User Controls
Bloomberg putting 500 mil into (((philantropy)))
-
2019-06-08 at 12:49 PM UTChttps://news.slashdot.org/story/19/06/07/2217240/bloomberg-to-put-500-million-into-closing-all-remaining-coal-plants-by-2030
Basically he's lobbying to have America abandon coal.
To prevent climate change.
He isn't lobbying to have China, which uses more coal than anyone, to abandon coal though.
Isn't it the same planet?
A conspiracy minded person would ask why? Is it to attack US coal workers (who are largely white)?
Is it to get America even further addicted to Persian crude? After all Bloomberg is salivating for an invasion of Venezuela too.
Renewables are cool, but just aren't feasible. But these people just don't seem interested in either of the solutions that might work - nuclear or reducing the population to a sane level. Even the UK and France are turning off nuke plants and replacing them with nothing.
It feels like these Jedis are playing the long game, setting up a crisis, and somehow getting ready to fuck us over, again. -
2019-06-08 at 12:58 PM UTCoil is typically not efficient for large-scale power plants is it?
-
2019-06-08 at 1:03 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra oil is typically not efficient for large-scale power plants is it?
I dunno. Depends largely on the scale and grade used. For instance several islands in Ireland are/used to be powered by diesel generators, but that is very expensive.
But either way oil/gas should be saved for other things, and electricity produced some other way. -
2019-06-08 at 1:08 PM UTCshort-term, pivoting to 'green' power is going to be impossible amid the 'trade war' anyway. much of what's required, specifically rare-earth magnets and titanium alloys, are dominated by China on the supply side
-
2019-06-08 at 2:24 PM UTC
-
2019-06-08 at 2:45 PM UTCfuck da chinks were gonna start refining rare earths at home again woo hoo
chalk another one up for the good guys, eeee EEEE!!! -
2019-06-08 at 2:48 PM UTClol, refining from what exactly
-
2019-06-08 at 2:49 PM UTCore from the mountain pass mine in California
-
2019-06-08 at 3:08 PM UTCSolar is a shit power source, dirty materials to boot.
Wind energy is feasible and not dirty. Onshore windmills are supposodly better, but then they take up land which is ghay, so I like offshore just as well.
Iowa has a fuckton of windmills and they're going up at a frantic pace. A few years ago some windmill prospectors asked to survey my dad's land for suitability and paid him a small amount for each acre prospected, like 10 dollars an acre for ~1000 acres. I'm pretty sure they told him they're going to do at least one, possibly more and they pay him I think 10 grand per year for each one they put up.
Nuclear seems the best option by far to me, and it's relatively clean. Stopping nuclear is a national tradgedy.
Hydroelectric is great but you're limited by nature. Burning diesel for power is retarded. Coal is fine, in part because it's everywhere.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-06-08 at 3:09 PM UTCfuck America. love ALL canadian beliefs and everything else dumfucking cunt.
-
2019-06-08 at 3:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by DietYellow Solar is a shit power source, dirty materials to boot.
Wind energy is feasible and not dirty. Onshore windmills are supposodly better, but then they take up land which is ghay, so I like offshore just as well.
Iowa has a fuckton of windmills and they're going up at a frantic pace. A few years ago some windmill prospectors asked to survey my dad's land for suitability and paid him a small amount for each acre prospected, like 10 dollars an acre for ~1000 acres. I'm pretty sure they told him they're going to do at least one, possibly more and they pay him I think 10 grand per year for each one they put up.
Nuclear seems the best option by far to me, and it's relatively clean. Stopping nuclear is a national tradgedy.
Hydroelectric is great but you're limited by nature. Burning diesel for power is retarded. Coal is fine, in part because it's everywhere.
solar is ideal for small-scale production, ie. on a personal home or vehicle but too expensive for large-scale projects. wind has similar issues, but given the costs and space required it's no good for personal use - space required and maintenance costs make it less than ideal in terms of cost efficiency even for large-scale.
right now I think the only worthwhile 'green' sources are hydro, tidal and geothermal energy. nuclear (especially low-yield breeder reactors that can run off nuclear waste materials) is the best stopgap we have until something better comes along, but the costs of cutting corners or otherwise fucking up are dire -
2019-06-08 at 4:52 PM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country But either way oil/gas should be saved for other things, and electricity produced some other way.
for cars and bikes.
i cant imagine a day where you stomp on the pedal or twist your handle bar to your wrist's limit and theres no sound of engines revving up. -
2019-06-08 at 4:52 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-06-08 at 4:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra solar is ideal for small-scale production, ie. on a personal home or vehicle but too expensive for large-scale projects. wind has similar issues, but given the costs and space required it's no good for personal use - space required and maintenance costs make it less than ideal in terms of cost efficiency even for large-scale.
right now I think the only worthwhile 'green' sources are hydro, tidal and geothermal energy. nuclear (especially low-yield breeder reactors that can run off nuclear waste materials) is the best stopgap we have until something better comes along, but the costs of cutting corners or otherwise fucking up are dire
if anyone remembers ...
benny vader generators. -
2019-06-08 at 5:31 PM UTCremind me
-
2019-06-08 at 5:33 PM UTCplease don't
-
2019-06-08 at 5:34 PM UTC
-
2019-06-08 at 6:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by aldra solar is ideal for small-scale production, ie. on a personal home or vehicle but too expensive for large-scale projects. wind has similar issues, but given the costs and space required it's no good for personal use - space required and maintenance costs make it less than ideal in terms of cost efficiency even for large-scale.
right now I think the only worthwhile 'green' sources are hydro, tidal and geothermal energy. nuclear (especially low-yield breeder reactors that can run off nuclear waste materials) is the best stopgap we have until something better comes along, but the costs of cutting corners or otherwise fucking up are dire
Not necessarily. The state of Iowa is slated to be at 40% wind derived energy next year and there's no end in sight to the construction of windmills. Now Iowa is an ideal state for wind given the flat ground, high winds, and rural nature, and some areas of the country are much better suited for wind energy than others where it's practically pointless, but it's not as nearly as expensive as you may or may not think. Wind does lose money, but not by a large margin, and it's a good long term investment if it can prevent the burning of fossil fuels.
Ethanol is another good way to lower oil consumption, and ethanol is actually the one renewable fuel source the operates at a profit. Not enough to not be subsidized, however. My dad grows corn.
However, the Lanny's of the world think it's unethical to burn perfectly good alcohols and keep them out of the baby flasks of 3rd world infants.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-06-09 at 3:16 AM UTC
-
2019-06-09 at 3:25 AM UTC
Originally posted by DietYellow Not necessarily. The state of Iowa is slated to be at 40% wind derived energy next year and there's no end in sight to the construction of windmills. Now Iowa is an ideal state for wind given the flat ground, high winds, and rural nature, and some areas of the country are much better suited for wind energy than others where it's practically pointless, but it's not as nearly as expensive as you may or may not think. Wind does lose money, but not by a large margin, and it's a good long term investment if it can prevent the burning of fossil fuels.
what many dont realize is that harnessing wind energy is dangerous.
planting millions of wind turbines is no more different than planting millions of sail masts around the continent. the result is that all those kinetic wind energy will ended up beimg transferred into the ground the wind turbines are planted on, and on a massive scale, could cause the earth's spin to accelerate or decelerate ....
which could bring forth wide and unpredictable climate changes.
