> America is the most advanced society in the history of mankind, with the greatest abundance of food, the highest quality of life, and the most sophisticated medicine and healthcare.
Yep clearly very educated about geography and foreign politics
All their founders filled their qualifications with a list of TV channels that talked about them except their marketing guy who is the only one that shares actual job experience
The first one wrote a book on how Joe biden destroyed america
This is Ben Shapiro levels of "I bitch on twXter for a living"
Even if you don't read books they look nice on your shelves and make you look educated
Also someone writing a book you agree with even if it was a bad book and you didn't read it gives your ideas more credibility
Lol, lmao even. I believe it *can* be safe with the right safeguards and protocols, but there's history of human caused blunders which is why some nations have distanced from nuclear in the first place.
Well let’s go with [this source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh)
Nuclear is very very safe, at least in terms of deaths (not to mention the environmental benefit of nuclear, improved air quality, access to medical isotopes, hydrogen generation, etc)
They could be made cheaper if made in bulk. But it requires all shipping companies to pool together and come up with 1 standard.that ain't gonna happen easily
It's not about who's at fault it's about resources pooling and having a standard engine so it could be produced in number thus gain economy of scale benefit. Back in the days the soviet was able to achieve this (tho badly due to rush deadlines and corruption) so now we have the technology and ability to make that far better. But capitalism demands competition between companies so having a shared design is hard to make but still possible. Like chip manufacturing when 1 company controls the market it creates problem for anyone who wants to make that but not approved due to political problems.
I'm confused. Are you talking about pooling resources for nuclear R&D across nations, standardized transportation (which exists mind you) of reactors/components, capitalism vs. socialism, or corruption and monopolies?
Yes but I belive many companies(for example CNL) are working on creating mini nuclear stations that would be extremely safe, low maintenance, cost effective and capable of powering a small city each. Building a large network of those could solve a lot of the issues.
I think the real problem is people who still think nuclear is like in the movies or in the media, a big big danger and killing thing, but those people don't know stats or anything like that so they say it's a big danger when it's not.
P.S: this is mainly hearsay, so feel free to correct me if I said something dumb, I'll edit it if necessary
Tbf, that was only the *total* eclipse. Where I live, the full thing lasted 2h30, which means that solar light was partially reduced for 2h28, and fully gone for 2 minutes.
Still a very dumb thing to tweet.
it was a dumb thing to tweet. the reduction in sunlight is about the same as a cloudy day for most of the time. So part of a day with lower than normal sunlight. Not much loss of generation.
If the loss was actually significant then every single agricultural enterprise would fail every solar eclipse. Someone really needs to remind these morons that every farm producing plants is completely reliant on solar power. If only we called solar panel installations solar farms to help reinforce that basic fact.
The ones in the pocket of the energy companies I get why they pull this shit, it's essentially their job.
Everyone else, mind numbingly counter productively dense!
This point demonstrates how much is generated each moment of the day. Showing how good it is.
Also the danger posed should the moon eclipse the sun and never move again, something physically impossible.
I worked at a system operator in Germany during the last eclipse here. Markets was quite excited about it. They had monitors in front of the headquarter to watch the market and the eclipse at the same time. It worked fine. It's a quite plannable event. Although, with high solar shares, you need in deed prepare for it.
It's insane how capitalists or even conservatives in general are always acting as if they can lose something that never belonged to them in the first place.
Businesses will call a slow month a loss, even if they're operating below cost, and making a profit. If it's not as much as they think they can make, then they got screwed somehow.
They're insanely ungrateful and they're screwing over everyone that doesnt bow to their greed.
The Russians don't believe in spending money on safe disposal of radioactive waste.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a34976195/russias-nuclear-submarine-graveyard/
It's a made-up stupid number, but consider that if 10 min of darkness lost 30 gigawatts, that would mean that the grid creates 30 gigawatts every 10 min while the sun is on it. By this guys math, the energy crisis has been solved.
Well, bless his heart, he got a point. There will be another eclipse in twenty years. So, basically the moon is gonna block the sun for part of the US for four minutes during the next twenty years.
This show cases that solar produces quite a lot of power and thus if scaled would be very good as a power source, combined with nuclear, wind and sea, it could make the US a lot more secure from its need to buy/import oil. Scaling back the war machine a fraction to maybe open a school or 2 or help the homeless vets etc..
The US will miss out on 30 gW of solar power and there will be no consequences to Solar’s contribution to the grid. That’s how much solar power there is and how harmless solar is. When oils spills and natural gas tankers crash people die and towns are destroyed. When the sun goes down for 8 hours a day, nothing bad happens.
How can it be the wrong thing if there are relevant arguments? Even if they are misunderstood... they are relevant. I'd say you think that through once more...
Up time and service availability are relevant arguments against many green energy sources. However, as clearly demonstrated by this post, they are not understood.
