2 ms·

You are welcome to find any peer reviewed paper that proposes that. If we are allowed to just hope for things then fusion would be a much better method. Solar

You are welcome to find any peer reviewed paper that proposes that. If we are allowed to just hope for things then fusion would be a much better method. Solar and wind is currently delivering around 1% of our energy needs, even with extreme improvements and investments to change that, which would be absurd it will not in any sensible way be able to deliver enough energy for our increasing needs. So again show an actually proven rational proposal or we are just talking wishes like fusion and then sun def wouldnt be used as a base source.

pfdietz 8y ago
I'm not letting you off the hook, liar. You said it was "pretty settled". Justify that claim -- present evidence that it is in fact "pretty settled" -- or admit you were just lying. I do not have to prove your claim wrong.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  The evidence is pretty simple. We currently use 1% despite all the advances in solar. That makes 100% solar is not going to happen pretty settled when you factor in cost, materials, efficiency, reliability etc. I don't have to prove anything. You are welcome to believe in solar but you won't find any realistic proposals out there. If that existed all you had to do was to show it to me. But you won't because it doesn't exist. In other words, pretty settled.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    LOL Your claim is that because solar is only 1%, it can never be 100%? There was a time nuclear was less than 1% of our generating capacity. Why didn't this logic apply then? Or, for that matter, why doesn't it apply to any other technology that passes through 1% market share on its way up from 0%? You are simply ridiculous.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      That's not my claim but it's part of it, there is a reason why it's only 1% and it's not because it doesn't have political support. You still haven't actually put forward any realistic proposal for how a 100% solar grid system would work realistically providing us with stable and scalable energy and ability to solve the world increasing energy needs. So you can call me what you want that doesn't change that fact.

pfdietz 8y ago

I'm not letting you off the hook, liar. You said it was "pretty settled". Justify that claim -- present evidence that it is in fact "pretty settled" -- or admit you were just lying. I do not have to prove your claim wrong.

ThomPete 8y ago
The evidence is pretty simple. We currently use 1% despite all the advances in solar. That makes 100% solar is not going to happen pretty settled when you factor in cost, materials, efficiency, reliability etc. I don't have to prove anything. You are welcome to believe in solar but you won't find any realistic proposals out there. If that existed all you had to do was to show it to me. But you won't because it doesn't exist. In other words, pretty settled.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  LOL Your claim is that because solar is only 1%, it can never be 100%? There was a time nuclear was less than 1% of our generating capacity. Why didn't this logic apply then? Or, for that matter, why doesn't it apply to any other technology that passes through 1% market share on its way up from 0%? You are simply ridiculous.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    That's not my claim but it's part of it, there is a reason why it's only 1% and it's not because it doesn't have political support. You still haven't actually put forward any realistic proposal for how a 100% solar grid system would work realistically providing us with stable and scalable energy and ability to solve the world increasing energy needs. So you can call me what you want that doesn't change that fact.