FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > just imagine
just imagine
Jump to: Newest in thread
The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site) 6 days ago
|
This, this what was on your mind on a swingers forum on a Friday afternoon in the glorious sunshine? Did the Mail turn off comments today or was GBNews just not patriotic enough? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Those bio mass plants are hopeless too the amount of wood they burn is astronomical there is no way they can grow enough to sustain it and that’s just a small one I done work at there’s ones over 5x the wattage so they must be burning half a forest a day |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
This is going to offend. It is true. Humanity has become dumb. using stupid comments and bitchyness because he can't handle the truth and always needs to have the last word. What I see is immaturity and stupidity. No critical thinking. Just follow the next sheep off the Cliff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *enk15Man 6 days ago
Evesham |
It’s 2050. Fossil fuels are nearly gone, and we didn't bother with renewables because someone on the internet thought they were ‘foolish’. Now it costs £100 to boil peas, we work by candlelight, and everyone’s walking 40 miles to charge their phone at the last diesel generator.
But thank God we didn't go green  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I agreee with the "is this really what we are thinking about on this site, on this day?" comments.
But as we are here. 41% of power generated this year so far has been through renewables. The last 2 full years have had over 50% of renewable energy generated to power the grid. there are plans to increase the wind farms (conveniently forgotten as this is our main renewable) and solar generation in the coming years. The grid and batteries are also being upgraded so its sounding pretty damn positive. Not even thinking about the technological advancements that are always happening.
Why not be positive instead of focusing on the negative? People arent sheep because they dont think what you think. Its how people discuss things and come to a compromise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Can this not be argued over in the politics forum?
I come to the lounge to escape brain ache and people who are mad at the world just for being round and spinny. Yes I said round. It's a globe.
You could go argue if tides are caused by the sea moving or the earth below it rotating. There's a freebie for you.
Or ask if water is wet. Another good one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Low-ranking technician Dave Lister, awakens after being in suspended animation for three million years to find that he is the last living human, and that he is alone on the mining spacecraft Red Dwarf—except for a hologram of his deceased bunkmate Arnold Rimmer and "Cat", a life form which evolved from Lister's pregnant cat. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
You could go argue if tides are caused by the sea moving or the earth below it rotating. There's a freebie for you.
Tides are caused by giant sea monsters doing cannonballs twice a day. "
If only! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who on earth (probably suspended off it) fucks a windsock in this day and age..?
People who haven't yet upgraded to politically themed fleshlights?"
That's somewhere I don't wish to go.
Perish the thought.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things."
Have you come here directly from the Reform page on energy?
It's hard to even known where to start with this, so much is wrong.
Let's just start with the year being 2050, and your assumption that there will be no improvement in solar technology, no additional solar panels installed, no other forms of renewable energy generation, and no energy efficiencies gained. This is simply not accurate.
You appear to be suggesting that batteries aren't "green" what do you mean, are you confusing "green" with greenhouse gas emissions?
How does this £1.4 trillion cost compare to sticking with ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels, what about the other economy impacts of climate change?
Do you really believe that if the government tried it's best to bolster the profits of fossil fuels companies and to release as much CO2 into the atmosphere, they would magically suddenly give a fuck about sick or old people? I would describe that as naive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a good goal but the timeframe needs to be removed and the whole picture needs to be taken into account. Not just what the greens want us to see. "
I agree. We need to get a move on, get away from externally priced fossil fuels, stop dilly dallying around and stop prioritising profits of multi national fossil fuels companies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is going to offend. It is true. Humanity has become dumb. using stupid comments and bitchyness because he can't handle the truth and always needs to have the last word. What I see is immaturity and stupidity. No critical thinking. Just follow the next sheep off the Cliff. "
Critical thinking would see you and Farage off.
Yet here we are with science denialism |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Net zero is a good goal but the timeframe needs to be removed and the whole picture needs to be taken into account. Not just what the greens want us to see.
I agree. We need to get a move on, get away from externally priced fossil fuels, stop dilly dallying around and stop prioritising profits of multi national fossil fuels companies. "
Oh yes because green energy is all provided by little mom and pop stores and certainly not by multinationals and billionaires.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It’s not going to happen anyway so don’t fret about it.
Net zero is just another deluded Leftist fantasy.
By 2030 net zero will have been scrapped in the UK and nutter Miliband will be a sad and distant memory.
