Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Joe Scott" channel.

  1. 198
  2. 37
  3. 25
  4. 25
  5. 22
  6.  @ThrottleKitty  So many thing that you said are wrong: " Every thing you said is a repeat of blatantly false information. It takes 7 times as much plant weight to feed humans per calories as a cow, making the net land use MUCH higher for plants." Wrong . Firstly plant (wheat, rice , potato etc) can provide as much calorie as meat while requiring less land. Secondly, you still failing to account that it take more than 20 times in weigh for plant matters to produce meat. Producing meat is jut inefficient and that is a fact. "Also, ignoring that cows don't need fertilizer for their plants, making this entire area of argument a non-comparable" Only someone ignorant in agriculture would said something as blatantly false as " feed stock don't need fertiliser". Why don't you try growing soy or corn (both used in feedstock) without any fertiliser and tell us how much you yield per-hectare you can muster? "Your opinions are completely and utterly divorced form reality and logic, please find a better, less environmentally damaging fad to be high and mighty about." That rich coming from a guy who spew blatantly false bullshit about agriculture. "But why am I bothering, you rad a blog post from a vegan food company, you already know all the worlds secrets and are above the circle of life and live an entirely pure and miraculous existence, thus can't be wrong." You're talking to guy who have literally slit the throats of chicken for food and will continue to eat meat for the rest my life and even I am calling bullshit on your misinformation attempt (which indicates that you are woefully ignorant or just a plain liar).
    18
  7. 16
  8. 13
  9. 11
  10. 11
  11. 11
  12. 10
  13. 10
  14. 9
  15. 8
  16. 8
  17. 8
  18. 7
  19. 7
  20. 6
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47.  @Skylancer727  There are a few glaring issue with your post. The first one is that you neglect to factor in energy storage. Sufficient energy storage will allow for solar provide enough power at times when the sun is not available (night ie). The problem is getting there (sufficient energy storage ). A better power line distribution will also allow solar energy to properly distributed as there will always a apart of they planet that receive sunlight even at night, the problem is setting up that power distribution line. Though these solution are costly (and unnecessary with nuclear) , it is within our capability based on current tech. The second problem is that lies in your estimation of total cost for all types of plants. Solar is actually cheaper to set up and ran than any fossil fuel power plant (it is even cheaper to set up than coal plant in the US) due to the fact that there is no need to continuously buy fuel for it and not having much mechanical parts mean far lesser maintenance and spare part over the years. Thirdly you overestimate the degradation rate of solar panels. While it is true that solar panels do degrades over time and will cost lots of pressing issue (recycling toxic waste eg) at the end of their lifespan , most current gen of solar panel have a rated lifespan of around 15-20 years instead of your low ball number of 5-10 years. Furthermore this just mean the panel will be replaced by much more efficient solar panel 15-20 years down the line instead of having the entire plant be completely shut down at the end of their lifespan (in the case of nuclear power) and this can be done at least several time, ergo a solar plant will have similar if not longer lifespan compared to nuclear facility . This another edge solar have over nuclear, nuclear power plant are notoriously hard to upgrade once th reactor design have bben set up (hence why there are so many first and second generation reactors still in operation today). As said the biggest problem with nuclear is the high cost to set it up and the high cost it incurs when the plants finally shut down 60+ years down the line . I am very much pro-nuclear (a stance I though I would never take 15 years ago) and agree that it is easier to transit into them than renewables, but I do believe renewable do have a place in our energy consumption needs.
    2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2