placeholder

I got news for you. Languages change over time. That includes connotations. Not surprising to find fossilized thinking in a fan of fossil fuel.

What pie in the sky? They exist. They have batteries in operation at power plants. Their new 765 milllion dollar plant is about to open. Their batteries are being successfully used. It's headed by Mateo Jaramillo, the former head of the battery division of Tesla. And it's not just this company. There are lots more. For example: Natron Energy starts manufacturing ‘50,000+ cycle-life’ sodium-ion batteries at Michigan factory Natron Energy has started commercial-scale operations at its sodium-ion battery manufacturing plant in Michigan, US, and elaborated on how its technology compares to lithium-ion in answers provided to Energy-Storage.news. At full capacity the facility will produce 600MW of Natron’s ‘Prussian Blue’ electrode batteries primarily for the stationary energy storage system (ESS) market annually. At first it will mainly ship products to data centres starting in June, before expanding to industrial mobility, EV fast charging and telecommunications, among others. https://www.energy-storage.news/natron-energy-starts-manufacturing-50000-cycle-life-sodium-ion-batteries-at-michigan-factory/

What's Larry Fink got to do with the analyses of 3 other financial firms. And as for channeling investments away from fossil fuels, once again you don't seem to understand how capitalism works. You think that fossil fuel companies should get first dibs on investments? As for my childish jeering, pretty much all I have to say is that you made a claim, and when I noted that dictionaries universally disagreed with you, you asserted that they were woke. You pretty much made fun of yourself with comments like that.

Had you bothered to read the articles you would know that Form already has successfully created battery storage for power plants using this technology. Now they're scaling it up with a massive factory.

I have to ask are you familiar with even basic economics? How are renewable responsible for the sharp rise in price of natural gas? If there were more power plants in Germany relying on natural gas and less reliance on renewables, would that have made the situation better or worse? It's not a trick question. I'll even give you a hint: look up the law of supply and demand. And maybe, do ya think that the high cost of power in Australia might have something to do with the high cost of coal and natural gas? Most of Australia's power still comes from those 2 sources. Do you think building more power plants relying on coal and natural gas would lower or increase the cost of these fossil fuels? What has happened in Australia is that coal power plants are aging out and not enough new renewable plants are being built. That's a result of bad planning. Not inherently a fault of renewables.

This isn't about who approached who. It's about what the purpose of the payment to Stormy Daniels was.

As I recall, da previous set of local elections resulted in another rout for the Tories. And Johnson was PM back then.

First you tell us that dictionaries are woke. Now it's that fossil fuel companies are powerless against the onslaught of Big Green. Are you some kind of would-be comedian?

To slightly modify an old proverb, you can lead a horse to evidence but you cannot make it think. I provided evidence with links concerning coal, gas, and nuclear energy. Coal and gas had huge spikes in prices not long ago and nuclear energy has had huge cost overruns. Do I really have to spell out for what that means for power rates? In addition, maybe you should consider that fact that renewables, while dominating as a percentage of new power plants being built, are still a fraction of the world's total installed base. As for how batteries will provide energy when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, if you actually are interested in learning something, here's a link to an article that explains an MIT report about getting to 100%. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/8/9/20767886/renewable-energy-storage-cost-electricity The report stipulates that the cost of a storage device should be about "$20 per kilowatt hour in energy capacity costs" The report projected that wouldn't happen until 2030 at the earliest. But, as has consistently been the case, battery technology has consistently outrun predictions: Form Energy to begin manufacturing iron air batteries in Weirton to stabilize electrical grid https://www.wesa.fm/environment-energy/2024-02-19/weirton-form-energy-battery-manufacturing Power when the sun doesn’t shine https://dmse.mit.edu/news/power-when-the-sun-doesnt-shine/

In the future you should use this: https://archive.ph/ As for now: https://archive.ph/aOz70

Parts of Gaza Are in Famine, World Food Program Chief Says The director of the World Food Program, Cindy McCain, says that parts of the Gaza Strip are experiencing a “full-blown famine” that is rapidly spreading throughout the territory after almost seven months of war. Ms. McCain is the second high-profile American leading a U.S. government or U.N. aid effort who has said that there is famine in northern Gaza, although her remarks do not constitute an official declaration, which is a complex bureaucratic process. “There is famine — full-blown famine in the north, and it’s moving its way south,” Ms. McCain said in excerpts released on Friday of an interview with “Meet the Press.” https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/world/middleeast/cindy-mccain-gaza-famine.html

The thing is, Einstein's theory disproved the existence of the luminiferous aether. Whereas the denialists have repeatedly been proved wrong in their predictions that the climate was going to cool down in the early part of the 21st century. They are actually comparable to the scientists who disbelieved in Einstein's work.

What makes it particularly moronic was that Planned Parenthood does offer such services. Yet right wing legislators have repeatedly attempted, and in some cases succeeded, in defunding Planned Parenthood.

Yes, the comment you were replying to was particularly moronic. There have been referenda in several red states now, and in all of them the pro abortion rights proposals were endorsed by majorities.

I think he should register himself as a stenographer.

Interesting ideas? Really? How many people would be able to post a bond of $150,000? And this comment "If abortions are illegal but an abortion occurs, the man who impregnated the woman should be equally liable to prosecution." is an interesting idea? I love the part about the man being equally liable to prosecution". Given that the woman has died, that would mean no prosecution at all. Or maybe they dig up her body and put her on trial again? Of course, that's just a minor stupidity. Holding one person responsible for the independent choices of another is obviously nonsensical. And Cory1848's comment about punishing someone for impregnating a woman in a state with lack of access to medical care, while obviously nuts in itself, does go far to showing the real motivations behind the anti-abortion movement.Namely, it's the states that restrict and punish abortion most harshly are those that offer the lowest support for women needing neonatal care. Which just goes to show that the real motivation behind the antiabortion legislation is not about concern for the fetus, but about punishing women

Not a matter of who supports or the validity of the case. It's your one-sidedness on particulars that's the issue.

You're welcome, Mr. Trump Supporter.

There's also this for you to contemplate: Cost overruns and delays risk nuclear’s place in energy transition https://archive.ph/4Aoky

And here's something else for you to contemplate whilst you are doing your research: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal

While you are busily engaged with your research, I though I might share this with you.

Right., It's a case of Big Green showering them with cash while the bullied and impoverished teensy fossil fuel interests, unable to compete for the favor of the major financial institutions, cower helplessly. So sad.

Addled much? Gotta give you credit for packing so much nonsense into so few words

Links? Got some evidence to support that?

Unfortunately your comments about the sources of CO2 are false. We know that they are false for 2 reasons. The main reason is Carbon 14. Carbon 14 is continually created in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays striking carbon atoms. After about 14,000 years, virtually all that carbon 14 decays into Carbon 12. The entire rise in CO2 since the onset of the industrial revolution is is composed of CO2 that contains no C14 but only C12. That would be coming from ancient and sequestered stocks of Carbon like OIl, natural gas, and coal. Similarly, volcanoes are a source of CO2 some if which is made up of Carbon 13, another isotope of Carbon, as well. There has been no rise in the gross production of CO2 that has a C13 component. In other words, you've got nothing.