You what Bernie?

In fact, nearly a full quarter of the world’s electricity today comes from clean, sustainable resources like the sun and wind.

It does? If you add hydro, maybe, but otherwise?

30 thoughts on “You what Bernie?”

  1. What is also wrong with this:

    “If we do nothing, the planet will heat up five to ten degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century”

    WILL?

    “97 percent of scientists agree about the urgent need to act”

    That isnt true, that isnt what that 97 percent agree on

    “If our democracy worked the way it’s supposed to, that would be enough – the debate would be over, the facts would be heard and lawmakers would obey the will of the people.”

    Nope. This is the ‘magic democracy fairy’, a close cousin of the ‘market solution will find a way’ school of day dreaming. If anything, democracy is more likely to further stifle and drive divisions between people, nations, workers and such on this question because everyone has their own set of interests. What happens to the oil workers being made redundant and what about the heavy industry now unable to produce the same volume due to less power and collapsing demand eh.

    If the doom mongering malthusian greens are actually right, technocracy rather than democracy is more likely to solve ‘the problem’ sooner than any messy, nakedly political democracy.

    “the reason we haven’t solved climate change isn’t because we aren’t doing our part, it’s because a small subsection of the one percent are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action”

    Producers arent allowed to defend their interests to government? Like those unions of workers who back you. Defending their protectionism?

    And anyway loads of 1 percenters are making money from green business, so what is this unified class interest idea on this issue anyway.

    “instead of subsidizing massive fossil fuel corporations, we can create millions of jobs for working families by investing in clean energy. The answer is clear and affordable.”

    Who really benefits from these supposed ‘subsidies’? The consumers do.

    Also as Tim usually shouts JOBS ARE A COST NOT A BENEFIT.

    So that ‘affordable’ claim is pure fiction

  2. Sanders is just another socialist liar. It is a symptom of American malaise that he has got as far as he has.

    Mind the same is true of all of the candidates on both sides. Scum doesn’t even begin to describe them.

  3. You could argue that all of the world energy sources today come from the sun. But renewing the oil created by dinosaur bodies fed by plants and/or other dinosaurs makes it an issue of renewing.

    I find that SJWs make up their stats to suit themselves all the time 🙂

  4. “the reason we haven’t solved climate change isn’t because we aren’t doing our part, it’s because a small subsection of the one percent are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action”

    That small subsection that includes China and India for instance.

  5. I suppose, if you want to be pedantic (and who doesn’t?), you can argue that hydro (and wind) are a (not very efficient) way of harnessing solar energy, since the sun drives the atmospheric movements that cause winds and drop rain on higher ground.

  6. So Much For Subtlety

    Chris Miller – “I suppose, if you want to be pedantic (and who doesn’t?), you can argue that hydro (and wind) are a (not very efficient) way of harnessing solar energy, since the sun drives the atmospheric movements that cause winds and drop rain on higher ground.”

    I would think that hydro is the most efficient form of solar power available. After all, you do not need 100% fossil fuel backup for one thing.

  7. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “You could argue that all of the world energy sources today come from the sun.”

    A sun, maybe, but not ours. Uranium etc.* were synthesised in some other star that is no longer with us, or are artificially synthesised (Pu, ⁹⁰Sr for RTGs).

    * this is the case for really pretty much anything with an atomic number greater than 2 – even lithium is mostly not from immediate post-Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

  8. “97 percent of scientists”: the notion that anyone could poll 97% of scientists, however defined, is so self-evidently ludicrous that it must be a lie.

  9. Hmm, tricky one this.

    Who to believe, the late Richard Feynman and Freeman Dyson or the fucking little shyster toad Bernie Sanders.

    Have to think about that one…

  10. Uranium etc.* were synthesised in some other star that is no longer with us, or are artificially synthesised (Pu, ⁹⁰Sr for RTGs).

    You’re behind the fashion curve, I’m afraid. The latest stuff, not clearly Popper falsifiable, is that the r process is mostly driven in GRB causing incidents rather than in standard type 2 supernovae.

    Meh

  11. surely if the sun is or isn’t renewable the question is whether the universe is renewable or not, either way that sort of long term thinking is discouraged

  12. When people use the 97% trope you can be sure they are either ignorant or mendacious. Since Sanders is a socialist AND a politician I know which way I’d guess.

  13. So Much For Subtlety

    Kevin B – “When people use the 97% trope you can be sure they are either ignorant or mendacious. Since Sanders is a socialist AND a politician I know which way I’d guess.”

    The Daily Mail has just claimed Corbyn has marked Christmas by quoting Albanian Communist dictator Enver Hoxha. I hope they are over-hyping it.

    Otherwise we may look fondly back on the days when our politicians were merely ignorant and mendacious.

    The Americans are knocking down dams across the US. Mark Steyn has said another one won’t be built in his life time. Has anyone asked Bernie if he supports this? If sustainable energy is so good, which rivers does he support damming?

  14. Bloke in Costa Rica

    SE: since GRBs—apparently—emanate from things that involve the destruction of a star I stand by my initial contention. The biologically important molecules derive mostly from normal nuclear burning, stuff below bismuth from s-process and stuff above from r-process. But whatever way it happened the star that did it isn’t here any more.

  15. question…how many dams on the Colorado river will they have to destroy to destroy Las Vegas as a civilisation? (it is a civilisation in the sense that it is totally built on absurdities and overuse of available resources)

  16. @John77

    Last I heard, they reckoned all atoms self destruct. Those which we call stable have a predicted half life which is longer than the age of the universe, but we do still expect them to decay at some point.

  17. When people use the 97% trope you can be sure they are either ignorant or mendacious.

    You are ignoring the possibility that they are ignorant and mendacious…

  18. A star being renewed depends on if you believe the repeating big bang scenario. I wonder what 97% of the scientists think of that?

  19. So these two atoms were walking down the street. One says, “Hey, I need to go into that bar. I lost an electron there last week.” “Are you sure?”

    .
    .
    .
    Wait for it . . .

    “I’m positive!”

  20. ‘Renewables’ includes biomass aka wood which makes up (don’t hold me to it) nearly half of ‘clean’ energy I think.

    It is seldom mentioned because it emits CO2 more per GWh than coal or gas.

    It is theoretically ‘neutral’ because it is recovered by newgrowth, should that newgrowth take place, but since the CO2 is being emitted now, and it will take decades to fix it in the newgrowth, it cannot help cut CO2 emissions to prevent the promised rising, boiling seas.

    I note that the targets often state X% from renewables rather than cut Y% emissions. That is because renewables targets are easy to hit, emissions targets not so.

    This is why Germany is building windmills to hit its renewables target, and coal-fired power stations to keep its lights on.

    It is all a scam.

    If the political class truly believed in the Climate Doom they would have supported twenty years ago the one effective, affordable solution to cut emissions drastically… nuclear.

    France is a role model with 59 reactors supplying 80% of demand.

  21. @ JohnB
    Biomass is filthy but comprises very little of fuel used to generate electricity (which is what Bernie was waffling about). biomass is mostly used for domestic fires and cooking in the “Third World”.
    It *was* being used in Drax because some idiot had decreed a subsidy for biomass as a “renewable” energy source even though burning wood pellets is worse for the environment and generates far more CO2 per kWh than gas (largely because Drax (or any other plant converted to biomass) is less efficient than a modern gas CCGT plant.
    There is one decent use of biomass – Brazil has been using sugar-cane waste as a motor fuel, mixed in with petrol, for decades (nothing to do with global warming – they started when they had to import all their oil)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *