Totally agree with you on this
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
The stop point out, with truth, the time of pauseA sentence doth require at ev'ry clause.At ev'ry comma, stop while one you count;At semicolon, two is the amount;A colon doth require the time of three;The period four, as learned men agree.
Yeah thank you I know sometimes I just get carried away I use voice texting so I just keep talking LOL sorry about that
Um what the hell do you think nuclear submarines run on buddy? Lmfao 😂
@vald9inches nuclear Energy but democratic won’t agree to using nuclear power they want wind and solid which takes more energy then they put out in there entire lives
Nuclear Energy is electricity lol so if electricity can power a submarine through water i am pretty damn sure it can easily power semi trucks or other huge vehicles lmfao. I think what you are trying to say is we dont have the battery technology yet that can be light enough and energy dense enough for large vehicles or airplanes. But thats what the question is asking do you think in the future will we have better batteries and make everything electric.
I agree we definitely should have more nuclear power plants they are the most energy dense, efficient, and safest power source we have at the moment. But i just want to clarify you said that wind and solar can never produce enough energy throughout their entire lives to make up for the cost of energy that was used to make them?
@vald9inches yea it takes more energy consumption to produce windmills and solar panels then they produce in there life time. Nuclear energy really is the most efficient form of green energy. It take welding mining and building and transportation then solar panels and wind turbines produce in there entire life span, which makes them worthless and coast more money and Energy then there worth. Europe is all on board with nuclear energy same with Japan and China (Fuck the Chinese communist party by the way) are all on board with nuclear energy. Before my dad retired he was trying to sell nuclear power to China but because the company wasn’t willing to give up its intellectual property the deal failed. You got to factor in both Energy and financial cost if you are using more energy then the product can produce the product is basically pointless which is why I’m saying it take more energy to produce windmills and solar panels then the energy they produce in there entire life time of use. Sad but true. Nuclear is way way or efficient then wind and solar and carbon energy combined but unfortunately democratic in the United States hates nuclear energy (sorry given how late. It is I’m guessing your in Europe)
While i agree with you on Nuclear Energy and definitely think we should build more of them, i disagree with you on that it costs more energy to build renewables energy such as wind and solar over their life time that just wouldn't make logical sense not just because they use renewable limitless sources for their energy production aka wind and solar but they would not build them if that is true. i did a quick research on the subject and i found these two articles that refute that claim. www.forbes.com/.../?sh=7817bd3373cdwww.statesman.com/.../
Either way the sooner we get off our fossil fuel addiction the better. Burning stuff to make energy is extremely primitive
@vald9inches were not going to get off of fossil fuels anytime soon. One of the things climate alarmist don’t think about is there are still many developing countries in the world that still need fossil fuels to develop. China and India are going to stop using fossil fuels now when there just starting to develop. There are other nations primarily in the Middle East and Africans nations who G. D. P relies on the protection and sale of oil. Also don’t for get about the nations that are still burning dung in order to heat there homes at night. Are the developed nations suppose to tell the poorer nations your no longer allowed to burn fossil fuels in order to develop? Oil and carbon based fuels have brought many many nations out of property think it’s only been 147 years since oil was first discovered and the west and other nations that embraced carbon energy have rapidly progressed compared the the entire spans of human history. Also has allowed nations to be able to globally trade with each other on a scale unprecedented in human history. The global markets rely on carbon energy and really can’t really on anything else. Other wise you have people going to war over resources again. Do we want to go back to a world like that?
@Stoner710 While it is true that 1st world countries enjoyed great prosperity and advancement by burning fossil fuels without any regulations doesn't change the fact that humanity as a whole needs to stop burning fossil fuels and transition to something else as quickly as possible other wise our species and civilization will all be destroyed by climate change and global warming. So it is incumbent that those same nations who prospered on fossil fuels need to lead the way with cleaner and more sustainable energy sources and technology and help those other nations with their sources of clean energy otherwise it would be hypocritical. Anything else is just an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels for profit like primitive cavemen especially since we have the technology such as Wind Turbines and Solar Panels and Nuclear and hopefully soon Fusion Energy.