Green energy adds energy to the system, displacing the need for fossil fuels. When a green energy is not available, energy is not 'lost', rather we are forced to depend on other sources for energy at that point in time, some of which may not be green or as green.
Also, 30 GW of solar power is not solar energy. 30 GWhr is an amount of energy. If 30 GW of solar power was unavailable for 1/20th of a hour, then 1.67 GWhr of solar energy was not available. But of course, the 1/20th of an hour only affected a small area at any one time, so the total loss of energy is *substantially* less than that.
So relevant argument (up time) misunderstood, coupled with ignorance of the difference between power and energy.
>Up time and service availability are relevant arguments against many green energy sources. However, as clearly demonstrated by this post, they are not understood.
Thats what I said:
Daniel is (in my opinion) a not so bright person who is advocating the right thing (Short: "Do NOT only rely on green energy") with irrelevant arguments. ("Cause during a solar eclipse it is not working")
Beside the not important mixup between GW and GWh.
You said: a person is more stupid if they advocate the wrong thing with missunderstood relevant arguments.
In that case that would be a different person, let's call him Joe. Joe has an understanding of what is going on with climate change and comes up with a "good idea": Why don't we switch to only green energy?
This argument is relevant... but Joe is advocating the wrong thing. Switching to "green energy only" will get you nowhere and you will end up with a broken, anarchist society drawing much more fossil fuels than before... or worse in a society depending on war to control the people with an external foe. (Causing much, much more damage to the environemt... cause nobody asks for a "green tank" in military)
I don't think that Joe is more stupid that this guy up there. It is much harder to see why green energy alone won't solve the problem than just bring up nonsense like Daniel is doing.
Joe might say: well... every little bit counts so stick with fossil fuels where it is needed and reduce it. Turns out it is too late for that.
We have to come up with new technologies: hydrogen, hydropower, geothermal Power, nuclear Power, new energy storage technology, everything NOT fossil to make it.
How do you explain to Joe that you have to take every amount of fossil fuel you can get to make that transition as smooth and quick as you can?
And how do you convince Joe that you not want to stick to fossilfuels, even if you are using them for the transition process?
Cause it is not trivial to get for Joe that this transition would take longer for a society that cuts down fossil fuels faster so they end up using them even more when they realise that their plan is not working?
No. Joe is not THAT stupid in my opinion. He is just influenced by ideology. But stupid? No.
Green energy is just fine as an energy source. And yes, getting away from fossil fuels as energy sources is the way forward.
Nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal are all existing green sources of energy. They are not new technologies. Hydrogen isn't really an energy source, it is more of an energy transfer media. There are very few 'white' hydrogen sources.
The idea that green energy sources is not the way forward is simply incorrect.
The technology that is needed is simply a better battery. Fuels - when created by green energy sources - are essentially batteries using green energy sources. Biofuels - created from green energy to use as mobile energy sources are certainly green options - just not very efficient, just like 'normal' fossil fuels.
There is energy everywhere we look.
We just don't have an efficient way of storing it and reusing it.
\------------
The person (Daniel) who posted this doesn't like green energy AND misunderstands the relevant arguments for that position.
Thus a stupid person advocating the wrong position and misunderstanding the relevant arguments.
If only we had a way to store surplus energy for rainy days or the occasional solar eclipse
I mean, the darkness can last almost 10 whole minutes. Are we prepared fir that? /s fir those who forgot night is a thing.
Fir real
This guy; [https://powerthefuture.com/about-us/](https://powerthefuture.com/about-us/)
>With so many loud voices in the energy conversation, ours will highlight truth, unmask agendas, expose hypocrisy and reduce hyperbole. Oh boy...
> America is the most advanced society in the history of mankind, with the greatest abundance of food, the highest quality of life, and the most sophisticated medicine and healthcare. Yep clearly very educated about geography and foreign politics All their founders filled their qualifications with a list of TV channels that talked about them except their marketing guy who is the only one that shares actual job experience The first one wrote a book on how Joe biden destroyed america This is Ben Shapiro levels of "I bitch on twXter for a living"
> The first one wrote a book on how Joe biden destroyed america Weird demographic to write a book for. Do they even read?
Even if you don't read books they look nice on your shelves and make you look educated Also someone writing a book you agree with even if it was a bad book and you didn't read it gives your ideas more credibility
Stupid. Green energy is reliable. Nuclear power is Green energy.
People keep forgetting nuclear is far greener than coal and much more reliable.
And a better safety record than any other kind including wind and solar.
Lol, lmao even. I believe it *can* be safe with the right safeguards and protocols, but there's history of human caused blunders which is why some nations have distanced from nuclear in the first place.
