metalslug

Nope, read again. It was you who mixed them up and moved the posts. You even confused yourself with bill. For as long a batteries exist in the mix, their performance is relevant. Actually.. let's screw this. I came back to this forum after a long time only to be reminded, in my first thread contribution, why I left in the first place; reading asinine arguments for sake of argument. It's time (again) for me to rejoin the adults, elsewhere. I might check in once in while, if only to read more parodies of reality and resist taking the bait.

Not when solar is down (for example; evenings) they can't, which was the comparison I stated, unlike a turbine that can. So, the topics shouldn't be confused with each other - I'm sure you have mental capacity to keep them separate... blah (Are we really going to do this.. again?)

..and batteries provide when solar is unavailable (e.g; evening), therefore their ability to do that becomes very relevant. Not obvious to you? Scroll up again. I wasn't replying to bill's post, I was replying to yours. Are you OK ?

By what percentage do reactors and gas turbines reduce in output or capacity over the same period? (assuming maintenance and not replacement). And yet, as others have said, most are not recycled, as it's currently cheaper to mine more lithium than to recycle. It's thereby implied that as recycling increases in future years, the price goes up. Herein lies another contradiction; renewables are hailed as the cheap form of energy and yet in (nearly?) every place where solar and wind are are on the rise to replace fossil fuel electricity there are no trends of a drop in wholesale electricity pricing. People can 'brush up' on renewable talking points all day, but most are 'brushing up' on what they read on their utility bill, and a future of recycling costs (potentially more than mining costs) and many more batteries to be built for sustainable all-day output. The whole site is effectively down, in terms of active solar, for about 12 hours of every day. I'll bet turbine and nuclear plants wish they had that percentage of maintenance opportunity.

Did you forget the original context of your statement? ; "After a while you pay off the plant. At that point you are making that $4 forever." What you dismiss as 'maintenance' are replacements of entire panels and batteries over time as they age. While sunshine may be an infinite resource, the minerals and materials to replace the harnessing infrastructure are not infinite; expected supply&demand pricing and the countries controlling those markets, you'll rival or exceed the original capital cost after (I'll be generous now) 30 years, a ratio higher than equivalent gas or nuclear 'maintenance'. You'll be spending a good percentage of that $4 forever. "..since energy will get more expensive.." As renewable solutions? I don't doubt it.

..and what did my post state by comparison? Are you standing with bill on that $4 forever ? Nuclear technology is also improving, arguably a truly long-life plant or cost reduction breakthrough could be possible someday. Are you asserting that replacement is only required when it gets to zero? By that standard I can confidently state that I recycle paper cups filled with warm coffee. The coffee inside them is valuable to me, the rest of the item goes someplace else. Win !

Nah, depending on geography the sun stops shining for around 12 hours of every day and that's assuming there's no inclement weather to reduce sunlight further. Here we see the repeated outright green lie. Most solar panels currently in use will last perhaps 20 years, the supporting batteries about half that, and then someone gets to decide which landfills to dump them in (any toxic materials in them notwithstanding), and that assumes they wont have a 'Fort Bend County' moment before then. Other than their much smaller site footprint; gas and nuclear plants will get 50 to 80 years of life and won't be dependent on wind or sunshine.

Right on cue! The echo chamber has responded.

Utter deflection bullshit. How he criticised them is at issue. If you're perpetually losing your way on this thread then perhaps another progressive here can 'throw you a bone' for morale?

Interesting that you mention that, considering his curious 1983 JAMA comment about “..the possibility that routine close contact, as within a family household, can spread the disease.” and subsequent panic amongst a broad sector. Do you suppose his critics of that time were anti-science too? As many of his critics were (and are) credentialed scientists themselves; Fauci's hubris alone had simply fabricated the assertion that they are anti-science. Who are you trying to kid here? We both know that if any conservative scientist had made Fauci's comments then you'd be across it like white on rice instead of the laughable 'Jedi mind trick' defence you've chosen here. It's like watching Karine Jean-Pierre trying to explain away Joe's attempted séance with Jackie Walorski.

Fair enough. I'll retract this. Beyond anecdotal evidence, I'm unable to find the citation that sufficiently discounts the vaccine efficacy WRT present day chance of infection. The two dated links provided by others should therefore stand, for now.