@vald9inches Solar and wind are not going to get us to the point of economic growth that we desire. Stagflations isn’t a good thing. If you spend more to create a product then then what the product produces in its entire life span then it’s no longer worth creating. Wind and solar are not sustainable. Nuclear power is highly sustainable same with natural gas which would make up 10% of our energy if we combine it with nuclear power. So we wouldn’t be 100% carbon neutral but 90% carbon neutral. I can tell your not from the United States I wish I knew what country your from because every time I bring up nuclear energy it’s get rejected immediately for being to dangerous which is stupid there’s been one nuclear power parent disaster that’s had any significant consequences and that Chernobyl. My dad helped clean up the aftermath of Fukushima he’s helped design nuclear reactors in France Germany and China I was studying green energy massively because I study politics and all that it concerns. So I know solar and wind are not sustainable as fuel for a globalist economy
@Stoner710 well if wind and solar are not sustainable i would highly appreciate any credible sources you have. I would love to read up on them. Yea i facepalmed so hard when i heard that Germany plans to decommission all of its nuclear power plants! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ Also i am not sure if i will be disappointing you by saying i am actually living in americium lol originally was born in the middle east but lived the better half of my life in the states.
@vald9inches So we’re talking express that haven’t been cited because it keeps getting shut down. My dad works for tarra power which is a company sponsored by Bill Gates who is responsible for building safe for nuclear reactors it’s his behind the scenes endorsement of nuclear power nobody knows about it except me and a slight fever of 150 people. He understands that it’s not savannable he also understands that the love doesn’t like make you a power so he’s selling it to every single country other than United States to please the political left of the United States. Most people who are actual scientist allegagree with me that when and solar are sustainable in the long-term short term yes but nuclear power has to be the main part of it. Unfortunately many scientists are against coming out against solar and nuclear and three because he will lose their jobs at this point this is how far the left is gone when it comes to their fear mongering campaign especially when it comes to counterculture
Sorry man I understand your position but until I see some sources I can't in good faith believe what you are telling me. It goes against all common sense I know
Ever heard of a Hybrid engine
Your father sounds very wise. Most people don't understand anything you just said. I believe that 60% of all electricity is created from burning coal. People don't understand that. They just think that electricity is a clean source of power. At a school I went to, the students put up a windmill. The windmill needed a small building to house the expensive batteries, electronics and inverter. If it's too windy, the windmill blades fold back to protect them, and no power is being created. And, obviously, if there's no wind, no power is being created. But in the perfect conditions, that windmill created one kilowatt of power per hour. Wow, that sounds like a lot. Yeah, 10 cents per hour. Assuming wind conditions were perfect for 12 hours per day, it would take 34 years just to pay for the materials to buy the windmill. And that's with free labor. Throw in labor costs and it probably take 70 years to pay for the windmill, and windmills don't last that long. In my city the police department ordered about a dozen electric cars from Tesla. I just don't get that. The cops don't want them, but it makes good for public relations.
And you have missed a bigger picture it's a lot easier to control emissions from a Coal Fire plant then from a million cars with various reliability.
@yofuknutz No, I never have. When he gets, I ask my father.
Coal Fire plants have better emissions control then cars go look it up you know like Wikipedia
@KelleyNice A hybrid originally was a car that could run on both electricity and gas. Some of them could be plugged in at night and you could charge the batteries, but not all were the plug in type. I have a friend who has a Chevy Volt. I don't know why, but they discontinued them, and now sell the Bolt. the bolt is fully electric, and the Volt was a different kind of hybrid. The Volt runs off an electric motor, but the batteries are charged with a gas generator. So you still pull up to the pump and fill up with gas, but the car isn't propelled by a gas engine. I don't really get exactly how that makes sense, but she gets 60 miles per gallon. But one thing that could be making that happen is "regenerative" braking. When I go down a hill or just brake in general, all that energy is wasted. The hybrids capture that energy and use it to charge the batteries. It's a brilliant idea and so are hybrids, but the industry is moving away from them and going fully fully electric. But we don't have the infrastructure for that. I believe in my state they said that in 12 years, the sale of new gasoline engine cars will be banned. That will be a huge mistake, but that's how the government rolls.
@CandiceK Thank you for your splended explaination.
Your welcome. Auto manufacturers pretended for years that they couldn't invent a hybrid. I'm sure that this was because big oil was greasing their palms to not invent it. Then a teacher and his students in California invented one. lol Oooops. Now the cat was out of the bag and they had no choice but to make them. The Chevy Volt.
You're welcome. lol
Yeah I missed the V by one year that really pisses me off
Realistically we will use every drop of oil, natural gas, and coal before we make any serious change. At that point we will likely use farmed micro organisms like cyanobacteria or algae to make bio diesel.