4 ms·

> Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirem

> Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement. Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? Plenty of things cost a lot - healthcare, social spending, roads, all of it. Those war machines that exist to prop up the fossil fuel industry cost a pretty penny as well. It's only when we get to nuclear that the talking point becomes cost. If governments don't even want to provide energy independence then perhaps they should end the slavery they call income tax.

pfdietz 6mo ago
> You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement. Please don't lie like this. Renewables do not require endless dependence on fossil fuels.
- someotherperson 6mo ago
  Ah yes, the sun shines at night and wind comes from trees. If you can name a country using solar and wind that isn't dependent on fossil fuels I'd love to hear about it.
  - pfdietz 6mo ago
    You insult our intelligence by making such a transparently ridiculous argument. Try again.
    - someotherperson 6mo ago
      Ya it’s insulting to provide a single success case.
      - pfdietz 6mo ago
        I see. You make a claim, and your argument is "you haven't proved me wrong". Classic crank behavior. You then back it up with the transparently nonsensical argument that "the sun doesn't shine at night." Batteries exist, you know. You made the claim renewables require indefinite use of fossil fuels, you show your reasoning. An argument that ignores the existence of storage is not an argument, it's insulting verbal vomit.
        someotherperson 6mo ago
        No, batteries do not exist. Just like solar technology wasn't developed to a point where it was barely useful until relatively recently, battery technology is no where near what is required for any national grid. That's why there is a fundamental dependence on fossil fuels, and why there isn't a single country who can depend on wind or solar. Because there is no way to store that energy. The only countries with a successful secondary fallback are those who use geothermal or hydro, with the latter being opposed by the same environmentalists who oppose nuclear. Not every country has geothermal energy, nor do most countries have hydro, and most of the countries with either of those don't have enough to power their grid. The only ones that do have no real manufacturing. The issue is front and center: the ones that need it the most are the ones who are unable to utilize it. In the interim, until meaningful storage exists, it's the 'environmentalist' anti-nuclear crowd who have plunged the world into chaos and contributed to endless destruction of the planet. The world is still using fossil fuels because the world has no alternative other than nuclear. There needs to be a stepping stone - and that stepping stone is nuclear. Until then, the stepping stone is oil, coal and gas. Which means Middle Eastern wars, environmental destruction and fracking. Dealing with whatever fallout that comes from nuclear, with room for those who can't support nuclear to use fossil fuels, while the rest of the world figures out a real way forward on how to collect and store solar and wind is the only path forward.
croes 6mo ago
> Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? The people care. The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price. But let’s ignore the price. There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste. And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants. I don’t hear much worries in wars that rockets could hit a WEC. Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from? BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > But let’s ignore the price I mean, European energy policy in a nutshell.
  - croes 6mo ago
    Quite the opposite. That‘s why Russian gas was such a big factor. More like let’s ignore the long term consequences
- someotherperson 6mo ago
  > The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price. Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive. The point is that the price isn't worth it. > There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste. This is a non-argument, just like it was last year. > And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants. 2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above. > Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from? There's uranium everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... and it's not much more of a search away to find out who already refines it. > BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country. It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet.

pfdietz 6mo ago

> You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement. Please don't lie like this. Renewables do not require endless dependence on fossil fuels.

someotherperson 6mo ago
Ah yes, the sun shines at night and wind comes from trees. If you can name a country using solar and wind that isn't dependent on fossil fuels I'd love to hear about it.
- pfdietz 6mo ago
  You insult our intelligence by making such a transparently ridiculous argument. Try again.
  - someotherperson 6mo ago
    Ya it’s insulting to provide a single success case.
    - pfdietz 6mo ago
      I see. You make a claim, and your argument is "you haven't proved me wrong". Classic crank behavior. You then back it up with the transparently nonsensical argument that "the sun doesn't shine at night." Batteries exist, you know. You made the claim renewables require indefinite use of fossil fuels, you show your reasoning. An argument that ignores the existence of storage is not an argument, it's insulting verbal vomit.
      - someotherperson 6mo ago
        No, batteries do not exist. Just like solar technology wasn't developed to a point where it was barely useful until relatively recently, battery technology is no where near what is required for any national grid. That's why there is a fundamental dependence on fossil fuels, and why there isn't a single country who can depend on wind or solar. Because there is no way to store that energy. The only countries with a successful secondary fallback are those who use geothermal or hydro, with the latter being opposed by the same environmentalists who oppose nuclear. Not every country has geothermal energy, nor do most countries have hydro, and most of the countries with either of those don't have enough to power their grid. The only ones that do have no real manufacturing. The issue is front and center: the ones that need it the most are the ones who are unable to utilize it. In the interim, until meaningful storage exists, it's the 'environmentalist' anti-nuclear crowd who have plunged the world into chaos and contributed to endless destruction of the planet. The world is still using fossil fuels because the world has no alternative other than nuclear. There needs to be a stepping stone - and that stepping stone is nuclear. Until then, the stepping stone is oil, coal and gas. Which means Middle Eastern wars, environmental destruction and fracking. Dealing with whatever fallout that comes from nuclear, with room for those who can't support nuclear to use fossil fuels, while the rest of the world figures out a real way forward on how to collect and store solar and wind is the only path forward.

croes 6mo ago

> Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? The people care. The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price. But let’s ignore the price. There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste. And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants. I don’t hear much worries in wars that rockets could hit a WEC. Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from? BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> But let’s ignore the price I mean, European energy policy in a nutshell.
- croes 6mo ago
  Quite the opposite. That‘s why Russian gas was such a big factor. More like let’s ignore the long term consequences
someotherperson 6mo ago
> The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price. Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive. The point is that the price isn't worth it. > There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste. This is a non-argument, just like it was last year. > And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants. 2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above. > Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from? There's uranium everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_reserves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... and it's not much more of a search away to find out who already refines it. > BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country. It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet.