Any circumstance in which we can universally abandon the idiocy of wind and solar power is one in which the left has been politically or more likely militarily defeated, and thus DEI becomes much less of a concern.
These people practically worship the sun. They won't give up their grift willingly.
You don't need to worry about that, nuclear takes time to build the infrastructure and facilities required to utilise it.
DEI hires have a very short attention span so they wouldn't get past the design phase before they go 'too hard, put a wind turbine on instead so I don't need to maintain it'. That's the thing about a lot of the 'green energy' grift, they're all passive ways of getting power but by result produce little amounts.
Yes but you need to add carbon to to make steel either way, why not use the coal you already have to heat the steel mills and naturally add carbon to create the steel.
Another bonus is that you reduce the amount of transports needed since you only ship away the finished steel instead of ore and coal overseas.
I've seen this but I don't know how accurate those numbers are. If it's true, then natural gas is extremely good as well in terms of infrastructure costs.
Any talk of environmentally friendly energy without mentioning nuclear is a scam,pure and simple.
I just wish they'd hurry up with fusion technology, I want that miniaturised so we can go Fallout in this bitch!
I used to think nuclear was the way, but I don't anymore. As evidence I point to Boeing, etc.
They will put the DEI hires in charge of design and maintenance and it's basically Chernobyl 2.0 at that point.
Any circumstance in which we can universally abandon the idiocy of wind and solar power is one in which the left has been politically or more likely militarily defeated, and thus DEI becomes much less of a concern.
These people practically worship the sun. They won't give up their grift willingly.
Solar and wind are useful and viable in certain limited applications, but indeed should be abandoned as a large scale "solution".
That's exactly why Chernobyl 2.0 will be counter productive. Culture will have to change first, then energy, unfortunately
You don't need to worry about that, nuclear takes time to build the infrastructure and facilities required to utilise it.
DEI hires have a very short attention span so they wouldn't get past the design phase before they go 'too hard, put a wind turbine on instead so I don't need to maintain it'. That's the thing about a lot of the 'green energy' grift, they're all passive ways of getting power but by result produce little amounts.
So do airplanes.
I really hope they won't be this fucing retarded, but I wouldn't count on it. The way to go is national socialism first and then nuclear energy.
Yes but you need to add carbon to to make steel either way, why not use the coal you already have to heat the steel mills and naturally add carbon to create the steel.
Another bonus is that you reduce the amount of transports needed since you only ship away the finished steel instead of ore and coal overseas.
I've seen this but I don't know how accurate those numbers are. If it's true, then natural gas is extremely good as well in terms of infrastructure costs.
Global shipping is one of the most polluting activities humans engage in, by orders of magnitude if I recall correctly.
This never gets addressed and the pollution it causes is conveniently not attributed to any single country.
Just another piece of evidence that they don't care about the environment, they just care about killing you.
Coal is safer and nuclear has Bill Gates.
Easy choice.
We'd have a cool soundtrack
I'm wandering to this after the bombs drop lol
Absolutely