The Myth of Clean Energy by 6ixStringJack

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Nuclear is the ONLY answer.

Unless, yanno, somebody wants to have that long-overdue conversation about population control.

6ix, nuclear and population control makes you an Atomic Malthusian, to quote the article: "Across an increasing range of social and economic indicators, the “atomic Malthusians” (to use Fressoz’s delightful phrase) envisioned a future of finitude, one rife with population catastrophes, food and energy shortages, and economic decline that could only be prevented by a transition to nuclear energy."

Chapter 10 of the book is titled Atomic Malthusians.

The final paragraph from that chapter:

Quote:
Atomic scientists had discovered a problem infinitely more vast than the solution they were proposing. Even today, nuclear power plays only a marginal role in the world’s energy supply, half that of firewood, and after serious incidents and financial problems, fast-breeder reactor programmes have been abandoned in most countries. France and Japan, the most nuclear-powered countries on the planet, have not seen their CO2 emissions fall drastically, if imported emissions are taken into account. Three-quarters of a century after Putnam, the world is up against the wall: climatologists and then common experience have confirmed the climate risks identified by the Chicago atomic scientists as early as the 1950s. The problem is that energy debates are replaying their futurology based on the idea of ‘transition’, with a lot of coal still under our feet and fading nuclear dreams.

Download Fressoz’s book More and More and More - An All-Consuming History of Energy from https://annas-archive.org/search?q=Fressoz+More

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 12:46 PM

Well if Nuclear isn't going to work, time to downsize the world population to only 1 Billion.

It's the only thing I agree with the WEF Supervillains on.

I know nobody wants to talk about it, but we either do or they're going to take care of it for us. They know more than anybody that wind and solar are bullshit and what we've got going on right now is beyond unsustainable.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 12:59 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
wind and solar are bullshit

Who told you wind and solar are bullshit? I know who put that idea in your head:

Trump’s Global War on Decarbonization

The Trump administration is doing everything it can to ensure that fossil fuels remain dominant in the energy mix of the twenty-first century.

By Mark Blyth and Daniel Driscoll | Aug 21, 2025

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-global-war-on-decar
bonization-green-technologies-by-mark-blyth-and-daniel-driscoll-2025-08

There are multiple competing theories about what drives the anti-green policies embraced by US President Donald Trump. Perhaps they reflect the influence of carbon-heavy industries in Republican-controlled states. Or perhaps they channel ideological hostility to the notion that the state should play any kind of planning role in the economy.

Whatever the case, it is increasingly apparent that the Trump administration wants to halt decarbonization not only in the United States but globally. Viewed from this perspective, much of the recent US policy incoherence starts to make more sense – albeit in a dangerously regressive way.

The US sits atop vast reserves of fossil fuels, which have underpinned its national prosperity for decades. They have lit cities, powered factories, stimulated postwar job growth, and forged broad regional political coalitions among labor, agriculture, and corporations. They are also highly profitable commodities, with exports creating global dependence on US supplies (which is especially true for liquefied natural gas following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine). Fossil fuels are a core component of the country’s political economy – and a key factor in US domestic and foreign policymaking.

The Trump administration recognizes this. It includes ideological realists who understand that energy transitions make hegemons – that energy is power. Just as coal drove the industrial revolution in England, oil and gas fueled America’s postwar dominance. Whoever controls energy controls the future.

Unfortunately for the US, if the next energy transition is a green one, the future surely belongs to China, whose green-tech dominance is so firmly established that it does not really matter which metric you look at. In terms of the critical minerals used for such technologies, China supplies the majority of the world’s refined lithium (70%), cobalt (78%), graphite (95%), rare earths (91%), and manganese (91%). In terms of green-tech manufacturing, China accounts for 80% of solar panel production, 50-70% of the wind turbine market, and over half of electric vehicles. And in terms of deployment, it is undertaking three-quarters of the world’s renewable-energy projects.

This is all good news for those who care about decarbonization; but it is bad news for those hoping to extend US hegemony. If the US wants to preserve its global primacy, then realist logic dictates that it needs China to fail. And the US can engineer that outcome by continuing to do exactly what it is doing.

Since Trump returned to office, his administration has been reshaping American consumption by imposing massive import tariffs and abandoning the previous administration’s program of domestic decarbonization incentives and investments. The Inflation Reduction Act was an explicit attempt to compete with China in green tech. But now Americans are being weaned off the renewables that they were just beginning to enjoy.

Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill spells disaster for the future of US green-tech investment, and his administration is further deregulating fossil fuels and adding more hurdles for clean-energy projects. While the Environmental Protection Agency works to extinguish its own ability to regulate carbon emissions, NASA satellites that track US emissions are being targeted for self-destruction. All these moves, coupled with 30% tariffs on imports from China, signal to green-tech producers that the world’s top consumer no longer wants their wares.

Moreover, the US is trying to undercut global demand for Chinese green tech by compelling its largest trading partners to import US fossil fuels instead. China’s own top trading partner, the European Union, just committed to purchase $750 billion of US oil and gas by 2028 – an amount that far exceeds current US output. And the rest of China’s top trading partners are following suit. Japan and Taiwan have agreed to invest billions in US LNG, and South Korea is poised to join them.

These moves come straight from the US postwar playbook: By ensuring that European markets would be dependent on US oil, the Marshall Plan prevented the Soviet Union from wielding its own energy influence over the continent.

The current US government is not just trying to rebalance trade. It is obstructing global decarbonization as a matter of policy. Cratering American demand for green technologies decreases global demand by a non-trivial amount. And manipulating the terms of bilateral trade deals to favor US fossil fuels abroad further undercuts demand for green tech, impeding the clean-energy transition in key blocs like the EU and East Asia.

The Trump administration is doing everything it can to ensure that fossil fuels remain dominant in the energy mix of the twenty-first century. If it succeeds, the short-term returns to the US will be huge. But the long-term damage to the planet will be orders of magnitude larger.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 1:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
wind and solar are bullshit
Who told you wind and solar are bullshit?

Everybody who doesn't have a (D) attached to their name.

Everybody.

Wind and Solar are a scam.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 1:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm going to chime in with the usual: there's nothing wrong with wind and solar (altho those windmills are butt ugly) if they're sited in the right places and if they don't take up prime farmland or otherwise disturb the environment.*

BUT. They. Are. Not. Reliable.

You will STILL need some other source of energy for your baseload for those hours/ days/ weeks/ months/ and (on occasion) seasons when the weather doesn't behave as expected.

* Except for the fact that electricity companies like to do the install, there's absolutely no reason for acres and acres of solar panels in the natural environment, or on prime farmland, when there are acres and acres of city rooftops and parking lots. My fair city has finally gotten around to shading its city- owned parking lots with solar panels. Personally, I prefer trees, but solar panels have the benefit of producing electricity for the schools and public buildings next door. If combined with battery backup (still an expensive proposition) that's a robust, earthquake- proof source of energy. There's still plenty of room for trees along city streets and sidewalks.

AFA windmills killing birds: cats kill about 100X more.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 1:38 PM

My whole point is, unless you want to give up control to the government how much electricity we get to use per month and severly curb our usage by force, wind and solar aren't going to help anybody with anything. There are too many people and our energy needs are far too high.

Your state is trying to force electric cars by 2030. You already have a power grid that goes down quite often in the summer when everyone is using A/C. How many billions of solar panels and millions of windmills do you need to put up if everyone in California is driving coal burning cars?

They're expensive, they're inefficient, and we still haven't come close to developing battery storage solutions to make them work in the first place.

The environmental impact from digging out all the shit we need to do any of this, on top of the CO2 emissions caused from creating things like the wind blades and the fact that we burn, bury or throw them right into the ocean when they're done because not a single ounce of those blades are recyclable makes things even worse.

It's all a fucking con that got a ton of taxpayer dollars funding companies that shouldn't even exist. And the grift only went on this long because of stupid people with tiny brains and big fucking mouths like Second.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 2:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
My whole point is, unless you want to give up control to the government how much electricity we get to use per month and severly curb our usage by force, wind and solar aren't going to help anybody with anything. There are too many people and our energy needs are far too high.

Conservation helps. Why not phase out all those gas- guzzling SUVs and pickups that people buy only for show?
Planning for cool(er) cities helps.
Cutting down on our incessant war- making helps.
Banning private jets and restricting air travel, finding ways to reduce truck transport but reviving the much more efficient rail system...
All kinds of ways to conserve.
The wealthiest, who consume the most, should conserve the most

Quote:
Your state is trying to force electric cars by 2030. You already have a power grid that goes down quite often in the summer when everyone is using A/C. How many billions of solar panels and millions of windmills do you need to put up if everyone in California is driving coal burning cars?

We don't have coal burning power plants in CA, SIX. But I get your point. Shifting energy requirements from gasoline- burning cars to natural gas- burning cars (via power grid) doesn't reduce our total energy consumption much, and transitioning to 100% "clean energy" is impractical.

Quote:
They're expensive, they're inefficient, and we still haven't come close to developing battery storage solutions to make them work in the first place.

Not that expensive, but unreliable.

Quote:
The environmental impact from digging out all the shit we need to do any of this, on top of the CO2 emissions caused from creating things like the wind blades and the fact that we burn, bury or throw them right into the ocean when they're done because not a single ounce of those blades are recyclable makes things even worse.

An unbiased life cycle CO2 analysis would help.
But don't forget, there are enviromental fracking costs and digging out uranium and concentrating it takes a lot of energy too, and has other environmental costs as well.

Quote:
nIt's all a fucking con that got a ton of taxpayer dollars funding companies that shouldn't even exist. And the grift only went on this long because of stupid people with tiny brains and big fucking mouths like Second.

Not "all", SIX. I already explained the calcs I made for "payback period" and found that FOR US solar made 100% economic and environmental sense, and it would make 100% economic sense for much of CA, plus AZ, NM, TX, FL, UT, etc.

You really do have an "all or nothing" approach, SIX. But reality doesn't conform to our logic and words. Even "human life" is on a continuum. Reality is quite often shades of gray and trade- offs. That doesn't appeal to your incisive mind, which wants 100% solutions, but that's the way it is.

AFA reducing population... yes, if everyone wants to live a comfortable lifestyle, we will have to reduce our population. AND we'll have to find ways to conserve. One thing that I think would help is flattening our wealth inequality. If everyone had guaranteed health care (which doesn't take that much more energy) and a safe place to live and decent food to eat, we might not mind not being able to hop in our gas guzzlers or jet off to wherever.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 2:50 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

there's absolutely no reason for acres and acres of solar panels in the natural environment, or on prime farmland, when there are acres and acres of city rooftops and parking lots.

An acre costs $1,228 in the Texas Panhandle, while an acre of land in downtown Houston would likely cost over $1 million, potentially ranging into several million dollars. The owner of an acre in the Panhandle wants the money from solar panels, while the owner of an acre in downtown does not. That is why solar panels are placed far beyond the cities.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:01 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SECOND, that's a stupid argument. You don't need to buy land to put solar panels on roofs or build solar canopies over parking lots.

Solar panels do double duty: They shade the underlying roof/ parking space, and provide electricity.

Why would the owner of a parking lot or commercial building NOT want the extra income?

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
My whole point is, unless you want to give up control to the government how much electricity we get to use per month and severly curb our usage by force, wind and solar aren't going to help anybody with anything. There are too many people and our energy needs are far too high.

Conservation helps. Why not phase out all those gas- guzzling SUVs and pickups that people buy only for show?
Planning for cool(er) cities helps.
Cutting down on our incessant war- making helps.
Banning private jets and restricting air travel, finding ways to reduce truck transport but reviving the much more efficient rail system...
All kinds of ways to conserve.
The wealthiest, who consume the most, should conserve the most

I agree with all of that.

Not much I can do. I live off of around $7,500 per year and make very little garbage. And I didn't have any kids which means that my carbon footprint doesn't automatically grow exponentially by proxy. I drive around 20 year old cars, keeping them from ending up on the junk pile long past most other people ever would.

There are a lot of things that we could do, but nobody wants to live the way that I do and the only way that they would is if the government forces them to. And even if that ends up happening, you know that the rich and powerful won't abide any of those rules themselves and we will all be living in a serfdom. Just look at people like Gavin Newsom going to outdoor parties at restaruants with nobody masked up while he had your entire state on lockdown. These people have no desire to live like us pheasants do.

Quote:
Quote:
Your state is trying to force electric cars by 2030. You already have a power grid that goes down quite often in the summer when everyone is using A/C. How many billions of solar panels and millions of windmills do you need to put up if everyone in California is driving coal burning cars?
We don't have coal burning power plants in CA, SIX. But I get your point. Shifting energy requirements from gasoline- burning cars to natural gas- burning cars (via power grid) doesn't reduce our total energy consumption much, and transitioning to 100% "clean energy" is impractical.

Right. I understand and appreciate that YOU understand this, but all the young dumb kids and stupid adults like Second and Ted think that energy that comes out of their plug outlets is Hogwarts magic and 100% clean energy just because they don't see the power plants generating that power from their backyard.

It's no different than when they buy a new iPhone every 2 years or a new car every 4 years.

Quote:
Quote:
They're expensive, they're inefficient, and we still haven't come close to developing battery storage solutions to make them work in the first place.
Not that expensive, but unreliable.

I could never afford any of it. Most people I know could never afford any of it.

Unreliable on top of it, sure... and we don't have any affordable and cost effective means of storing that power, so you might as well just be using it up as fast as it's coming in because when night falls it's not going to be there for you and you're back to burning natural gas and coal overnight.

Quote:
Quote:
The environmental impact from digging out all the shit we need to do any of this, on top of the CO2 emissions caused from creating things like the wind blades and the fact that we burn, bury or throw them right into the ocean when they're done because not a single ounce of those blades are recyclable makes things even worse.
An unbiased life cycle CO2 analysis would help.
But don't forget, there are enviromental fracking costs and digging out uranium and concentrating it takes a lot of energy too, and has other environmental costs as well.

Right.

Quote:
Quote:
nIt's all a fucking con that got a ton of taxpayer dollars funding companies that shouldn't even exist. And the grift only went on this long because of stupid people with tiny brains and big fucking mouths like Second.

Not "all", SIX. I already explained the calcs I made for "payback period" and found that FOR US solar made 100% economic and environmental sense, and it would make 100% economic sense for much of CA, plus AZ, NM, TX, FL, UT, etc.

You really do have an "all or nothing" approach, SIX. But reality doesn't conform to our logic and words. Even "human life" is on a continuum. Reality is quite often shades of gray and trade- offs. That doesn't appeal to your incisive mind, which wants 100% solutions, but that's the way it is.

You are literally the exception to the rule. It might as well be all.

The Left has driven me to that mode of thinking over the years. Because everything they propose is pure and utter trash.

I always used to factor in nuance, but I don't bother doing that anymore when it comes out of the mouth of somebody with a "(D)" attached to their name because they are silly people with nonsensical solutions that only make everything worse for everyone.

Am I throwing the baby out with the bathwater here? Perhaps.

But I honestly don't give a fuck anymore. I'm completely immune to Democratic Party gaslighting.

Quote:
AFA reducing population... yes, if everyone wants to live a comfortable lifestyle, we will have to reduce our population. AND we'll have to find ways to conserve. One thing that I think would help is flattening our wealth inequality. If everyone had guaranteed health care (which doesn't take that much more energy) and a safe place to live and decent food to eat, we might not mind not being able to hop in our gas guzzlers or jet off to wherever.

I agree with all of that.

So... how do we get people to voluntarily reduce the population before the WEF heads do it for us?
--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, that's a stupid argument. You don't need to buy land to put solar panels on roofs or build solar canopies over parking lots.

Solar panels do double duty: They shade the underlying roof/ parking space, and provide electricity.

Why would the owner of a parking lot or commercial building NOT want the extra income?

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

That looks like a great idea...

Until you have some bad weather and get slammed with that golf ball sized hail.

Sure... you've got insurance to cover it and rip it all down and rebuild it for you, but now you've just
increased everyone else's homeowners insurance just a little bit more next year.

I stopped paying for homeowners insurance years ago. When I first moved here it was only $400 per
year. Last time I called for a quote (before Joe Biden* took office), it was up to $1,200 per
year. My old man says that his has jumped $400 per yer two years in a row now and he's paying
almost $2,000 for homeowners insurance.

I laughed and told him "that free brand new roof you got a couple of years ago because of
the ambulance chasers out there doesn't feel so free anymore now, does it?"

And $2,000 per year probably sounds like a real bargain to you, I'm sure. I've heard that it's
gotten so expensive in California that people are losing their houses not because they can't
afford the mortgage, but they either can't afford the insurance, or even worse nobody even wants
to insure them anymore. What happens to California residents when all the insurance companies
pack up and decide that it is no longer in their best interests to even offer homeowners
insurance to the people in California at any price?