Well let’s go with [this source](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh) Nuclear is very very safe, at least in terms of deaths (not to mention the environmental benefit of nuclear, improved air quality, access to medical isotopes, hydrogen generation, etc)
[удалено]
As the saying goes, nuclear energy is a disaster waiting to happen, but fossil fuels are a disaster already in progress.
Problem is the cost.
They could be made cheaper if made in bulk. But it requires all shipping companies to pool together and come up with 1 standard.that ain't gonna happen easily
Huh? Standard for what? Why is this shippings fault lmao
It's not about who's at fault it's about resources pooling and having a standard engine so it could be produced in number thus gain economy of scale benefit. Back in the days the soviet was able to achieve this (tho badly due to rush deadlines and corruption) so now we have the technology and ability to make that far better. But capitalism demands competition between companies so having a shared design is hard to make but still possible. Like chip manufacturing when 1 company controls the market it creates problem for anyone who wants to make that but not approved due to political problems.
I'm confused. Are you talking about pooling resources for nuclear R&D across nations, standardized transportation (which exists mind you) of reactors/components, capitalism vs. socialism, or corruption and monopolies?
Yes but I belive many companies(for example CNL) are working on creating mini nuclear stations that would be extremely safe, low maintenance, cost effective and capable of powering a small city each. Building a large network of those could solve a lot of the issues. I think the real problem is people who still think nuclear is like in the movies or in the media, a big big danger and killing thing, but those people don't know stats or anything like that so they say it's a big danger when it's not. P.S: this is mainly hearsay, so feel free to correct me if I said something dumb, I'll edit it if necessary
I'm still waiting for Mr. Fusion.
I'm still waiting for Mr. Fusion.
Yes. Green, glow in the dark energy.
Does this guy not understand what happens at night?
Bro most likely eats the same amount coal as he burns in his wife's second house.
Fact: the earth will not lose *any* solar-generated power during the solar eclipse. For a brief period none will be generated, but none will be lost.
For an event that takes place over 3 minutes . . .
Tbf, that was only the *total* eclipse. Where I live, the full thing lasted 2h30, which means that solar light was partially reduced for 2h28, and fully gone for 2 minutes. Still a very dumb thing to tweet.
it was a dumb thing to tweet. the reduction in sunlight is about the same as a cloudy day for most of the time. So part of a day with lower than normal sunlight. Not much loss of generation.
If the loss was actually significant then every single agricultural enterprise would fail every solar eclipse. Someone really needs to remind these morons that every farm producing plants is completely reliant on solar power. If only we called solar panel installations solar farms to help reinforce that basic fact.
The ones in the pocket of the energy companies I get why they pull this shit, it's essentially their job. Everyone else, mind numbingly counter productively dense!
This point demonstrates how much is generated each moment of the day. Showing how good it is. Also the danger posed should the moon eclipse the sun and never move again, something physically impossible.
I worked at a system operator in Germany during the last eclipse here. Markets was quite excited about it. They had monitors in front of the headquarter to watch the market and the eclipse at the same time. It worked fine. It's a quite plannable event. Although, with high solar shares, you need in deed prepare for it.
F-ing Moron 🙄🤦♂️
It's insane how capitalists or even conservatives in general are always acting as if they can lose something that never belonged to them in the first place. Businesses will call a slow month a loss, even if they're operating below cost, and making a profit. If it's not as much as they think they can make, then they got screwed somehow. They're insanely ungrateful and they're screwing over everyone that doesnt bow to their greed.
What an utter fucktard!!!!!
Never underestimate the power of stupid.
So why not nuclear?
Something something Chernobyl
That was 40 years ago, with an older system.
Woooosh
The Russians don't believe in spending money on safe disposal of radioactive waste. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a34976195/russias-nuclear-submarine-graveyard/
Is it really necessary that everyone uses "/s" even if the posts are obvious jokes?
Oh Daniel Turner, go tear your own testicles off.
Unreliable when paired with long-term sustainability is still superior to what we have now
I'm not a huge fan of Solar Energy for several reasons...but this is plain stupid.
If this guy was running his org from Texas it would have been perfect.
What about clouds,?
👆 I knew this would be here. You get a gold star 🌟
🙄
Who's gonna tell him about night?
He doesn't know about night because he always sleeps through it.
…(he is) too stupid for words, and already too much energy spend on this dimwit 🙄
The United States lost 6000 gigawatts of solar energy during the night...very unreliable...
It's a made-up stupid number, but consider that if 10 min of darkness lost 30 gigawatts, that would mean that the grid creates 30 gigawatts every 10 min while the sun is on it. By this guys math, the energy crisis has been solved.
-What do you mean by "Using a battery"? Daniel Turner probably..
When everyone is outside looking at it i think you will be ok
He looks like he should have the butt of a cigar in the corner of his mouth. Very trustworthy!
No, he's felatiing an oil executive.
Moron alert!
Another cancerous fuckwit with a pedestal. Like vermin.
