Science wins again w/ Global Warming

Nuclear is currently much more expensive than wind and solar. Why would we want to focus on the most expensive solution?

 

More reliable

 

Neither does nuclear. No power production works 24/7/365.

But wind plus storage is much cheaper than new nuclear right now. Solar plus storage is also generally cheaper.

 

A mix of all 3 for assurances

 

Again, large scale storage with wind is much cheaper than nuclear. Combining storage with solar is also generally cheaper. Storage plus both is going to be cheaper and very reliable.

 

From a financial standpoint, the worst hedge is one that is high in fixed cost. It means that if you don't need it, you still have to pay for it.

 

And when you need it you are glad it’s there.

If it can be done with solar and wind and be reliable and price effective I’m all in. I just don’t see that yet.

 

And… how was human civilization going in this time?

The issue with climate change is that it’s possibly tipping into areas where no civilization existed before, and with loss of species (already happening on a rapid scale) and possible loss of croplands we might see rapid decreases in how many people “civilization” can support in 50-100 years. We don’t need to see OK underwater to start seeing these as issues.

It’s true an asteroid or super volcano eruption could do 1000x more to instantly change the earth more than any man-made climate change, and these things have happened in earth’s history (hence OK being submerged in the past). The difference is we don’t control such catastrophic possibilities. We could see an event in 5 years or 50,000 years. Maybe in 50,000 years if humanity is still around we can do something about these massive scale issues. Whereas with climate change it’s more looking at the next 100 years and what we can do best to preserve the environment, or hell how about we just don’t rapidly wipe out species as a start. Just my humble opinion.

 

Why isn't solar and wind with storage reliable and price effective?

 

I didn’t say it wasn’t that’s why I said “if”.

Alaska would be a good state to start in. Amirite

 

Because it was an unused source of electricity that had been closed since 2019 when they asked for a government bailout due to being more expensive than other forms of power generation and were turned down?

 

the only facts needed is that no matter how much garbage you trot out to support your little cause , we are NEVER going to buy it. you love to tell us how stupid or ignorant we are and you get so frustrated that you cannot budge us. It is like the left's love affair with all this gender BS, or the steadfast leftist belief that Trump is a bad guy. You can say it and you can demand we believe it, but it just is not going to happen.

 

It has already started. Utilities are generally not replacing aging fossil fuel plants with other fossil fuel plants (or nuclear). In 2024, wind, solar, and batteries make up about 94% of all new power generation.

Solar and battery storage to make up 81% of new U.S. electric-generating capacity in 2024 - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

Refusing to believe observable data to own the libs. Good luck with that.

 

“I’m proud of my willful ignorance but how dare you call me stupid.”

MAGA doom loop.

 

we feel the same way about how you libs buy into this stuff

 

"This stuff" being observable factual information? I also think the earth is round based on observation. Are you going flat earther to try to own me too?