That's a serious question that's going to need answering. The Bank isn't going to take on all
that risk. You're not going to be able to buy or sell a house in California unless you're
dealing with cash only transactions if there is no homeowners insurance offered in the state
(or insurance that anyone except the ultra-wealthy who could buy those homes with cash can
afford). And what about the people who already live there and lose their homeowners insurance
because the provider cuts them off and there is no other company out there to insure
them? Can the banks just take everyone's house who hasn't paid them off yet if they're
no longer insured??? Who knows? Read the fine print. I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

Or just wait for a while... We'll probably find out soon.

All solar panels are is more expensive parts that are just waiting to break.

They're just more eWaste biding its time until it ends up in a landfill.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:41 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Fortunately we don't have hail.

Just earthquakes.

One of the things about the panels that we bought: they're physically sturdy and wired in parallel, so if a crack develops or if a leaf lands on it, we don't lose the whole panel.

Should be a requirement for ALL panels.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 6:24 PM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, that's a stupid argument. You don't need to buy land to put solar panels on roofs or build solar canopies over parking lots.

Solar panels do double duty: They shade the underlying roof/ parking space, and provide electricity.

Why would the owner of a parking lot or commercial building NOT want the extra income?

Sure, Walmart has solar panels, but those are not built on million-dollar-per-acre land. But there are 2 billion acres of cheap land where solar panels would improve the looks. To power the entire USA with solar energy, estimates range from approximately 10 million to 22 million acres, depending on factors like panel efficiency and the land's characteristics. The Interstate Highway System required the acquisition of approximately 1.5 million acres of land, so that is a fine place to cover with solar panels.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 6:34 PM

JAYNEZTOWN

maybe Nuclear doesnt really work for a while

I see a dark age coming but also

someone will start to figure stuff out, maybe not Cold-Fusion or new 3-D Printing Recycling Nano tech stuff and Biotech or Solar or SpacePower but there will be a break through somewhere.

What nation survives a global collapse? Who can hold off the end for a while....those with science an army and those with resources, those with some free science ideas and united maybe the USA, China, maybe Austria, Japan, Switzerland, Canada, a few can hold out...but the rest of the world can go into a chaos rioting horde and eat itself fighting over the last few resources. Its difficult to predict Brazil looked ok and Sweden seemed like it knew what it was doing until it went socialism and opened its borders to islamics, maybe power shifts to some East Europe parts instead of Nordics but East Europe worries about the Ruskie....some nations will hold out maybe even move forward.

...but the rest of the World, its going to eat itself

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 9:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SECOND, that's a stupid argument. You don't need to buy land to put solar panels on roofs or build solar canopies over parking lots.

Solar panels do double duty: They shade the underlying roof/ parking space, and provide electricity.

Why would the owner of a parking lot or commercial building NOT want the extra income?
Sure, Walmart has solar panels, but those are not built on million-dollar-per-acre land. But there are 2 billion acres of cheap land where solar panels would improve the looks. To power the entire USA with solar energy, estimates range from approximately 10 million to 22 million acres, depending on factors like panel efficiency and the land's characteristics. The Interstate Highway System required the acquisition of approximately 1.5 million acres of land, so that is a fine place to cover with solar panels.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

But I'm not talking about powering the ENTIRE USA with solar panels. That's ridiculous. You could power a significant percentage of many southern cities with solar DURING THE DAYTIME.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 26, 2025 9:30 PM

WHO IS GOING TO PAY TO PUT THEM THERE?

WHO IS GOING TO PAY TO DO THE MAINTENANCE?

They can't even fix the fucking expressway without ripping it up every other year to keep Democrat voting union employees working.

Nuh-uh.

You want that shit, YOU FUCKING PAY FOR IT, rich guy. Maybe call up Bill Gates and ask him why he's not spending his money putting solar panels up everywhere if its' so fucking important for the cause.

