You guys should all be ashamed... 🤐

good and questionable puts him ahead of me.
Can we keep him?

This is where I was hoping the topic would go to (other than one or two people feeling guilty for things they said). Everything has a drawback. When I mentioned nuclear power I am admittedly not fully aware of its negative impacts but one solution is burying the waste in salt mines where the salt collapses around it as it decays which is supposed to prevent it from escaping it's 10,000 year tomb before it is neutral. The decay rate to energy return is horrible but it's not like we can't get our salt from the oceans? Also, the waste is not polluting the air/ozone, etc like coal.

I will speak very little on clean coal because I honestly do not know how clean it truly is. The power companies sell the idea of awesome carbon capture but every time I hear clean coal I imagine some progressive is having an aneurysm somewhere. What I don't want to hear is the same old wind/solar until I see proof these work when the wind doesn't blow and the sun does not shine. Solar, I am more open to because in most places (not all, places near polar regions?) you can predict how long the sun will be out but wind is one I had a very hard time with. It is too dependant on the wind blowing. I am not 100% against solar or wind but these need to be in places where they can thrive and where they cannot thrive people need to be more accepting of alternatives be it "clean coal" or nuclear.

Someone mentioned hydropower. I fully agree with this when there is minimal impact on the environment. I am hardly a tree hugger here (far from it) but I want viable solutions that impact the American people's wallets less or the same as something like coal. The hoover dam is a wonderful achievement and offers low-cost power. I admit, I am ignorant of the environmental impact if any but no one is complaining about it.

Victor told me I am wrong about solar and wind power. I hate to admit I could be wrong but does this technology not rely on the sun and wind? I would be 100% behind solar if we were a civilization that was advanced enough to build a dyson sphere around the sun but our planet is gone in a billion years when our sun becomes a red giant.

I got into a debate with my progressive brother over electric cars but the summary of that was I disagreed on it being viable because they are too expensive and will argue converting gasoline vehicles to propane is cheaper than electrical for the time being. He also argued giving oil subsidies to electric car manufacturers. Maybe we should stop wasting tax dollars altogether and get us some damned innovation here?

I yielded to my brother's argument that electric cars will eventually become cheaper with or without subsidies but if the milage doesn't improve (the battery technology, unless we do something like fusion cars) you are still limited vs the internal combustion engine. I argued if we are going to go with electric and be stuck with batteries that cannot be charged in 5 minutes (the time it takes to fill a gas tank) then we need to have the same technology that charges a phone without plugging in embedded in every place where you are not moving in your electric car. Be it your driveway, parking lot, or stuck in traffic.

Everyone forgets that Tesla and Edison had a fight over which one to choose AC or DC.

The backers chose the winners.

Tesla's technology and experiments were seized by our government after his death.

Your problem with sun/wind isn't thinking of the power source the proper way.

Solar is easy, so let's look at that one.

Pretend you choose a location with 8hrs of strong sun, and 16 hrs of dark (no in between because I'm lazy). During the sunlight hours it can capture 3 watts/hour for 24 watts total. You attach it to a battery which has the ability to store up to whatever the battery storage equivalent of about 24 watts is. During the daylight the battery is charging, up to 24 watts, during the night it's discharging. You size your system to a demand region of 1 watt/Hr.

you do something similar with wind, with average windy days over a month or so (not a day, as weather is less consistent on a day by day). When you have enough of these (solar and wind) across a large area, you can ensure that there is consistent supply of wind power to your infrastructure, as well as stored power from solar.

Downsides? Lots. Batteries are not environmentally super great (I don't know much about industrial size, but we all know consumer battery manufacture and disposal is terrible), and as I said earlier I'm not sure if our tech has gotten to the point that we can look at these as anything more than energy supplements (ie, I don't think they can generate enough power per square foot/ or mile of space used to ever fully replace power plants). That doesn't make them bad though.

Another way to look at it is this... power usage is not even. We usually put much more demand on our power grid during the day than at night. If your power plant is at the limit of use, and your peak use is in the day, perhaps supplying your grid with solar during the day to offset peak usage would help keep from having to build a second power plant just to supply daytime use?

Should I infer that when you don't lead with this, that you don't believe me?

It's akin to someone saying "let me be honest with you".

As opposed to...?

there is a risk to having a friendship with me!

actually, I was just letting you know that I knew you were being sincere despite the expected doubt

Wheel would be proud of the correct usage of infer

I admittedly don't know much about the girl....I guess I haven't acknowledged her relevance despite Time.

However, I get just a bit outraged every time a young person who speaks up about something they're passionate about gets attacked.

And...people are laughing and even defending the President of the USA mocking a child who is trying to make a difference? Appalling.


BTW, why aren't we generating substantial amounts of hydro power using tidal action? Not up to date on any green science, but sure seems like an opportunity must be there -- without affecting any rivers

NIMBY is prolly the answer.

Well I agree with at least part of what you said...

You know who deserves positive attention? Young people who actually do something with what they have to make a positive difference...

Young people who "speak up" about things they're passionate about are a dime a dozen... You want a million? Take a quick trip to Twitter...

And I would adamantly disagree with the notion that this young lady is trying to make a difference... Making a difference requires real world solutions, of which she has offered up zero...

Really?

I don't know what she's offered up. But, I gotta think that there's value in awareness.

You can certainly disagree with any and all climate change positions. But, it's not like the idea that human behavioral changes can slow global warming is a terribly radical or Jones-ian type of position.

If you believe that behavior should change, I think that a voice with global reach must have a great deal of value. Certainly, there needs to be a message that persists and resonates, but massive media coverage isn't a bad start.

I'm not convinced there's something realistic that can be done about global warming, but I support most non-violent protest and defend the right of the protesters. And I don't disparage any young people for getting involved in their communities, politics, social or global issues. In fact, one of my more common complaints about youth is a lack of engagement and involvement.

I know she talked a lot but I only heard the "how dare you" that everyone else had and my immediate thought is "how dare you come here, lecture my country and not offer solutions".

I am sure in her speaking tour she offered solutions but we need solutions that do not bankrupt nations or harm the wallets of the people of those nations. That's why I love how this post at one point did turn toward discussion of solutions.

If we can do wind and solar with minimal impact on my wallet and no negative impact on power availability then, by all means, let's get that shyte done. Same goes with other solutions. I will buy a Ferrari before I buy a tesla so we need some cheaper solutions to vehicles one I suggested before in this thread is propane conversions. For those who want or can afford the cheaper than tesla options, or hybrids why not hybrids that use propane as the alternative fuel instead of gasoline?

Stealing part of my shtick?

I'm so old that I remember when shtick was a Yiddish word

Walk softly and carry a big shtick....8-[

your studies have paid off, grasshopper
mazel tov

What, I stole the only coherent part of your posts.