Why renewable energy can't save the planet

Sorry, don’t do the buy in America thing for union workers who spend a lot of money doing political things I disagree with.

Free country. I would prefer buy in America to rewarding foreign countries and workers myself.

The Smyrna plant is a good plant. It’s actually Nissan’s oldest plant in the states. It was opened in the mid 1980s to build Nissan 720 pickups.

Since then it’s expanded and added an engine building center and also hosts most Nissan’s Master Technician courses.

I worked for a Nissan dealership for a good while so we had to learn all this lol.

1 Like

Mining that will present challenges:

What is it? Why will it last one hundred years? Now if you said 50,000 years, that might be impressive. Even better, 5 million years. Even better. 50 million years.

Bingo, know what will last 50 million years? Solar. Wait until these come.

And if they don’t pan out there are several other solid state options on the table. By 2024 or 2025 ev’s will put the final nail in ice vehicles coffins. We get that and durable peroskovite cells we will be sitting pretty.

No need. Man won’t last 50,000 more years, let alone 5-50 million years. At least not on this planet.

Okay, I will bite. Why won’t we last 50K more years?

Are you kidding? Have you seen what we have done in just the last 100 years or so?

No I’m not kidding. We have learned a lot in the last 100 years. And we have abused the planet in the last 100 years. But what was done was before we had educated ourselves about the consequences.

Think about it. In 1900 there were barely over a billion people on this planet. Today there are almost 8 billion. Do you really think that can be sustained for another 50,000 years?

1 Like

Right now, in the lower half of coastal NJ, there is no more hotly debated issue than the scheme for an extensive “offshore wind farm” to be installed off the Jersey coast. There has been a strong push-back from the public that I think the company that builds these (Orsted) did not anticipate. The local radio programs, and even those from the Philadelphia area, the local press and even the “Neighborhood” discussion boards on the area’s Patch online papers are filled with debates on this topic.
The main points of objection seem to be:

  1. They’re ugly. Okay, aesthetics are subjective, but we are talking about an area where tourism is a major industry, and there is some discrepancy about whether or not they will be visible from the beach.
  2. They will interfere with animal life. Offshore migratory mammals (sea mammals like whales, dolphins, porpoises, as well as bats) that navigate using echolocation may be disoriented by the motion and vibration of the turbines. With the onshore farms, dead birds and bats have been a problem that they are trying to remediate. It’s especially troublesome because many of the dead birds have been endangered raptors that have very low reproduction rates, leading to a slow decline in their population in these areas.
  3. Interference with commerce - Both commercial and recreational fishing and boating are a significant source of commerce in the area - how will they be impacted.
  4. Potential for chemicals to leech into the waters and sea beds during their operation, repair and decommissioning. Are there disposal and recycling options in place?
  5. Cost - During a local radio discussion about this, a guest said it will triple energy costs without the ability of wind to provide a consistent, much less superior energy source than the current coal and natural gas. This is a major consideration, since remote learning and remote work have led to an uptick in power usage in this area. Will the supply meet an increasing demand?

I admit that I’m surprised the topic doesn’t get more national play.

1 Like

We have a Lithium shortage.


For energy? Sure. The earth is hit by 10,000 times the energy were are currently using every day. Oh and population will peak and then begin to decline pretty soon.

Well said Samm. The growth is exponential. That was part of Albert Bartlett’s “Arithmetic, Population, and Energy.” He’s the one who coined the phrase about exponential growth.

It’ll cap out at about 14 billion before the next natural catastrophe.

This guy says 11 billion, but 14 sounds reasonable.

No, it doesn’t sound reasonable. Get yourself another Earth or two . . . and then maybe. On the 29th day, your lake is half full with algae. On the the 30th day, its full.

■■■■■■ going to hit the fan at some point with population growth.

1 Like

■■■■ will definitely hit the fan with population growth, but that will pale in comparison to the natural catastrophes that frequent this planet.

Like what?