jboog

Please feel free to point me to any developed country that has successfully replaced fossil fuel and nuclear baseload generation with renewables and energy storage.

I'll save you the time. No one has done it. And no, not because evil mustachio-twirling Koch brothers are pulling the strings. Because the technology does not exist at scale to do this.

Or do you want to continue with your speculative science fiction daydreams?

I'm glad you can google "energy storage" and click on one of the first links but literally none of these are currently capable of replacing baseload nuclear and fossil fuel energy generation.

You can listen to the people who work in this industry and have studied it deeply or you can keep googling furiously for webpages that support your magical thinking.

Absolutely none of this changes the undeniable fact that "storage" is incapable of meeting the demands of baseload power generation currently provided by Nuclear and fossil fuels.

We aren't anywhere close and won't be for many years which is why it's so absolutely ridiculous how green activists implicitly endorse using coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels which kill tens of thousands of people every year and are cooking the planet, when we have nuclear, which kills no one, and does not contribute substantively to climate change.

It's almost like the activists care more about posturing and magical thinking than they do "saving the planet"...

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

There is no way that renewable energy can replace baseload power generation of FF and natural gas given current technology.

All you have is magical thinking and science fiction.

When precisely did "the nuclear lied"?

Renewables CANNOT replace nuclear OR fossil fuels. It's literally impossible based on current or any near-term technology.

We are being told on the one hand that climate change is an existential threat to tens (hundreds?) of millions of people. Oh but actually we can just refuse to decarbonize our energy production because maybe someday 10, 20, 50 or 100 years from now there's a true "green" renewable energy I guess.

it is literally impossible for renewables to replace fossil fuels given current technology and anything on the horizon for at least the next decade, probably much longer.

So that leaves...Nuclear.

So again, why are you fear-mongering about how "dangerous" nuclear is when it's a tiny tiny fraction of the real danger of fossil fuels?

I thought climate change was like an urgent crisis or something....?

If "activists" stopped spending all their time fear-mongering about how expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming nuclear is we could have had massive government subsidies to almost entirely end fossil fuel production for energy!

So little nuclear has come online since 2010 partly because of fear-mongering from activists and people for the last 20 years complaining that Nuclear takes too long to build.

If only 20 years ago people realized all our climate and energy problems wouldn't be solved and we should build the safest, cleanest and only technology to prevent climate change caused by energy production...

Why leave out the cost of fossil fuel power sources throughout history?

And deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions which is in the tens of thousands per year.

Fukushima and Chernobyl combined are a tiny fraction of FF emissions/deaths/costs.

Buzzfeed has some legit straight-news reporting though that have had some good scoops the past few years.

But yes most of it is clickbait

That someone can get rich gambling is not some new insight!

Most of the WSB equity analyst is the equivalent of the blackjack player sure he's going to win it big because Mercury is in retrograde!

Yeah, I agree it's totally gambling.

There's also the thing where buying equity in a company can seem very simple because you see something like Apple where they made a cool thing and obviously their stock went up. People just have no idea about how complex the markets are.

They also don't remember the very smart people who claimed the Iphone would be quickly overtaken by Android and other cheaper alternatives (Clay Christensen predicted this a guy generally very smart on tech/business)

Hindsight always makes it seem like it was easy to pick the great companies that were OBVIOUSLY going to do well.

They don't understand how incredibly sophisticated professional investors are who dedicate their lives to it, and on average even THOSE people don't 'beat the market'.

It's always interesting how the great investments are always so obvious looking in the rear view mirror.

>"They're "fundamentals". Did I look at their balance sheet, no."

Please for the love of god tell me you are trolling right now.