Log fires? You're insane! Don't you know burning wood produces the most horrible thing in the world, carbon emissions? They should just stay warm using the knowledge that they're letting their political betters live like kings, I mean saving the environment!
Don't you know burning wood produces the most horrible thing in the world, carbon emissions?
Wow really? Well then I am looking forward even more to all the wood I'll burn this winter, every time I light up my fire it pleases me to know that there is some useless retard in some liberal shithole fuming at the idea alone of someone burning wood for warmth and that he can't do jack shit about it.
Related fun fact: Germany used to be a net electricity EXporter before they shut down their nuclear plants. Last month Germany had to IMport 16% of its electricity.
It's currently summer, i.e. their precious solar power is at its peak and people are using much less electricity (lighting, heating, etc.).
Winter is going to be fun. They'll have to burn a shitton of gas and coal to prevent blackouts.
which is funny because they keep saying climate change is making the planet windier... or less windy... they can't really decide what to say climate change is doing to the wind.
It's funny how they literally changed the name to climate change so they can suggest any change to the climate in whichever way is because of climate change. An obvious truism. The earth's climate is always changing therefore climate change is real, see, it changed again!
As a child, I believed it when it was called "global warming". In just one presentation as a teen, the terminology was updated to "Climate Change" because "it's more accurate as to what's happening globally".
Already knew from reading about weather and geology that the Earth has been constantly changing climate-wise. The illusion was shattered.
(Pollution is still a problem though. Toxicity in the environment does damage to humans)
How much of the climate change agenda is funded by “generous donations” from companies responsible for massive chemical and material pollution of the environment? Or consider this: the weather apps on all of our smart phones have been updated to scaremonger about climate change nonstop, but the toxic rare earth minerals going into all of our phones are far more destructive to both the environment and ourselves (child laborers included). How much does Nestle donate to climate change awareness as their plastics fill the oceans?
Pollution is still a problem though. Toxicity in the environment does damage to humans
so is using non renewable energy sources tbh. any source of energy that simply cannot run out in the forseeable future is objectively better than finite ones. energy sources that dont get your country held by the balls by foreign suppliers get bonus points too.
trouble is, most modern day "renewables" are crap by this definition. solar is barely energy positive if you count production costs. so its technically not a "solar" panel. its a "coal plant in china" panel that only provides power when you don't really need it.
Wind turbines are a total boondoggle. The intermittency is even a major factor.
They simply can't produce enough power over their lifetime to justify the manufacturing, maintenance, and disposal costs, not even counting the eyesore, noise, and wildlife factors. You literally have to produce tens of thousands of turbine blades to equal the power output of a single nuclear reactor. The install is complex, location specific, and there are heavy duty moving parts that wear out.
That's not even that unusual, right? It's just like parts of the US east coast, there's just never that much wind.
There's been issues in Texas with wind power, and that's where the plains have some of the best wind power conditions possible and are the size of a mid-size European country. The thought that it's going to work even close to as well some place with much worse conditions is just insane.
So only two solutions:
Use nuclear power you fucks and while you're building them just use fossil fuels in the meantime
Give everyone beans
European politicians are dumb enough to consider option 2.
“What did Europeans use before Candles and Log fires?
Electricity”
Log fires? You're insane! Don't you know burning wood produces the most horrible thing in the world, carbon emissions? They should just stay warm using the knowledge that they're letting their political betters live like kings, I mean saving the environment!
and candles come from exploitation of bees. horrendous speciesm that the people should self flagellate for, forever.
thankfully, in a winter without heating, that shouldn't be too long.
Wow really? Well then I am looking forward even more to all the wood I'll burn this winter, every time I light up my fire it pleases me to know that there is some useless retard in some liberal shithole fuming at the idea alone of someone burning wood for warmth and that he can't do jack shit about it.
Doubtful. They are trying to ban burning wood. Knowing these wef shits it'll be candles only and freeze.
Greasy. Pakis. Trayne oil.
Texas' wind power has been running at 25% or less capacity every time I check, and it hasn't been terribly windy here.
Left-wing Texans have only two solutions:
Build even more turbines
Turn your thermostat to 80 because you're consoooming too much energy
this. Is not their actions that is causing the problem is Putin and before that it was Covid and the solution is more legislation.
Related fun fact: Germany used to be a net electricity EXporter before they shut down their nuclear plants. Last month Germany had to IMport 16% of its electricity.
It's currently summer, i.e. their precious solar power is at its peak and people are using much less electricity (lighting, heating, etc.).
Winter is going to be fun. They'll have to burn a shitton of gas and coal to prevent blackouts.
which is funny because they keep saying climate change is making the planet windier... or less windy... they can't really decide what to say climate change is doing to the wind.
It's funny how they literally changed the name to climate change so they can suggest any change to the climate in whichever way is because of climate change. An obvious truism. The earth's climate is always changing therefore climate change is real, see, it changed again!
As a child, I believed it when it was called "global warming". In just one presentation as a teen, the terminology was updated to "Climate Change" because "it's more accurate as to what's happening globally".
Already knew from reading about weather and geology that the Earth has been constantly changing climate-wise. The illusion was shattered.
(Pollution is still a problem though. Toxicity in the environment does damage to humans)
Hell, when I was a child it was the tail end of 'experts' trying to hype an impending ice age.
How much of the climate change agenda is funded by “generous donations” from companies responsible for massive chemical and material pollution of the environment? Or consider this: the weather apps on all of our smart phones have been updated to scaremonger about climate change nonstop, but the toxic rare earth minerals going into all of our phones are far more destructive to both the environment and ourselves (child laborers included). How much does Nestle donate to climate change awareness as their plastics fill the oceans?
I've come to the same conclusion that a lot of climate change nonsense is pushed as a distraction.
so is using non renewable energy sources tbh. any source of energy that simply cannot run out in the forseeable future is objectively better than finite ones. energy sources that dont get your country held by the balls by foreign suppliers get bonus points too.
trouble is, most modern day "renewables" are crap by this definition. solar is barely energy positive if you count production costs. so its technically not a "solar" panel. its a "coal plant in china" panel that only provides power when you don't really need it.
One good hailstorm and you can say goodbye to your solar panels too.
Wind turbines are a total boondoggle. The intermittency is even a major factor. They simply can't produce enough power over their lifetime to justify the manufacturing, maintenance, and disposal costs, not even counting the eyesore, noise, and wildlife factors. You literally have to produce tens of thousands of turbine blades to equal the power output of a single nuclear reactor. The install is complex, location specific, and there are heavy duty moving parts that wear out.
Maybe if they ask Russia real nice they'll give them a nice deal on natural gas for their generators.
Oh... wait.
That's not even that unusual, right? It's just like parts of the US east coast, there's just never that much wind.
There's been issues in Texas with wind power, and that's where the plains have some of the best wind power conditions possible and are the size of a mid-size European country. The thought that it's going to work even close to as well some place with much worse conditions is just insane.
Turbines scared away all the wind