Almost certainly working for the UN or some other worthy publicly funded body in another country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things."
2050, red pills will banned only state funded blue will be available. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s not going to happen anyway so don’t fret about it.
Net zero is just another deluded Leftist fantasy.
By 2030 net zero will have been scrapped in the UK and nutter Miliband will be a sad and distant memory.
Almost certainly working for the UN or some other worthy publicly funded body in another country."
Welcome to 2025 where understanding science is "just another deluded Leftist fantasy."
We really are living in an idiocracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things."
Net zero is the perfect term. Even if we achieve it, it will make zero difference.
A bit like having a firing squad with 10 Chinese, 10 from India, 10 Americans and one person from every other country all aiming a rifle at Mother Nature and god is watching saying “anyone who doesn’t shoot has to pay me a trillion quid”.
The leftie Brit decides he wants to save Mother Nature so he’s not gonna shoot. Problem is he hasn’t got the money so agrees a payment plan. Everyone else says “we ain’t paying that” and fires. The outcome is the same regardless of if the Brit shoots or not, the only difference is we blew a trillion quid on a fairytale and can be morally self righteous about it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s not going to happen anyway so don’t fret about it.
Net zero is just another deluded Leftist fantasy.
By 2030 net zero will have been scrapped in the UK and nutter Miliband will be a sad and distant memory.
Almost certainly working for the UN or some other worthy publicly funded body in another country.
Welcome to 2025 where understanding science is "just another deluded Leftist fantasy."
We really are living in an idiocracy. "
The idiots are the ones who think they are going to achieve anything by making everyone poorer.
How’s the heat pump and EV going? Any updates?
“Buy a solar panel from China!
Buy a heat pump from China!
Buy an EV from a global car manufacturer!
Yeah I can charge my EV down at the multinational petrol station!
My domestic energy is provided by a multi national!
Yeah I’m sticking it to the oil companies!”
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It’s not going to happen anyway so don’t fret about it.
Net zero is just another deluded Leftist fantasy.
By 2030 net zero will have been scrapped in the UK and nutter Miliband will be a sad and distant memory.
Almost certainly working for the UN or some other worthy publicly funded body in another country.
Welcome to 2025 where understanding science is "just another deluded Leftist fantasy."
We really are living in an idiocracy.
The idiots are the ones who think they are going to achieve anything by making everyone poorer.
How’s the heat pump and EV going? Any updates?
“Buy a solar panel from China!
Buy a heat pump from China!
Buy an EV from a global car manufacturer!
Yeah I can charge my EV down at the multinational petrol station!
My domestic energy is provided by a multi national!
Yeah I’m sticking it to the oil companies!”
"
Beyond ridiculous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things.
Net zero is the perfect term. Even if we achieve it, it will make zero difference.
A bit like having a firing squad with 10 Chinese, 10 from India, 10 Americans and one person from every other country all aiming a rifle at Mother Nature and god is watching saying “anyone who doesn’t shoot has to pay me a trillion quid”.
The leftie Brit decides he wants to save Mother Nature so he’s not gonna shoot. Problem is he hasn’t got the money so agrees a payment plan. Everyone else says “we ain’t paying that” and fires. The outcome is the same regardless of if the Brit shoots or not, the only difference is we blew a trillion quid on a fairytale and can be morally self righteous about it. "
I assume this is satire?
You're right, the misunderstanding about China is a big factor on people believing the anti-science rubbish, and making people feel like they can contribute to as much carbon being released into the atmosphere as possible, guilt free.
It's a genius tactic from the fossil fuels industry. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things.
Net zero is the perfect term. Even if we achieve it, it will make zero difference.
A bit like having a firing squad with 10 Chinese, 10 from India, 10 Americans and one person from every other country all aiming a rifle at Mother Nature and god is watching saying “anyone who doesn’t shoot has to pay me a trillion quid”.
The leftie Brit decides he wants to save Mother Nature so he’s not gonna shoot. Problem is he hasn’t got the money so agrees a payment plan. Everyone else says “we ain’t paying that” and fires. The outcome is the same regardless of if the Brit shoots or not, the only difference is we blew a trillion quid on a fairytale and can be morally self righteous about it.
I assume this is satire?
You're right, the misunderstanding about China is a big factor on people believing the anti-science rubbish, and making people feel like they can contribute to as much carbon being released into the atmosphere as possible, guilt free.
