MPs who believe ‘women have a penis’ will be named and shamed ahead of general election

submitted by xoenix from telegraph.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]xoenix[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Look at the energy consumption chart again. "Renewables" didn't arrive until the year 2000, but total consumption dropped since then - i.e., people used less energy, probably because industry left and went overseas (where who knows what emissions or pollution it generates.) All they did since they arrived was displace nuclear.

I posted a whole thread that debunks that naive GHG chart. Wind and solar are scams, they're also not renewable or sustainable. We simply don't have the materials to replace fossil fuels. Nuclear is the only solution.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

All they did since they arrived was displace nuclear.

See who oil and coal are down too?

That means there's less of them.

I posted a whole thread that debunks that naive GHG chart.

The while of life greenhouse emissions includes construction materials.

Wind is the lowest there is. With onshore being lower than nuclear, and offshore being similar.

Also you can stand up a wind turbine in about 2 years from when you decide to acquire the land. Nuclear is nearer 30, which is way too slow.

[–]xoenix[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

See who oil and coal are down too?

That means there's less of them.

Energy consumption is down because industry left. As a % of the total, nuclear lost out the most. i.e., that was the energy type that was replaced. Are you just playing dumb now?

The while of life greenhouse emissions includes construction materials.

I posted a whole thread that debunks that estimate.

Also you can stand up a wind turbine in about 2 years from when you decide to acquire the land. Nuclear is nearer 30, which is way too slow.

Nuclear takes anywhere between 6-15 years, depending on the resolve of the government. It also last many times longer than any wind or solar. Your excuse has been used every 5-10 years for the past 35 years. We could have built nuclear several times over by now. This is what you call sunk cost fallacy. We don't have the materials, the mining capacity or the land (especially not after you bury defunct windmills) or the money, since this stuff is getting too expensive, to build (and replace) the necessary 25X or more wind that you need to replace fossil fuels.

[–]ActuallyNot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Energy consumption is down because industry left.

Fossil fuel energy sources are down more than energy consumption.

As a % of the total, nuclear lost out the most

See how between 1979 and 2022 Nuclear dropped by 60.92 TWh, but coal dropped by 959.56 TWh?

That means that coal dropped by more than fifteen times that of nuclear.

The relevance of as a percentage isn't obvious, but just so you know, that was a 60% drop in the power consumption by coal but only a 41% drop in the power consumption by nuclear.

Are you just playing dumb now?

No I'm not playing dumb. I'm pointing out what your chart shows. Four times now.

I posted a whole thread that debunks that estimate.

No you posted a thread that claimed because copper requires mining, without any demonstration any inaccuracy. Copper mining is taken into account in the estimate I gave.

Nuclear takes anywhere between 6-15 years, depending on the resolve of the government.

You must have already acquired the land when you start the clock.

It also last many times longer than any wind or solar.

You mean without maintenance? When you lose one of the turbines in a wind farm there are other options than selling the land. You can replace the turbine.