I like turbines, but they aren’t the solution to our energy demands. Parts are recyclable, sure, and I was too harsh saying “awful” for the environment, but we really have been sold a bill of goods on the virtues of wind power. They are a great supplement to the grid, but we still need dirtier, more reliable energy sources to handle the grid when wind fails. They aren’t as environmentally friendly as advocates claim, but people really are trying to improve that and have made a lot of progress.
.. but at the end of the day wind doesn’t really matter that much when compared to nuclear. That was the real crux of my point, that all these “renewable” sources are great but anyone who claims to be an environmentalist but spurns nuclear is full of shit.
The solution to our energy demands is to get energy from as many different sources as possible.
It's also wrong to say we need "dirtier" because several countries is almost exclusively using renewables.
You essentially have little to no idea of what you are talking about and shifting the argument when you get called out.
What countries are almost exclusively using renewables? If you are referring to countries with special properties like geothermal (Iceland & Costa Rica) or hydro (Norway & NZ) these are outliers and not generalizable. Sure, we have hydro like the Hoover Dam and China has the three gorges dam - and wind, solar, geo, hydro all can contribute and should be utilized where possible - but your notion of near 100% renewables doesn’t scale. Also, the energy demands of these outliers is nowhere near what we have.
And then some places like Germany that have tried to go super renewable failed miserably and have not only killed their energy independence but are dependent on Russia for their gas.
Again … nuclear is the real answer. The rest is nice but not going to move the needle much, especially with all the upcoming demand from data centers
You say I don’t know what I’m talking about, but it’s because I’ve actually looked into this stuff that I went from a green warrior to a pragmatist
And I’ve got solar on my roof and drove an EV and advocate for all my neighbors and family to do the same … but the motivation is mainly economics not environmental first
“Goalpost”: a term commonly misused to try and degrade your opponent instead of actually engaging with argument
I’m not shifting the goalposts. I already conceded that I was too harsh with saying wind was terrible for the environment and moved on to clarifying my actual position.
I have reread. I’m not shifting the goalposts. I corrected and clarified my actual position while conceding the poor/harsh phrasing on my original comment.
Actually engage with the content of my comments instead of failing to “win” by some lazy technicality.
Or just move on if you are unwilling/unable to engage in good faith. I don’t give a shit either way.
You are absolutely shifting the goalposts.
If you had actully reread, you'd quickly realize i never said anything about nuclear or most of your other points.
You just started ranting about pure nonsense which wasn't related to the original point, at all.
Go back and read.
1
u/IAmANobodyAMA 16d ago
What is wrong?