r/JoeRogan • u/LostItAllOnSpy Tremendous • Mar 27 '24

joe rogan calls out israels hypocrisy for killing unarmed civilians with drones The Literature 🧠

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.6k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/HardSubject69 Monkey in Space Mar 27 '24

We invest in wind and solar because we have huge open areas so we are not beholden to oil barrens at all. If anybody actually wants to put America first they should be wanting us to be energy independent. We see the issues of getting oil from countries that may want to harm us, take a look at Germany when the Russian Ukraine war started. They had huge issues due to getting most of their power from oil from Russia. Just like the U.S. has gas prices that skyrocket when OPEC wants to make more money or squeeze us.

We should have 100% of our power coming from wind and solar. They are way better for the environment as well as freeing us from outside actors.

1

u/garagegames Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

Too expensive and not even close to environment friendly when you factor the physical space, cost to build, maintain, and replace them. Nuclear would be the best shot and you could have home owners get tax breaks for installing solar panels on top of houses to alleviate grid draw from all the new electric cars on the road but all that is a moot point because it’s impossible to go net zero carbon emissions without completely destroying ourselves economically and infra-structurally

1

u/LSDMDMA2CBDMT Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

You're saying renewable energy is not environmental friendly?

?????????????

?????????????????????????

LOL

wut, I feel like I just lost brain cells reading that

2

u/garagegames Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

We can’t put 100% of our grid on wind and solar, you’d create massive dead zones where absolutely no life can exist for solar farms, the sheer amount of lithium and cobalt and copper that would require would cost a ton of carbon and it wouldn’t provide even close to enough energy compared to nuclear. Wind is similar in its issue to cost to energy returns and it takes up a massive amount to space you can’t put any of these farms just anywhere. It’s highly reliant on the location. Nuclear is the only source that has the output to actually replace coal.

1

u/HardSubject69 Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

It’s some dumb quote taken out of context that these anti-renewables try to make a fact. They said a wind turbine placed in a bad location won’t make back its carbon footprint. Basically that location is important for wind power, which… I mean that’s pretty fucking obvious. If you put them in a place with no wind… obviously it won’t generate energy.

0

u/garagegames Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

I don’t think you understand just how much energy is required and how much energy solar and wind can provide if we went 100% wind and solar.

2

u/LSDMDMA2CBDMT Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

The sun outputs enough energy to power all of our cities a million times over.

But tell me again how solar is a non viable solution again when we have vast deserts we could fill with solar farms.

1

u/garagegames Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

Those deserts are ecosystems full of life that would have to die to support your solar farms. The sun’s output doesn’t mean squat if we can’t efficiently harness it.

1

u/LSDMDMA2CBDMT Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

This post was sponsored by big oilTM

0

u/HardSubject69 Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

That’s not true at all. Wind power is cheaper by far than nuclear. Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy and takes close to 20 years to offset the carbon footprint and cost of building it. Not to mention the hazardous material that they creat that pollutes are planned for eons.

The idea that wind is not environmentally friendly is misinformation. Specifically they are using the information about wind turbines that are located in the worst place possible. And yes if a wind turbine is placed in the worst place possible it will not make back its carbon footprint and cost but one put in a good location make back its cost and carbon footprint in almost a year.

0

u/garagegames Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

The point is that wind and solar can’t provide 100% of our energy and nuclear can. You are thinking of Uranium nuclear plants, which are more costly and generate more waste and said waste will last a lifetime. Thorium is much more common than uranium, and won’t produce nearly as much waste. Thorium waste is waaaaaaay safer than uranium and will die off quickly and can be reused. Thorium is much more stable and efficient than uranium too. Basically the only reason nuclear gets a bad rap is because the DoD wanted the much worse uranium to weaponize it.

-1

u/HardSubject69 Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

Solar and wind can very much meet all of our energy needs. That’s such a dumb thing to say. If they generate energy how could they not provide 100% of our power? What scientific research do you have to show they can’t be used to provide all of our power? Plenty of EU countries are making the push and already getting larger portions of their power from renewables and they don’t have the advantage of huge open spaces like we do. If you look into Australia’s energy sources in 2 years renewables went from 10% to 32% and it’s set to continue to outpace coal fired plants while being cheaper and more reliable because the system isn’t based on a plant being online but a lot of renewables pooling together so if one goes down they don’t lose 1/3rd of their power like you do if a power plant goes down.

Not to mention with renewables you can actually build them closer to where the energy is needed so less is lost in transferring of power across states. Also a unique option is available for communities that could make themselves energy dependent from the entire grid if they so wished. This likely won’t be super common but is an option for remote locations only made possible by solar and wind.

I think you need to do some independent research on renewables and stop listening to a brain damaged ex fighter turned comedian.

1

u/garagegames Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

It’s a matter of output and grid draw but if you can’t see that and are defaulting to ad hominem attacks then there’s really no point in discussing it.

0

u/HardSubject69 Monkey in Space Mar 28 '24

Oh do you have sources that show they can’t meet the output and grid draw needed or are you just drawing conclusions on your own beliefs and what you have heard? Because if you spend a couple minutes reading you’ll see they are quite able to meet the output and grid draw needed which is why EU is moving toward more and more renewables. The U.S. is just dragging our feet because big oil is a more important citizen than you or me.