It's a genius tactic from the fossil fuels industry. "
Just a metaphor. I could have said only removing 1-2% of a tumour isn’t gonna save a cancer patient, they still die. Ask a surgeon if they would do that and you’ll end up in a mental unit.
It’s not anti-science. There is no counter argument to the notion that spending a trillion quid to reduce co2 output by 1% is futile. The only argument back is “so you want your grandkids to die” Or “so you don’t care about the environment” etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things.
Net zero is the perfect term. Even if we achieve it, it will make zero difference.
A bit like having a firing squad with 10 Chinese, 10 from India, 10 Americans and one person from every other country all aiming a rifle at Mother Nature and god is watching saying “anyone who doesn’t shoot has to pay me a trillion quid”.
The leftie Brit decides he wants to save Mother Nature so he’s not gonna shoot. Problem is he hasn’t got the money so agrees a payment plan. Everyone else says “we ain’t paying that” and fires. The outcome is the same regardless of if the Brit shoots or not, the only difference is we blew a trillion quid on a fairytale and can be morally self righteous about it.
I assume this is satire?
You're right, the misunderstanding about China is a big factor on people believing the anti-science rubbish, and making people feel like they can contribute to as much carbon being released into the atmosphere as possible, guilt free.
It's a genius tactic from the fossil fuels industry.
Just a metaphor. I could have said only removing 1-2% of a tumour isn’t gonna save a cancer patient, they still die. Ask a surgeon if they would do that and you’ll end up in a mental unit.
It’s not anti-science. There is no counter argument to the notion that spending a trillion quid to reduce co2 output by 1% is futile. The only argument back is “so you want your grandkids to die” Or “so you don’t care about the environment” etc"
This is definitely the kind of thing I'm talking about.
It's hard to know if you're serious or not.
The "1 trillion" is some made up number. Every study and report shows that transitioning away from fossil fuels will be not only better for the environment, but economically better in the medium and long term.
China is the world leader in renewable technology. The story is not as simple as the pro-fossil fuels industry media will have you believe
The UK, per person, is not far being China on CO2 emissions per person.
Even if China didn't do anything (which isn't the case), then that doesn't absolve the rest of the world from their obligations. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There was a time when some people said the steam engine would never take over from horses.
The statement "The steam engine will never take over from horses" reflects a common historical sentiment, particularly in the early stages of the steam engine's development, where people underestimated its potential and clung to the familiarity of horse-drawn transport. It highlights a resistance to change and a belief that established technologies, like horses, were irreplaceable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *otMe66Man 5 days ago
Terra Firma |
"The year is 2050, and everybody has an electric car, everything is now battery-based, and we are told the National Grid will no longer provide "fossil fuel electricity" We know that solar panels do not provide enough electricity. How will we charge the batteries?
Does anybody see the foolishness of net zero, where we need to have electricity to charge the batteries? It's not exactly green, is it?
The UK's transition to net-zero emissions is estimated to cost around £1.4 trillion over 30 years. We could be spending this money on vital necessities. NHS, pensioners, just a list of few things.
Net zero is the perfect term. Even if we achieve it, it will make zero difference.
A bit like having a firing squad with 10 Chinese, 10 from India, 10 Americans and one person from every other country all aiming a rifle at Mother Nature and god is watching saying “anyone who doesn’t shoot has to pay me a trillion quid”.
The leftie Brit decides he wants to save Mother Nature so he’s not gonna shoot. Problem is he hasn’t got the money so agrees a payment plan. Everyone else says “we ain’t paying that” and fires. The outcome is the same regardless of if the Brit shoots or not, the only difference is we blew a trillion quid on a fairytale and can be morally self righteous about it.
I assume this is satire?
You're right, the misunderstanding about China is a big factor on people believing the anti-science rubbish, and making people feel like they can contribute to as much carbon being released into the atmosphere as possible, guilt free.
It's a genius tactic from the fossil fuels industry.
Just a metaphor. I could have said only removing 1-2% of a tumour isn’t gonna save a cancer patient, they still die. Ask a surgeon if they would do that and you’ll end up in a mental unit.
It’s not anti-science. There is no counter argument to the notion that spending a trillion quid to reduce co2 output by 1% is futile. The only argument back is “so you want your grandkids to die” Or “so you don’t care about the environment” etc
This is definitely the kind of thing I'm talking about.
It's hard to know if you're serious or not.
