olofscience

Not really... Source: Why Germany ditched nuclear before coal—and why it won’t go back

Then there's also the security and politics (nonproliferation) aspect - if thieves steal a wind turbine, they have a bunch of carbon fibre and gears. If they steal solar panels, they have some glass, silicon and aluminium. But if someone steals a nuclear fuel shipment? That already makes a big difference in costs if you need a small army to escort one shipment, and to secure the actual power plant site. Then the paperwork to make sure no nuclear material goes missing... And we know Iran (and many other not-so-friendly entities) would love to get their hands on that stuff. But, I guess this is all too complicated for them, much easier to just blame the liberals and those hippie environmentalists, right?

This is fake news, and just shows how Winsor doesn't know anything about nuclear power plants. Nuclear has NEVER been cheap. Even China, with its lax safety regulations, prefers to build coal power plants (hi Brent!) and solar (uh oh) than Nuclear power plants. Saves him from thinking, as over-simplifying it to "these woke snowflakes made nuclear expensive" is easy on the ol' brain. And his anecdote from the 70s gives him that nice warm feeling that he's superior to those "bright eyed, bushy tailed Liberal Arts types". Predictable, though - look what a 4-year old article says:

This actually shows your insecurity a lot - BillV wasn't bragging, because he was just saying it was improving California's air quality. He was just stating a good thing. It was you who suddenly turned it into a dick-measuring contest on which state had the better air quality. (Which no one was disputing, but you started it with such a silly argument that has now backfired on you) Looks like we've hit your one-variable limit again. That's okay, we welcome people of all abilities. You started this particular line of discussion, then got so thoroughly owned so I guess we should let you change the topic again to save yourself more embarrassment.

Yep, you got nothing.

And you keep failing to address my argument - it's not the existence of farms, highways, trucks, cars, and SUVs. It's HOW MUCH FOSSIL FUEL each state burns. It seems numbers are just too difficult for you.

You: 2023 won't even be in the top 5 warmest years Me: Brent will ignore my question on where San Diego's air pollution comes from You're STILL proving me right

Actually I get it now, why Brent keeps calling wind turbines "windmills"! Those wind turbines aren't generating electricity, they're milling grain! And that milled grain dust is causing all the particulate pollution in San Diego!

That's even worse, you've just said that San Diego's air pollution comes from diesel generators, then provided a quote saying that diesel generators in the Bay Area are starting to become a problem. Which means, you actually STILL haven't answered my question on where the air pollution in San Diego comes from

I'm sure I do: "The majority (42 percent) of the pollutants that contribute to ozone formation in San Diego County come from tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles." (Source: https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/san-diego) Emphasis changed because Brent's getting confused about what he said.

Still no numbers there, just because someone says they're a problem doesn't mean they're THE main source. "The majority (42 percent) of the pollutants that contribute to ozone formation in San Diego County come from tailpipe emissions from MOTOR VEHICLES." (Source: https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/san-diego) Emphasis added again since reality doesn't seem to be getting to you.

So...you got nothing?

So...you couldn't resist and just came up with complete bullshit "The majority (42 percent) of the pollutants that contribute to ozone formation in San Diego County come from tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles." (Source: https://www.iqair.com/usa/california/san-diego)

Still ignoring my question as predicted you're so easy to figure out...

This is one of the instances where per capita basis SHOULDN'T be used since air quality isn't divided per capita. So you suddenly gain the ability to divide numbers when they twist the narrative And as I predicted, you ignored my question on where the air pollution was coming from

Clear enough that you're misleading and lying, yes. I said, what affects air quality is mainly how much fossil fuel is burned. Number of coal power plants doesn't mean that PA burns more fossil fuel than California, which has 3x the population. Which means approximately 3x the number of vehicles, 3x the amount of energy consumption. Hopefully you can handle that number... You'll probably ignore this question, but where do you think San Diego's air pollution is coming from? Solar panels?

I'll try to explain it as simply as possible - you specifically mentioned "the heart of coal and fracking country". Just mining coal and fracking doesn't affect the air quality as much as burning the stuff. As to your inability to understand the difference in San Diego's and PA's air quality, here's a clue: it doesn't depend on merely the existence of fossil fuel burning, but rather how much is burned. But I don't really need to explain further, because we know how you are with numbers.

But you didn't answer my question. Do those power plants burn ALL the coal and gas mined in PA?

It's almost as if PA being "coal and fracking country" has nothing to do with its air quality, huh? But Brent can name TWO power plants and their locations so stop that with your facts (and actually useful data) he doesn't want to look foolish does he???

So PA burns ALL the coal and gas mined there? And petrol-burning cars aren't an issue? Try again.

There's this thing about digging the coal and oil in one place, then burning it in another place... Man, this is so stupid it's definitely trolling now...

It's not just economics Brent applies this "one-variable" analysis to...

And you're on the side of those small, gutsy oil companies determined to EXPOSE this evil conspiracy! And why would you care about Michel Mann's net worth? Could it be that you're:

Solar AND wind. It's telling that metalslug has mixed up lithium batteries with solar in his arbitrary goalpost setting, while neglecting to mention wind at all. Wind has been the traditional complement to solar for the past several decades. Grid-scale storage is a very recent new addition to the mix. Another is HVDC power transmission over long distances, making grid balancing even more efficient.

Engineers who design and manage energy grids don't mandate that ALL energy sources you plug into the grid has to be a self-contained, 24/7/365 generating source of energy. There are a LOT of solar power plants with no associated battery. Heck, several DZs here have a solar farm right next to them. Why set this arbitrary goalpost? There's no good engineering reason for it. Oh, I know...