Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Sky News Australia"
channel.
-
592
-
310
-
228
-
183
-
109
-
104
-
93
-
80
-
70
-
67
-
37
-
27
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@old-pete you are missing my entire point. It went right over your head.
Let's say to power an entire nation, we needed 1000 gas-fired power plants. Now you go and replace those with 1,000,000 wind turbines. But now, over the course of every 20yrs, you have to tear down and rebuild every single one of those turbines. You have to rebuild the grid 100%, every 20yrs. This is NOT feasible nor sustainable.
Wind power is such a minor fraction of total global energy production right now, yet already contributes nearly 10% of all global plastics waste annually. If we converted everyone to 100% wind power magically, then our annual global plastic waste would increase something like ten fold over what it already is today. And every 20yrs we'd have to rebuild from scratch. Look at the wind turbine graveyards all over the western countries, the incinerators that burn old turbines, the ones that fail prematurely, the number of birds already being decimated by turbines that are still only a fraction of energy production. How many birds would die annually if we multiplied the number of turbines by 20? Wind turbines also disrupt local weather patterns and rainfall, creating droughts downwind , and causing flooding in places that never used to get so much rain. We can already see these effects, but they'd get so much worse with 20x as many wind farms everywhere.
Traditional power plants are cheaper, longer lasting, and more sustainable. We don't have to rebuild the entire grid every couple decades either.
1
-
@old-pete "Well maintained they can run longer than 20 years."
And many will still fail, get destroyed by factors beyond maintenance's control....
"Wind provides nearly as much electricity as nuclear power worldwide."
Only becasue Nuclear plants are being torn down by idiots like you. And govs basically ban them from being built. Few new ones have been built in the time I've been alive.
"You do not replace the grid, you replace the power plants."
Yes, that's what I've been saying. Congratulations, you can read.
"Windturbines are industrial sized mass production and are easy to replace."
No, they are not. Not when you have enough of them to power the US. the manpower required to replace/maintain all of them would be staggering. And we'd need all new grid infrastructure to get power where wind turbines don't work (such as where I live)
"I suggest you check your plastic waste numbers, you are off by at least a factor 100."
if you could refute it, you would.
"Fossil fuel powerplants kill 35times more birds for each produced kWh."
how do you figure that? What is your evidence?
"Coal power plants produce tentimes more waste than windturbines for each produced kWh just by counting the coal ash, which is indeed toxic and radioactive."
here I was talking about nuclear and gas power. nice try at a red herring loser.
"The floodings get worse because of climate change, not windturbines."
nope, try again. CO2 doesn't control temps. and CO2 doesn't change rainfall patterns. Wind turbines change rainfall by sucking energy out of the atmosphere, causing wind patterns to change, and rain to drop upwind of where it normally would have in places that never used to get that much rainfall. CO2 can't do that. One positive side effect, wind turbines have disrupted tornado formation. Your refusal to face facts doesn't make me wrong.
"Turbine graveyards are the responsibility of the countries that allow them. Other countries do not. The blades can all be recycled."
nice cop out. Except, you can't recycle fiberglass composites. They are either stored, buried, or chopped up and burned in incinerators to make electrcity. If you know of a recycling method that is scalable and sustainable, name it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@baddriversofthenorcalarea500 "at 80% efficiency." "So what? Its still cheaper and more efficient than gas. Get some solar panels."
So now you expect people to buy overpriced cars, and also buy tens of thousands of dollars of solar energy (by the way, solar doesn't work in my region, too far north, near perpetual cloud cover year round). But I know you're ignorant on reality. To have a chance of even powering my house, I'd have to cover every single square inch of my property with solar panels (not just the house but the driveway, yard, garden, etc. I know because I've already sized and priced systems).
Also, people have driven Teslas in my region and evaluated cost. It was cheaper for me to drive my car with 44mpg than to charge a tesla for the same trip, and I saved hours of time not having to wait to charge.
How do you charge in the middle of nowhere on a camping trip? What about towing capacity? You live in a fantasy world living in fear of fake boogeymen. CO2 is not going to end the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CO2 has a logarithmic effect on global temperatures. this means that for every additional 1C of warming it can cause, it requires a doubling of total PPM. Let's say in going from 200ppm to 400ppm, global average temperatures increased by 1C. to get to 2C, another 1C higher, you'd need 800ppm. To get to 3C warming, you'd need to get to 1600ppm. to get to 4C warming, you'd need to get to 3200ppm. Plants grow well in 1200ppm, which is why greenhouses pump in CO2 to those levels. Humans in a confined space, such as a classroom, lecture hall, or workplace office.... can get the local air up to 800ppm just from breathing and talking.
3200ppm just to get 4C rise, which would have little impact.... The data shows the Roman era was 10C warmer than now, and the population was far lower and coal/oil/natural gas weren't in common usage.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@badchefi Are you sure about that?
I bought a car that lasts minimum 300k miles for $8k, it only had 25k miles on it and everything works. It was 10yrs old when I bought it. It's now 20yrs old, everything still works, have only spent a few thousand in maintenance (new shocks, new tires, oil changes, other basic service, etc.). It still gets up to 44mpg. One youtuber did a 2100mile road trip in his Tesla, and it would have cost me less money in gas than he spent on electricity to do the same trip, and I would have spent a grand total of 15min refueling along the way (and I have done 3+ such long road trips in this car alone), whereas he spent 8hrs recharging his EV. So when you consider the total costs including recharge/refuel, I've spent far less on my ICE car than I would have for an EV, and I regularly drive well beyond the range of the EV in a day, and drive to places with no charging. Also live in a cold climate. Hydrogen fuel cells make far more sense here if you're going to get an EV.
My last car cost me $4k, and I had it for 7yrs, bought it at 125k miles and drove it to 300k miles until it died. Did very minimal maintenance on it over the years. Did multiple cross country road trips in it. car got up 36mpg.
I had a truck before that that got up to 27mpg. had that for 3yrs. Got it for free, but it had been totaled 2x before I got it and it still ran great. Spent almost nothing in maintenance other than a new alternator, new battery, and 2 tires. Drove it till it about died and then sold it to a friend for $300 and he drove it for a few more years. That truck simply refused to die. It had been in multiple car accidents, hit multiple deer, was missing the grill, had high mileage, etc. and still got 27mpg and required almost no maintenance to keep it running.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Mister_Underhill "If you cant charge at home, dont buy an ev." this i agree with.
The problem is that battery EVs simply do not and fit the bill for all people or all applications (airplanes, semis, hauling, towing, long distances....). I drive a lot, and a long ways, so they don't work for me. Also, I refuse to spend that much money on a car, and since battery EVs have no practical used market, i couldn't get one even if I wanted one.
I think hydrogen fuel cell EVs, once the tech investment starts to match battery investment, will be the ticket for applications like mine. Despite the lack of investment though, fuel cell EVs still are competitive. Biggest factor is lack of infrastructure, just like battery EVs lacked a few years ago. But many technical hurdles of manufacturing and transporting hydrogen have been overcome. They have range and can refill to 100% in 5min or less. They are also lighter and better suited to semis, aircraft, long range, etc.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1