olofscience

No, I'm asserting that the lifespan is more than 10 years. This is a bizarre and nonsensical analogy. Are you ok?

This is the lie, solar panels are getting a LOT more reliable. Some of the newest ones are rated for 40 to 50 years: https://www.nrel.gov/news/program/2017/failures-pv-panels-degradation.html The battery lifespan is also a lie - the 10 years usually quoted is for the number of cycles for batteries to reach 80% of their rated capacity. You're talking as if they suddenly go to zero. The lithium in them is extremely valuable, this is another silly argument. If you replace your car's catalytic converter, do you dump it, platinum and all, in a landfill? Most batteries are easily recycled.

You could also predict that the sun would rise tomorrow and nobody would give a shit. Those "'predictions" you made didn't have much uncertainty to begin with, which is why nobody gives a shit. It doesn't make you clever like you think it does. And I remember, I asked you to make an actual prediction (on an uncertain subject, predict a specific number) and you just ran away "to watch the game".

You predicted 2023 to "not even reach the top five" warmest years. Instead, it smashed all records. Interesting how you're now dissing NASA's predictive capability

You're one to speak, you don't even know the difference between observations and models Now you're pretending to know better than NASA? (cue brent citing a cherry-picked, obscure, old paper with inaccurate predictions, not representative of the general scientific consensus, to "prove" his point) (edit2: also he'll use one of his denier sites to do this, since he can't understand the papers themselves)

...so is your argument that, as soon as solar power generates 3.5x breakeven energy, the sun stops shining?

Didn't you know that Brent was born a white dude in North America not because of luck, but because of his hard work and intelligence? If you stupid lefties would only listen to him, and work as hard as he has, you can ALSO be born in the best place and have the best things*! /s *refer to the other thread "The morbidly rich need to be taxed more" thread for a comprehensive list (cue airdvr chiming in that white dudes also struggle...yes, yes they do but that's a different topic...)

That's a brutal thing to do to someone who was already desperate to use this topic to flex Now he's going to have to start another 3458907 topics...

Governments' reason for existence is to protect the welfare of their citizens. Corporations are not citizens. Corporations employ citizens, so they do have a say on how the country is run, just through their employees and not the company itself. Even if it isn't lying, it's still not a level playing field - because the consequences are still imbalanced. It's like a rich man making a $1000 bet with a poor man - both risk the same amount of money, but the consequences for the poor man is much bigger than for the rich man.

This is one of my arguments for a Universal Basic Income. Companies and CEOs currently hold and decide the means of living for millions of people. They're not afraid to use them as HOSTAGES to get what they want from governments, and they do. All the time. Government policy should only be dictated by the citizens, not by companies using their employees as hostages in their negotiations.

There's a lot of economically-useful gold just sitting in gold vaults underground in London. That gold could be used for various coatings, corrosion protection, etc. but they're just sitting there because some rich people think they should be used to "store" their money instead. We're animals, and we just like hoarding and accumulating stuff. This is why capitalism is flawed - money's net flow is upwards, where it will stop and accumulate. The upwards flow, and downwards flow (i.e. trickle down) are not equal. Since they're both just money you can add the numbers together and they cancel out, and what remains is the net flow.

This entire thread is pretty much just Brent jumping at any opportunity to flex. Yep, he's definitely not insecure... However there's a brutal truth - if society was more equal, with billions more people in the middle class, total global CO2 emissions would be VASTLY more than they are now. Those billions that billionaires are sitting on, doing nothing, are also billions not generating more CO2. (They *are* very very wasteful with CO2 per billionaire, but there's not that many of them) It really sucks, and we really should be able to alleviate human suffering without increasing CO2 emissions, but our technology is not quite there yet (though in less than 5 years, it will be). So in some weird sense I'm with Brent on this...sort of. How's that for a typical lefty? But I'm risking an actual discussion on this thread and interrupting Brent's ego trip

This is really funny since in another thread, Brent was trying to insinuate that I needed to use google to look up a common word for female sheep. He really needs to brush up his vocabulary. Yup, says an old white man these problems don't exist! I guess we can all go home now, nothing to see here

Piston engines are less efficient though. They'll have to throw away a lot of heat to avoid melting (note how much cooling water is mentioned in the link you provided) However they do have the advantage of quicker start-up time than turbines. Still, grid-scale batteries are better.

Agree with most of your post except this, turbines take time to start and spin up. And every turbine start affects their lifetime. For peaking, grid-scale batteries have much faster response times and probably much lower total cost.