The "1 trillion" is some made up number. Every study and report shows that transitioning away from fossil fuels will be not only better for the environment, but economically better in the medium and long term.
China is the world leader in renewable technology. The story is not as simple as the pro-fossil fuels industry media will have you believe
The UK, per person, is not far being China on CO2 emissions per person.
Even if China didn't do anything (which isn't the case), then that doesn't absolve the rest of the world from their obligations."
China are building more coal powered plants than they have done in many years, they say they need to offset power needed for the grid through the intermittent nature of renewables as they lean more into that space. That is rather clever, they are building their get out of jail card and the capacity to up their manufacturing output globally if the west, screw up their ambitions.
So what is the UK plan or the EU plan, are we also building more fossil fuel power plants, for just in case or are we going all in on renewables?
This is a very important part of the strategy in my opinion, assuming we have one? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There was a time when some people said the steam engine would never take over from horses.
The statement "The steam engine will never take over from horses" reflects a common historical sentiment, particularly in the early stages of the steam engine's development, where people underestimated its potential and clung to the familiarity of horse-drawn transport. It highlights a resistance to change and a belief that established technologies, like horses, were irreplaceable."
And if we’d have stuck with horses and not made steam power from coal, we wouldn’t be in this situation. So that’s a bit of a lame argument.
But I agree with what you say about change, some people are very reluctant to change their mind because once it’s made up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
There's 2 points - heating the planet and 2. How we generate our power.
We have a global heating problem and it's up to citizens of the world just how bad it gets. We've already heated the world and we've problems at this level of heating. Nobody intelligent could possibly think it's right to make even further increases in global heating in years to come  . It's stupid to vastly increase the numbers of people who would be killed unnecessarily. There's a moral imperative, from a selfish human perspective, to limit the increases we're making. Most of the heat that we've added, something like 92 or 83% is currently inside our oceans. Much of it, we've not really felt the effects of yet.
As the world is one giant mass of complex systems, a change to one, may lead to catastrophic tipping points in others. Some may be irreversible and cause a cascade of others. We should mitigate what we can, whilst we can.
Carbon is driving the vast charges, with Carbon Dioxide and Methane emissions coming from our energy use and lifestyles.
It's obscene to do nothing to stop things getting much worse.
Energy use thankfully has multiple options that don't inflict the same level of Carbon increases. Solar power for electricity generation is just one of them. Some of these help to isolate us better, from places like Russia. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody intelligent could possibly think it's right to make even further increases in global heating in years to come. It's stupid to vastly increase the numbers of people who would be killed unnecessarily."
Climate change will decrease the number of unnecessary deaths. Far more people die of being cold than die of being too hot.
There are many reasons to limit climate change, but 'unnecessary deaths' isn't one of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name."
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name."
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Nobody intelligent could possibly think it's right to make even further increases in global heating in years to come. It's stupid to vastly increase the numbers of people who would be killed unnecessarily.
Climate change will decrease the number of unnecessary deaths. Far more people die of being cold than die of being too hot.
There are many reasons to limit climate change, but 'unnecessary deaths' isn't one of them."
This just displays a lack of understanding.
Deaths from climate change don't occur because it's "too hot".
The increase in extreme weather conditions cause deaths. Flash floods etc.
The desertification of agricultural land, displacement of people, conflict etc. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be. "
Deliberately confusing "green" with "reducing CO2 emissions" is an effective tactic of fossil fuels supporting media and politicians.
It seems to work well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable."
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be.
Deliberately confusing "green" with "reducing CO2 emissions" is an effective tactic of fossil fuels supporting media and politicians.
It seems to work well."
So you’re actually in favour of cutting down all the world’s rainforest? And you think I’m confused 🤣
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be. "
Not saying that what you wrote isn't true. But sometimes I wonder if these stories are promoted by agenda's.
Like the stories of electric car battery lifespans and replacement costs a few years ago. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be.
Not saying that what you wrote isn't true. But sometimes I wonder if these stories are promoted by agenda's.
Like the stories of electric car battery lifespans and replacement costs a few years ago."
Even if what I read about plastic on the turbine blades is completely false (I nearly never included it because I wasn’t sure myself and knew it would be questioned) everything else I said is completely valid.
Reducing global co2 output to net zero is impossible if the zero point is constantly decreasing due to the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally being removed. They’ll be cutting down trees to put up solar panels next. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be.
Deliberately confusing "green" with "reducing CO2 emissions" is an effective tactic of fossil fuels supporting media and politicians.
