions intensity of creating blue or gray hydrogen. Even if leakage is reduced to 1.5 percent (an optimistic assumption), one study found that using blue hydrogen still created more emissions than using gas. This means that as a power plant uses increasing amounts of blue hydrogen mixed with gas, its lifecycle emissions will actually increase.

https://www.sierraclub.org/articles...try touts “blue,compared to using methane gas.

This process produces CO2 as a byproduct. It is not a pollutant.
It MAKES CO2 a pollutant by 'sequestering it' underground. This is like turning the ground into a soda pop. It will leak out of the ground in dangerously concentrated clouds (these clouds have been known to kill people because of the oxygen they displace).

ALL of the CO2 produced winds up in the atmosphere. It doesn't stay in the ground.

But, then again...so what? CO2 is not a pollutant and has no capability to warm the Earth.

It's better just to burn the fuel the hydrogen is made from. Less mess and expense, and far more efficient.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Going to mostly nuclear would reduce CO2 emissions from electrical generation. For those who obsess over such things, it's a selling point. For the rest of us, it really doesn't matter.

It may be a selling point to you, but remember these same twits that are scared of CO2 are also scared of nuclear power plants.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm looking forward to your steam-powered rocket ship ideas, Terry.

No doubt the Chinese will have a food court and a mall on the Moon by the time you arrive.

Already done. The Saturn V rocket effectively used steam power, Sock.

Liquid hydrogen (or using Hydrazine instead) and liquid oxygen produce steam when they combine in a rocket engine. Those massive clouds during launch? They were steam.