We're fucking done with you, Second. Shut the fuck up and spend a few days to yourself without any news and see for yourself if it's even possible for you to come up with one single good idea to dig the Democratic Party out of the grave that it's lying in.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2025 6:53 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

We're fucking done with you, Second. Shut the fuck up and spend a few days to yourself without any news and see for yourself if it's even possible for you to come up with one single good idea to dig the Democratic Party out of the grave that it's lying in.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

What argument would have convinced the Confederates not to rebel? Eventually, General Sherman and Grant devised a workable method to persuade the Confederates, but until then, Lincoln thrashed around ineffectively with a cautious, non-provocative stance: In his first inaugural address, he pleaded with the South, stating, "We must not be enemies" and holding that secession was illegal. Most everything Trumptards do is either illegal, stupid, or immoral, but they aren't gonna stop willingly, and there is not enough money to bribe Trumptards to behave decently. What does that leave, other than the General Sherman/Grant method of persuasion?

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2025 7:01 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

But I'm not talking about powering the ENTIRE USA with solar panels. That's ridiculous. You could power a significant percentage of many southern cities with solar DURING THE DAYTIME.

Is there some reason why I should care that you approve of ideas embraced by the Democratic Party? You seem opposed to sensible ideas in other countries. One in particular: Russia deserves defeat.

The Crazy Comes for Clean Energy

Nothing is safe from the madness of King Donald

By Paul Krugman | Aug 27, 2025

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/the-crazy-comes-for-clean-energy

In a way the most remarkable thing about the number of people insisting that large-scale reliance on renewables is impossible is that such reliance is already happening in many places around the world, including large parts of the United States. Britain gets 30 percent of its electricity from wind and another 5 percent from solar; Denmark gets 70 percent from renewables, mostly wind. Here in America, Iowa gets 65 percent of its electricity from renewables, mostly wind; California, whose economy is larger than that of most countries, gets 38 percent, mainly from solar.

The renewables revolution is, in short, well under way, and it’s one of the great technological success stories of modern times.

And the Trump administration is trying to kill it.

We knew, coming into the second Trump administration, that Republicans in general and Trump in particular like fossil fuels and dislike renewables. Some of this is about money: In the last election cycle the oil and gas industry gave 88 percent of its contributions to Republicans. And as I wrote last month, energy policy has been caught up in the culture wars. Solar and wind power have, in the MAGA mind, become identified with wokeness, while burning fossil fuels is considered masculine. Hence the hostility to green energy.

We also know that Trump has a special animus against wind power, dating back to Scotland’s refusal to cancel a wind project he thought ruined the view from his golf course.

While it was predictable, however, that Trump and his party would try to eliminate Biden-era subsidies for renewable energy, and even throw up obstacles to new green energy projects, even I didn’t think Trump would try to destroy already existing renewable generation capacity. Yet here we are:

Trump: "Windmills — we're just not gonna allow them. They are ruining are country."

If you think Trump is posturing, look at what just happened to Revolution Wind, a wind farm off the coast of Rhode Island. Revolution Wind is a largely completed project, already connected to the grid, which was scheduled to start delivering power next year. But the Trump administration has just ordered work on the project to stop.
https://prospect.org/environment/2025-08-26-donald-trumps-madcap-crusa
de-against-wind/

Think about it. We’re talking about gratuitously trashing billions of dollars’ worth of investment. We’re also talking about significantly reducing the supply of electricity — not in the long run, but next year — at a moment when electricity prices are soaring thanks to the demand from data centers. And there’s every reason to believe that Revolution Wind is only the beginning of a real attempt to roll back wind and, possibly to a lesser extent, solar, even though both are now crucial parts of America’s energy system.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2025 7:32 AM

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

There has been huge progress in another energy technology — batteries:

Source: RMI https://rmi.org/the-rise-of-batteries-in-six-charts-and-not-too-many-n
umbers/

Batteries, in turn, work synergistically with solar power, making it possible to generate power when the sun shines and use it after dark. Here, for example, is what happened last February in California: In California, batteries stored nearly a third of solar generation on a sunny February day, shifting it into the evening

Source: Ember https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/us-electricity-2025-special-r
eport/insight-2-the-rise-of-batteries-plus-solar/

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2025 4:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

We're fucking done with you, Second. Shut the fuck up and spend a few days to yourself without any news and see for yourself if it's even possible for you to come up with one single good idea to dig the Democratic Party out of the grave that it's lying in.

Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
What argument would have convinced the Confederates not to rebel?

YOU are NOT the good guy.

Get that through your thick skull.

America hates you.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 27, 2025 6:44 PM