It seems to work well.
So you’re actually in favour of cutting down all the world’s rainforest? And you think I’m confused 🤣
"
Not sure why you've come to this bizarre conclusion. I haven't mentioned rainforests.
My comments were about the effectiveness of the deliberate misinformation, doubt and confusion pushed by the fossil fuel industry supporting media and politicians. I thought I was pretty clear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be.
Deliberately confusing "green" with "reducing CO2 emissions" is an effective tactic of fossil fuels supporting media and politicians.
It seems to work well.
So you’re actually in favour of cutting down all the world’s rainforest? And you think I’m confused 🤣
Not sure why you've come to this bizarre conclusion. I haven't mentioned rainforests.
My comments were about the effectiveness of the deliberate misinformation, doubt and confusion pushed by the fossil fuel industry supporting media and politicians. I thought I was pretty clear. "
You said I was confusing two issues and quoted what I said about rainforest deforestation. You implied I was spreading disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. If you have a source for them talking about deforestation I’d welcome it.
Why quote me if what you wanted to say had nothing to do with what I said?
You’re completely demonstrating exactly what I was saying. You’re ignoring everything that’s wrong with net zero, ignoring facts about removing the planets natural ability to suck up carbon and just saying anything that argues against net zero and climate change is made up by the fossil fuel industry.
There are people drinking the coolade on both sides of the debate, but I’m not one of them. But I believe you might be. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be.
Deliberately confusing "green" with "reducing CO2 emissions" is an effective tactic of fossil fuels supporting media and politicians.
It seems to work well.
So you’re actually in favour of cutting down all the world’s rainforest? And you think I’m confused 🤣
Not sure why you've come to this bizarre conclusion. I haven't mentioned rainforests.
My comments were about the effectiveness of the deliberate misinformation, doubt and confusion pushed by the fossil fuel industry supporting media and politicians. I thought I was pretty clear.
You said I was confusing two issues and quoted what I said about rainforest deforestation. You implied I was spreading disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. If you have a source for them talking about deforestation I’d welcome it.
Why quote me if what you wanted to say had nothing to do with what I said?
You’re completely demonstrating exactly what I was saying. You’re ignoring everything that’s wrong with net zero, ignoring facts about removing the planets natural ability to suck up carbon and just saying anything that argues against net zero and climate change is made up by the fossil fuel industry.
There are people drinking the coolade on both sides of the debate, but I’m not one of them. But I believe you might be. "
I didn't comment specifically about your speculation about rainforests.
I haven't expressed my opinion about "net zero". So your conclusions about me are based on your assumptions.
And I don't know what any of this has to do with the point I made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be.
Deliberately confusing "green" with "reducing CO2 emissions" is an effective tactic of fossil fuels supporting media and politicians.
It seems to work well.
So you’re actually in favour of cutting down all the world’s rainforest? And you think I’m confused 🤣
Not sure why you've come to this bizarre conclusion. I haven't mentioned rainforests.
My comments were about the effectiveness of the deliberate misinformation, doubt and confusion pushed by the fossil fuel industry supporting media and politicians. I thought I was pretty clear.
You said I was confusing two issues and quoted what I said about rainforest deforestation. You implied I was spreading disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. If you have a source for them talking about deforestation I’d welcome it.
Why quote me if what you wanted to say had nothing to do with what I said?
You’re completely demonstrating exactly what I was saying. You’re ignoring everything that’s wrong with net zero, ignoring facts about removing the planets natural ability to suck up carbon and just saying anything that argues against net zero and climate change is made up by the fossil fuel industry.
There are people drinking the coolade on both sides of the debate, but I’m not one of them. But I believe you might be.
I didn't comment specifically about your speculation about rainforests.
I haven't expressed my opinion about "net zero". So your conclusions about me are based on your assumptions.
And I don't know what any of this has to do with the point I made. "
I’m not going to engage in a silly tit for tat….. I’ll say again…. For the last time…. You quoted me. Why quote me if what you’re saying isn’t about what i said? That’s the whole purpose of the quote button, to tag a response to a comment.
If your comment wasn’t about my post and you accidentally pressed the reply and quote button, just say.
If it was a deliberate quote, that’s what my subsequent comments have to do with yours. I’m happy to have it either way, just not both. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name."
"Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable."
"The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable."
