[QUOTE=download;51798306]Yawn. All I'm seeing here is a guy who doesn't have an argument so he's decided he's going to bitch and moan about about the person writing. If you want me to say where I got something from [i]just ask[/i].[/QUOTE]
There was no point in arguing with you four years ago when I gave you that title and there's no point in arguing with you now, for the reasons I listed above.
[QUOTE=Furioso;51798321]There was no point in arguing with you four years ago when I gave you that title and there's no point in arguing with you now, for the reasons I listed above.[/QUOTE]
Still not seeing an argument.
[QUOTE=download;51798323]Still not seeing an argument.[/QUOTE]
Your argument was "renewable energy is unsustainable". Seeing as that is factually wrong, what fucking argument do you want?
[QUOTE=download;51797294]Again, how is that relevant? It doesn't change the fact it requires a significantly larger number of people to make energy from solar than it does coal.
And yes, I did read the article.
[editline]9th February 2017[/editline]
All you've done is said I'm wrong before reiterating what I said and saying that's right.[/QUOTE]
you're basically saying its unsustainable because it needs a lot of people to do something that's one-off
it's like saying nuclear energy is unsustainable because you need a lot of people to build nuclear plants
[QUOTE=Stopper;51798430]Your argument was "renewable energy is unsustainable". Seeing as that is factually wrong, what fucking argument do you want?[/QUOTE]
You missed the bit where I said that an industry that only supplies 5% of US electricity production but required twice as many jobs as the industry that supplies 40% is unsustainable. My argument had more reasoning behind it than the four words you've quote mined.
So, do you want to discuss the topic at hand or do you want to keep getting angry over what is essentially nothing?
[editline]9th February 2017[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51798453]you're basically saying its unsustainable because it needs a lot of people to do something that's one-off
it's like saying nuclear energy is unsustainable because you need a lot of people to build nuclear plants[/QUOTE]
It's not really one off though. Solar panels and wind turbines only have lives of 20 years or so. They'll need to be replaced far more regularly. It should also be noted that wind have some of the largest material requirements of any energy source. I can dig up the number if you want but off the top of my head it's something like 5x the steel and 10x the concrete a nuclear power plant needs GW for GW.
[QUOTE=download;51798457]You missed the bit where I said that an industry that only supplies 5% of US electricity production but required twice as many jobs as the industry that supplies 40% is unsustainable. My argument had more reasoning behind it than the four words you've quote mined.
So, do you want to discuss the topic at hand or do you want to keep getting angry over what is essentially nothing?[/QUOTE]
it requires many more jobs to build the capacity
the actual number of jobs needed to maintain existing solar facilities is much much lower
there's also the fact that solar power still has room for improvement in terms of efficiency gains and reducing production costs, whereas coal doesn't
[QUOTE=download;51798457]It's not really one off though. Solar panels and wind turbines only have lives of 20 years or so.[/QUOTE]
there were barely any solar panels 20 years ago, and their efficiency was a fraction of what it is now
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51798460]it requires many more jobs to build the capacity
the actual number of jobs needed to maintain existing solar facilities is much much lower
there's also the fact that solar power still has room for improvement in terms of efficiency gains and reducing production costs, whereas coal doesn't
there were barely any solar panels 20 years ago, and their efficiency was a fraction of what it is now[/QUOTE]
Looking it up it seems solar panels have longer lives than I expected. Wind turbines on the other hand do [url=https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/WindFarmsUK_Denmark_hughes2012.pdf]very poorly[/url].
Anyway, I'm not advocating coal, rather I'm criticising renewables for the number of people needed in the industry.
[QUOTE=download;51798488]Looking it up it seems solar panels have longer lives than I expected. Wind turbines on the other hand do [url=https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/WindFarmsUK_Denmark_hughes2012.pdf]very poorly[/url].
Anyway, I'm not advocating coal, rather I'm criticising renewables for the number of people needed in the industry.[/QUOTE]
Job demand is a downside?
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;51798513]Job demand is a downside?[/QUOTE]
It is. Those people need to be paid which leads to higher energy costs. It's particularly bad in the energy industry as energy is the basis for pretty much every raw material.
[QUOTE=download;51798457]You missed the bit where I said that an industry that only supplies 5% of US electricity production but required twice as many jobs as the industry that supplies 40% is unsustainable. My argument had more reasoning behind it than the four words you've quote mined.
So, do you want to discuss the topic at hand or do you want to keep getting angry over what is essentially nothing?
[editline]9th February 2017[/editline]
It's not really one off though. Solar panels and wind turbines only have lives of 20 years or so. They'll need to be replaced far more regularly. It should also be noted that wind have some of the largest material requirements of any energy source. I can dig up the number if you want but off the top of my head it's something like 5x the steel and 10x the concrete a nuclear power plant needs GW for GW.[/QUOTE]
So your solution to improving the situation is to [I]not[/I] invest in renewables, because they are currently less cost effective than non-renewables. Well, guess what's the only way to make them a better alternative (not that they aren't already)? Oh yeah, of course - it's investing in the sector!
[QUOTE=download;51798488]Looking it up it seems solar panels have longer lives than I expected. Wind turbines on the other hand do [url=https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/WindFarmsUK_Denmark_hughes2012.pdf]very poorly[/url].
Anyway, I'm not advocating coal, rather I'm criticising renewables for the number of people needed in the industry.[/QUOTE]
I would assume the number of employees is so much higher compared to its output because it's relatively new and you can't relegate as much of the work to machinery as you can with coal. I'm sure if you'd compare the number of people employed in coal 100 years ago compared to how much energy it produced it wouldn't be nearly as "efficient".
At any rate it's a horrible comparison considering one is an established method and the other is something that's just now really starting to gain traction that still has significant room to grow. You make it sound like solar and wind are starting to stagnate and can't sustain their growth.
tbh he's at least partially right, renewables aren't going to be able to sustain shit for a long while. Most countries definitely can't live off just solar and wind power right now. It should absolutely be invested in though, it's only going to get better from here and while it can never really replace other energy sources entirely, having it as an extra source in addition to nuclear would be pretty nice.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