I also saw the criticisms of him from other scientists including, but not limited to, many signatories of the Barrington Declaration. Err... no, that's not what I think. Omnipotent? Really? You're there now?

Factually untrue, and perhaps obtained from your preferred source of truth? The vaccine reduces the severity of illness and symptoms, there is zero evidence that it reduces a person's chance of testing positive (i.e. 'catching' it). I'm all for it of course, I've had 4 jabs so far.

I said that Fauci was claiming omniscience because he said "When people criticize me, they are really criticizing science.". You can't possibly have forgotten that already, so why be dishonest? If a fallacy is 'pretty clear' to you, that confirms your own flawed perceptions.

When one is the Chief Medical Advisor to POTUS and impacting Federal decisions, it's a little more than a hapless or incidental lightning rod. Strawman much? I made no such claim that any scientists are omniscient. They each represent a perspective on science. Fortunately scientists agree on more things than they disagree and should be more accepting of debate in contested areas, rather than to equate anti-Fauci with anti-science. With reference to the OP; not long ago some progressive 'truths' included; 'The Hunter laptop is a Russian fabrication' and 'Unvaccinated people are more contagious than vaccinated people and should be ostracized'. Fox News seems to be a source of 'truth' as good as any from the left spectrum.

He's conflating anti-Fauci people with 'anti-science' people. His belief that those two terms are synonymous is rather the point I'm making. Other representatives of science exist who do not share all Fauci's views. If you're placing a set of subjective internet forum rules and protests about the fairness of them as being analogous to science debates.... perhaps kallend can find you a meme for that too.

Uh, no. "When People Criticize Me, They Are Really Criticizing Science, Because I Represent Science". You realize he actually said this, right? ..as though he's the single source of all truth on the subject. Although I myself regarded much of Fauci's (Covid) advice as plausible my point here is not to re-debate Covid specifically; for anyone to proclaim omniscience of any field on which there is significant contradictory evidence and opposing opinion from credentialed peers, is an unfortunate characteristic of lefty dogma. To (absurdly) parody that Reps 'don't know what science is' when I'm quite certain anyone here could easily name several credentialed conservative scientists. It's about as 'funny' and as accurate as a meme that portrays all progressives as sexual deviants.

Ah, c'mon now. The left has already clarified what science is. Those naïve Reps thought it was an objective field.

That 'founder' does make some curious comments; "...the geology of the UK and the densely populated nature of the British countryside made it impossible to set up a commercially viable fracking.." vs "There was an opportunity 10 years ago to look at this [fracking] sensibly, but that opportunity has now gone" . Does Cornelius believe that the geology and population density of the UK has had a marked change over 10 years? It would seem to me that the only change of significance within the last 10 years is his own employment, from fracking to "a geothermal consortium" that now sees him curiously promoting geothermal energy over fracking (in the UK). Who'd have guessed? I've been known to share the opinions of industry shills, although I'm somewhat surprised to see you doing the same.

This kind of misinformation is used by both sides. These photos almost never have a reliable timestamp to indicate the position of the tides. Sure, sea levels have been rising as an overall average, around 6 inches over the last 100 years, although these photos appear to show a greater difference over 60 years, hence my scepticism.

Yes, people of all ages can and will become ill and die from a great many causes including fracking and other fossil mining activities... and also from the processes and materials that are mined and produced for 'green' energy solutions. I doubt you're losing sleep over the (approx.) 40000 Congolese children mining Cobalt. Pick your battles, lots to choose from. In the larger picture, energy poverty is likely to harm or kill substantially more people than fracking.

Newsflash: California is not Europe.

Well; let's still call a spade, a spade, OK? Global warming may well exacerbate the problem by drying out vegetation more rapidly but it's misleading to assert that this is causing wildfires. In Europe, approx 9 out of 10 fires are ignited by human activities, such as arson, disposable barbeques, electricity lines, or littered glass, according to EU data. Warm weather very seldom results in spontaneous combustion of grasslands. Plenty of ways to prevent fires other than climate alarmism.

I'm reminded of an old Seinfeld episode...

Fair enough. I'll acknowledge that. 'Congress' can be both depending on context. The proper nouns I had used in my examples (William and Bill) do not denote defining characteristics of the person bearing the name (unlike 'he' and 'she'). That was rather my intended point.