You should get a dictionary. Re-new-able means that it can be made new again. A lithium battery is renewable because you can recharge it and it'll be like new again. Same applies to hydro power dams, where if you stop making power, the lake fills up again and the system is like new.
Solar is not renewable. There's no method of topping up the sun and making it last a bit longer. Why not call it infinite energy, or non-polluting energy, or even just green energy? Renewable is a stupid name for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable.
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable.
You should get a dictionary. Re-new-able means that it can be made new again. A lithium battery is renewable because you can recharge it and it'll be like new again. Same applies to hydro power dams, where if you stop making power, the lake fills up again and the system is like new.
Solar is not renewable. There's no method of topping up the sun and making it last a bit longer. Why not call it infinite energy, or non-polluting energy, or even just green energy? Renewable is a stupid name for it."
Renewable
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
1.
(of a contract, agreement, etc.) capable of being renewed.
"we are on renewable annual contracts"
2.
(of a natural resource or source of energy) not depleted when used.
"a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy"
noun
a natural resource or source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power.
Hope that helps 💜 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable.
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable.
You should get a dictionary. Re-new-able means that it can be made new again. A lithium battery is renewable because you can recharge it and it'll be like new again. Same applies to hydro power dams, where if you stop making power, the lake fills up again and the system is like new.
Solar is not renewable. There's no method of topping up the sun and making it last a bit longer. Why not call it infinite energy, or non-polluting energy, or even just green energy? Renewable is a stupid name for it.
Renewable
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
1.
(of a contract, agreement, etc.) capable of being renewed.
"we are on renewable annual contracts"
2.
(of a natural resource or source of energy) not depleted when used.
"a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy"
noun
a natural resource or source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power.
Hope that helps 💜"
The source may not be depleted, but the machinery needed to turn the source into electricity certainly does need renewing quite regularly. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"2.
(of a natural resource or source of energy) not depleted when used.
"a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy"
noun
a natural resource or source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power."
If we're going to use that second definition (which ignores the origin of the word), then solar still doesn't count. The amount of sunlight falling on the earth is indeed depleted by the user of solar panels. Wind also doesn't count because the extraction of energy from the moving air mass directly depletes the energy in that air mass. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable.
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable.
You should get a dictionary. Re-new-able means that it can be made new again. A lithium battery is renewable because you can recharge it and it'll be like new again. Same applies to hydro power dams, where if you stop making power, the lake fills up again and the system is like new.
Solar is not renewable. There's no method of topping up the sun and making it last a bit longer. Why not call it infinite energy, or non-polluting energy, or even just green energy? Renewable is a stupid name for it.
Renewable
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
1.
(of a contract, agreement, etc.) capable of being renewed.
"we are on renewable annual contracts"
2.
(of a natural resource or source of energy) not depleted when used.
"a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy"
noun
a natural resource or source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power.
Hope that helps 💜
The source may not be depleted, but the machinery needed to turn the source into electricity certainly does need renewing quite regularly."
It's starting to feel like the condoms aren't biodegradable, but babies are argument.
Peace out 💜 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable.
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable.
You should get a dictionary. Re-new-able means that it can be made new again. A lithium battery is renewable because you can recharge it and it'll be like new again. Same applies to hydro power dams, where if you stop making power, the lake fills up again and the system is like new.
Solar is not renewable. There's no method of topping up the sun and making it last a bit longer. Why not call it infinite energy, or non-polluting energy, or even just green energy? Renewable is a stupid name for it.
Renewable
Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages
adjective
1.
(of a contract, agreement, etc.) capable of being renewed.
"we are on renewable annual contracts"
2.
(of a natural resource or source of energy) not depleted when used.
"a shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy"
noun
a natural resource or source of energy that is not depleted by use, such as water, wind, or solar power.
Hope that helps 💜
The source may not be depleted, but the machinery needed to turn the source into electricity certainly does need renewing quite regularly.
It's starting to feel like the condoms aren't biodegradable, but babies are argument.
Peace out 💜"
It’ll be interesting to see where all the clapped out wind turbines, solar panels and EV batteries end up.
Presumably in slag heaps in Africa.
Still, not our problem. We can’t see it so it won’t be happening. We’ll be too busy congratulating ourselves on our emissions and buying the latest Chinese EV on Finance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable.
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable.
You should get a dictionary. Re-new-able means that it can be made new again. A lithium battery is renewable because you can recharge it and it'll be like new again. Same applies to hydro power dams, where if you stop making power, the lake fills up again and the system is like new.