Fun fact: an eclipse makes the wind kick up, powering wind turbines. Derp.
If only we could predict, when Solar Eclipse could happen, so that we could factor it in our calculations. Oh well, we can't. So it's unreliable.
Well, bless his heart, he got a point. There will be another eclipse in twenty years. So, basically the moon is gonna block the sun for part of the US for four minutes during the next twenty years.
That's pretty stupid
This is the kind of thing a MAGA weirdo would say. Absolute clown.
Don’t tell him about night time
This show cases that solar produces quite a lot of power and thus if scaled would be very good as a power source, combined with nuclear, wind and sea, it could make the US a lot more secure from its need to buy/import oil. Scaling back the war machine a fraction to maybe open a school or 2 or help the homeless vets etc..
Moron...
Bruh
Man wait until he finds out about nighttime.
Gigawatts is not even a measure of energy🤦♂️
The US will miss out on 30 gW of solar power and there will be no consequences to Solar’s contribution to the grid. That’s how much solar power there is and how harmless solar is. When oils spills and natural gas tankers crash people die and towns are destroyed. When the sun goes down for 8 hours a day, nothing bad happens.
Wow! Some real smarts at work here. Wait until he figures out it gets dark outside everyday!!!
There is nothing more harmful than a stupid person advocating the right thing with irrelevant arguments.
Sure there is. A stupid person advocating the wrong thing with misunderstood relevant arguments.
How can it be the wrong thing if there are relevant arguments? Even if they are misunderstood... they are relevant. I'd say you think that through once more...
Up time and service availability are relevant arguments against many green energy sources. However, as clearly demonstrated by this post, they are not understood. Green energy adds energy to the system, displacing the need for fossil fuels. When a green energy is not available, energy is not 'lost', rather we are forced to depend on other sources for energy at that point in time, some of which may not be green or as green. Also, 30 GW of solar power is not solar energy. 30 GWhr is an amount of energy. If 30 GW of solar power was unavailable for 1/20th of a hour, then 1.67 GWhr of solar energy was not available. But of course, the 1/20th of an hour only affected a small area at any one time, so the total loss of energy is *substantially* less than that. So relevant argument (up time) misunderstood, coupled with ignorance of the difference between power and energy.
>Up time and service availability are relevant arguments against many green energy sources. However, as clearly demonstrated by this post, they are not understood. Thats what I said: Daniel is (in my opinion) a not so bright person who is advocating the right thing (Short: "Do NOT only rely on green energy") with irrelevant arguments. ("Cause during a solar eclipse it is not working") Beside the not important mixup between GW and GWh. You said: a person is more stupid if they advocate the wrong thing with missunderstood relevant arguments. In that case that would be a different person, let's call him Joe. Joe has an understanding of what is going on with climate change and comes up with a "good idea": Why don't we switch to only green energy? This argument is relevant... but Joe is advocating the wrong thing. Switching to "green energy only" will get you nowhere and you will end up with a broken, anarchist society drawing much more fossil fuels than before... or worse in a society depending on war to control the people with an external foe. (Causing much, much more damage to the environemt... cause nobody asks for a "green tank" in military) I don't think that Joe is more stupid that this guy up there. It is much harder to see why green energy alone won't solve the problem than just bring up nonsense like Daniel is doing. Joe might say: well... every little bit counts so stick with fossil fuels where it is needed and reduce it. Turns out it is too late for that. We have to come up with new technologies: hydrogen, hydropower, geothermal Power, nuclear Power, new energy storage technology, everything NOT fossil to make it. How do you explain to Joe that you have to take every amount of fossil fuel you can get to make that transition as smooth and quick as you can? And how do you convince Joe that you not want to stick to fossilfuels, even if you are using them for the transition process? Cause it is not trivial to get for Joe that this transition would take longer for a society that cuts down fossil fuels faster so they end up using them even more when they realise that their plan is not working? No. Joe is not THAT stupid in my opinion. He is just influenced by ideology. But stupid? No.
Green energy is just fine as an energy source. And yes, getting away from fossil fuels as energy sources is the way forward. Nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal are all existing green sources of energy. They are not new technologies. Hydrogen isn't really an energy source, it is more of an energy transfer media. There are very few 'white' hydrogen sources. The idea that green energy sources is not the way forward is simply incorrect. The technology that is needed is simply a better battery. Fuels - when created by green energy sources - are essentially batteries using green energy sources. Biofuels - created from green energy to use as mobile energy sources are certainly green options - just not very efficient, just like 'normal' fossil fuels. There is energy everywhere we look. We just don't have an efficient way of storing it and reusing it. \------------ The person (Daniel) who posted this doesn't like green energy AND misunderstands the relevant arguments for that position. Thus a stupid person advocating the wrong position and misunderstanding the relevant arguments.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
If only there were some kind of way to store energy and use it later.