ThomPete

73 ms·

871.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Exactly. Cost of living goes up, you cant save your way to retirement. Thats the wests biggest problem. All we got in exchange for the average citizen is cheaper flatscreens and shittier toys. But sure those of us in tech are good.
872.
by ThomPete 7y ago
What are you talking about? Last years weather were amazing and Denmark did get electricity from coal in germany. If you want ti have a civil discussion perhaps start with yourself. This is not something i am making up.
873.
by ThomPete 7y ago
When they are babies yes not later.
874.
by ThomPete 7y ago
My oldest kid was at a Danish outdoor pre-school. They wouldn't be in execpt for taking nap. Other than that they were outside come rain or shine.
875.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The problem is scientific not just technology optimization though. Wind and solar just can't deliver, they are linear solutions to exponential problems. They do around 1% today only expected to be 3-4% in 2040 and that's with the
876.
by ThomPete 7y ago
As far as i am concerned she is the one smearing and the organization around her largely guilty of that. And talk about smearing. And I'm not right wing. So pot calling the kettle
877.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Electricity no energy yes. It's 17% of the danish energy usage. Not sure what you want proof of. Wind and solar are intermittent sources which makes them seasonally irregular and requires backup energy from other more stable sources su
878.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Hurting oil means hurting the alternative energy sector making it more expensive to produce. All the materials, manufacturing, r&d, infrastructure installation, maintenance and i could go on heavily rely on oil, gas and coal to even be
879.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Ok. It's just that people seem to always confuse energy with electricity (not saying you are but people in general) and just want to make sure it's clear otherwise it would give the impression that Denmark (or Germany) somehow fou
880.
by ThomPete 7y ago
We are already doing the things you want us to do. The only way to solve this is through capitalism not through the currently politically motivated energy capitalism where they pick the winners. Capitalism certainly ain't perfect but i
881.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Last year Denmarks weather was amazing, which meant no wind at all. What was the solution? Coal from germany who despite having great weather too and based on sun couldnt do anything else. This is the reality. The two countries with the sup
882.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Be careful here. Thats electricity not energy. Electricity is only around 20% of the energy needs.
883.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I know what a red herring is, that's not that it's a simple fact that goes counter to the claim about catastrophic climate change. You have no proof for your claim, it's a non-testable hypothesis and the only thing you are re
884.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Again. You are making things up. This is pure speculation not proving anything.
885.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You are the one talking about subsidies and you keep changing your argument. The fact is that wind and solar can't be the base of any countries energy as it's intermittency and low capacity factor makes it dependent on oil, gas, c
886.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Germany and Denmark subsidizes way more as you can see on those prices as they are a direct reflection of the fact that it's more expensive to use wind and solar. Furthermore you keep ignoring that wind and solar can't provide wit
887.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Just because you keep repeating doesn't make it any truer. France doesn't pay a premium, Germany on the other hand does and so does Denmark for their Solar and Wind effection. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/sta
888.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You are making things up now.
889.
by ThomPete 7y ago
this directly says that its not a problem. Wind and solar doesent give you this choice but have to use coal, oil, gas and nuclear as backup. The reverse is not true.
890.
by ThomPete 7y ago
I love how people just claim things without the shred of evidence of their claims. Again less than 1% of worlds energy, if thats your definition of a lot well...
891.
by ThomPete 7y ago
You are making my case. Where is the problem with capacity factor? You still havent provided a shred of evidence.
892.
by ThomPete 7y ago
France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear so no they don't have a problem. Low capacity factor is a problem not high capacity factor. Show me where it's recognized by a credible source that this is a problem.
893.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Name me one country that have that problem with nuclear.
894.
by ThomPete 7y ago
We don't have alternatives and those we have are simply not good enough and extremely expensive. Even if you could replace 10% it wouldn't mean anything.
895.
by ThomPete 7y ago
This is simply just factually wrong. Please show me one place that proves that high capacity factor is an issue. Just one. I am not sure where you are getting your information but it's simply factually wrong. Batteries can't solve
896.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Sahara desert is greening. How is that a bad problem? Furthermore Sahara used to be a jungle and that disappear long before we ever started using CO2. The climate is always changing. I am celebrating every day that fossil fuels have made li
897.
by ThomPete 7y ago
The energy is spread thin which makes it great for powering a watch or a house but not for actual serial industrial usage which is where our primary energy usage would be. Energy is not a tech problem, optimizing subpar energy to deliver 5%
898.
by ThomPete 7y ago
There is no base for the claim that it's safer to not let CO2 into the atmosphere. More people die from cold than from heat and then world has gotten 14% greener because of more CO2. So if anything it's inconclusive and I don&#x27
899.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Solar across ANY area has intermittency issues. It's not true for nuclear at all. The capacity factor of solar is 20-30, the capacity factor of nuclear is almost 100. They are not even in close competition. Wind and solar is currently
900.
by ThomPete 7y ago
Nuclear power is expensive in no small part because of the bureaucracy and safety measures that are required but also because of the policial headwinds. Nuclear is expensive in the short run but much better in the long run. It's capaci

More ›