Solar is not renewable. There's no method of topping up the sun and making it last a bit longer. Why not call it infinite energy, or non-polluting energy, or even just green energy? Renewable is a stupid name for it."
Oh so you only care about the semantics of the sun not being renewable each day because in several billion years it won't be.
Fair play to you, you win this one. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
We should be doing more to harness the power of the Sun and the wind. But don’t be fooled into believing they are as green as the greenies want you to believe. They come at massive initial cost financial cost, are a blight on the landscape and have a limited lifespan before they cost a load of cash again. And I read somewhere that the turbine blades have a plastic coating that “sheds” over time. I assume all this plastic is being recycled? Nope, the nearby soil and what’s left is chopped up and goes to landfill.
Covering a farmers field with solar panels isn’t green. It means more food has to be imported. If the EU are following the same “renewables” policy then that food has to come in shipping containers. Half a million tons of container ship isn’t solar powered and neither are the cranes and trucks that move them.
I’ll tell you what else isn’t solar powered, the machines cutting down the rainforest to create more farmland. In an attempt to reduce co2 output we’re taking away the planet’s ability to absorb co2 naturally.
We have to look at the big picture. Yes we have to do something, but when you look at the big picture of so called “green” projects, they aren’t always as green as they are made out to be.
Deliberately confusing "green" with "reducing CO2 emissions" is an effective tactic of fossil fuels supporting media and politicians.
It seems to work well.
So you’re actually in favour of cutting down all the world’s rainforest? And you think I’m confused 🤣
Not sure why you've come to this bizarre conclusion. I haven't mentioned rainforests.
My comments were about the effectiveness of the deliberate misinformation, doubt and confusion pushed by the fossil fuel industry supporting media and politicians. I thought I was pretty clear.
You said I was confusing two issues and quoted what I said about rainforest deforestation. You implied I was spreading disinformation from the fossil fuel industry. If you have a source for them talking about deforestation I’d welcome it.
Why quote me if what you wanted to say had nothing to do with what I said?
You’re completely demonstrating exactly what I was saying. You’re ignoring everything that’s wrong with net zero, ignoring facts about removing the planets natural ability to suck up carbon and just saying anything that argues against net zero and climate change is made up by the fossil fuel industry.
There are people drinking the coolade on both sides of the debate, but I’m not one of them. But I believe you might be.
I didn't comment specifically about your speculation about rainforests.
I haven't expressed my opinion about "net zero". So your conclusions about me are based on your assumptions.
And I don't know what any of this has to do with the point I made.
I’m not going to engage in a silly tit for tat….. I’ll say again…. For the last time…. You quoted me. Why quote me if what you’re saying isn’t about what i said? That’s the whole purpose of the quote button, to tag a response to a comment.
If your comment wasn’t about my post and you accidentally pressed the reply and quote button, just say.
If it was a deliberate quote, that’s what my subsequent comments have to do with yours. I’m happy to have it either way, just not both. "
I honestly don't know what it is that you're not understanding from my posts.
I'll try one last time. I quoted your posts because they provide a real time example of someone repeating the kind of things the pro fossil fuels industry media and politicians promote, specifically to introduce doubt (where there is none), to make people feel like they're absolved from doing anything to combat climate change (IE it's pointless because of china, which of course is complete nonsense, as explained), and to promote misinformation about the economic situation with transitioning away from fossil fuels. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh so you only care about the semantics of the sun not being renewable each day because in several billion years it won't be.
Fair play to you, you win this one."
The sun doesn't renew itself overnight. It doesn't turn itself off and have a bit of a rest before the next day starts. It's burning all the time, and slowly getting through its stockpile of fuel, with no chance to renew that energy source.
And yes, I made it very clear at the beginning that I thought 'renewable' was a bad word for solar because that word doesn't describe what the sun is. No one should be surprised that this is a semantic argument. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh so you only care about the semantics of the sun not being renewable each day because in several billion years it won't be.
Fair play to you, you win this one.
The sun doesn't renew itself overnight. It doesn't turn itself off and have a bit of a rest before the next day starts. It's burning all the time, and slowly getting through its stockpile of fuel, with no chance to renew that energy source.
And yes, I made it very clear at the beginning that I thought 'renewable' was a bad word for solar because that word doesn't describe what the sun is. No one should be surprised that this is a semantic argument."
Your suggestion of "infinite energy" was poor btw.
The sun will explode in a few billion years.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable.
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable."
We will all be part of new coal seams by then! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Renewables, the clue is in the name.
Except that the name is wrong. Nothing is happening to 'renew' the sun, it's a finite resource that will eventually run out. That fact that we have several million years left doesn't make it renewable.
The sun will last several billion more years. Compared to fossil fuels that have decades left. I think it's fair to say it's renewable.
We will all be part of new coal seams by then!"
Almost certainly, unless we stop pandering to the fossil fuels industry and actually get a move on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh so you only care about the semantics of the sun not being renewable each day because in several billion years it won't be.
Fair play to you, you win this one.
The sun doesn't renew itself overnight. It doesn't turn itself off and have a bit of a rest before the next day starts. It's burning all the time, and slowly getting through its stockpile of fuel, with no chance to renew that energy source.
And yes, I made it very clear at the beginning that I thought 'renewable' was a bad word for solar because that word doesn't describe what the sun is. No one should be surprised that this is a semantic argument.
Your suggestion of "infinite energy" was poor btw.
The sun will explode in a few billion years.
"
Without wishing to be pedantic, our Sun is way too small to go supernova. Once it runs out of hydrogen it will burn helium and make more complex elements and expand rapidly. Once there’s enough of these heavier elements (including carbon ironically) it will collapse on itself to a fraction of its current size and become a white dwarf. It’s theorised that these can burn for a trillion years before eventually running out of fuel. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh so you only care about the semantics of the sun not being renewable each day because in several billion years it won't be.
Fair play to you, you win this one.
The sun doesn't renew itself overnight. It doesn't turn itself off and have a bit of a rest before the next day starts. It's burning all the time, and slowly getting through its stockpile of fuel, with no chance to renew that energy source.
And yes, I made it very clear at the beginning that I thought 'renewable' was a bad word for solar because that word doesn't describe what the sun is. No one should be surprised that this is a semantic argument.
Your suggestion of "infinite energy" was poor btw.
The sun will explode in a few billion years.
Without wishing to be pedantic, our Sun is way too small to go supernova. Once it runs out of hydrogen it will burn helium and make more complex elements and expand rapidly. Once there’s enough of these heavier elements (including carbon ironically) it will collapse on itself to a fraction of its current size and become a white dwarf. It’s theorised that these can burn for a trillion years before eventually running out of fuel. "
Solid.
Still not "infinite" though, as per Capt Semantic claimed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your suggestion of "infinite energy" was poor btw.
The sun will explode in a few billion years."
I know it will, and indeed I said so earlier on. But "infinite energy" is closer to the truth than "renewable energy" is. The sun's energy will easily outlast the human race, but it won't ever be renewed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your suggestion of "infinite energy" was poor btw.
The sun will explode in a few billion years.
I know it will, and indeed I said so earlier on. But "infinite energy" is closer to the truth than "renewable energy" is. The sun's energy will easily outlast the human race, but it won't ever be renewed."
Nor is it infinite. To suggest so is incorrect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your suggestion of "infinite energy" was poor btw.
The sun will explode in a few billion years."
"I know it will, and indeed I said so earlier on. But "infinite energy" is closer to the truth than "renewable energy" is. The sun's energy will easily outlast the human race, but it won't ever be renewed."
"Nor is it infinite. To suggest so is incorrect."
I didn't suggest it was. In fact I said the exact opposite. I suggested that "Infinite energy" would be a better name than "renewable energy", which is true. I also suggested that "green energy" would be a better name, but that's not claiming that the sun is green. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Your suggestion of "infinite energy" was poor btw.
The sun will explode in a few billion years.
I know it will, and indeed I said so earlier on. But "infinite energy" is closer to the truth than "renewable energy" is. The sun's energy will easily outlast the human race, but it won't ever be renewed.
Nor is it infinite. To suggest so is incorrect.
I didn't suggest it was. In fact I said the exact opposite. I suggested that "Infinite energy" would be a better name than "renewable energy", which is true. I also suggested that "green energy" would be a better name, but that's not claiming that the sun is green."
"Infinite energy" would be a poor way to describe a source of energy that isn't infinite. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
""Infinite energy" would be a poor way to describe a source of energy that isn't infinite."
I'm glad we agree that "renewable energy" is a poor way to describe an energy source that isn't renewable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
