Professor Trump shares knowledge
 

He should publish his little orange book of wisdom
Stable genius :D

:skull:

His brain is truly addled and he lies without thinking. 'I don't understand wind but I know a lot about windmills!'

It should fill everyone with dread that he's in charge of the most powerful country in the world.

By all accounts people around him try to frustrate his wilder ideas

This is his method of panicking when he's in legal trouble; lecturing about meaningless shite

Is this him attempting to say that windmills cause pollution? Or they just move pollution around?... I'm in shock that this is where we are, how does this happen? HOW!?

He's attempting to say that the mass production of windmills in factories is actually not environmentally friendly... which is not 100% incorrect but I have no idea how he's managed to turn such a simple statement into this garbled nonsense.

Professor garbage brains

It depends what powers the factories obviously. There is such a thing as the greater good, you have a factory that makes turbines that creates clean energy then in turn it would be possible to have a turbine powered factory that would make his pathetic comments obsolete.

...he’s seen things that you people wouldn't believe...attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.... he’s watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate...all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain...because windmills...:sad:..

i think the problem is terminology. When we think windmills we think of idealistic scenes of wooden mills gently turning in the countryside. What Trump is referring to are those wind farm monstrosities that are a complete blight on the landscape. I don't know the environmental figures on those but they sure have ruined our landscape

Since he mentions China etc, he's definitely talking about the fact that the manufacture of windmills is actually environmentally unfriendly. It's a bit of a paradox really. They need replaced every couple of decades too so it's not even like it's a one-off then free clean energy forever. I hate to agree with Trump but there are some real issues with sustainability... The manufacturing process actually uses a fair number of non-renewables :think:.

The uncomfortable truth is that the cleanest and most sustainable energy source we have is nuclear. Especially if advancements can be made with fusion reactors. With proper careful planning (I.e. Not lax safety standards like chernobyl, or in a bloody earthquake zone like fukushima) the reactors are safe and clean. What we need is a way to dispose of the spent fuel rather than just burying it and forgetting about it (lolz). I think once we have a cheap and effective way to get things off-world for disposal it'll be the obvious choice.

Tl;dr unpopular opinion - nuclear energy is the most environmentally friendly option we have for meeting global power needs.

And coal fuelled power stations look beautiful?...nuclear power stations or fracking sites are attractive? nobody thinks wind turbines look the same as they did 100yrs ago :/
Like I said you have to think of the greater good, personally I dont mind them, they are quite relaxing to watch, and even if there is some disruption during construction unlike any other form wildlife can exist around them.

Don't kid yourself that accidents only happen in other countries, remember Sellafield? How's the decommissioning of that going?
Well according to this the EU have funded experiments in fusion up to the end of next year, after that who knows..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-47749019

Right but continuing to use coal and natural gas, or continuing to buy wind turbines built in dirty factories in China that are still fossil fuel fired, is going to see climate change reach irreversible tipping point before the technology reaches a level where 100% true renewables are actually viable. There's also the issue where - whilst battery tech is improving - we literally CAN'T have a 100% renewable grid because it isn't reactive, and unexpected circumstances would result in rolling blackouts and power surges. We can currently have an 80% renewable grid safely. The other 20% has to come from a "controllable" traditional energy source that can be turned on and off like a tap alongside demand. The only way to do that with low carbon output is nuclear.

Basically we sort of have to accept the risks, and be sensible where possible (double, triple, and beyond, failsafe... Building any new reactors far away from inhabited areas...) as like you say, there's no such thing as accident proof. However it's still true that Chernobyl being as bad as it was is down to serious policy failings, and Fukushima was an accident waiting to happen because Japan is so prone to major earthquakes.

But yeah the alternative to nuclear is a continued reliance on carbon fuels for several more decades, and that (to be blunt) will probably mean "game over" in a century. Its localised (and VERY small) risk vs global catastrophe. Wind and solar saving the world is a red herring... There just isn't time.

The short-to-medium term answer is atomic power but its being sidelined because people are afraid of it, and thus, it is not politically popular and so avoided by governments. The next election is more important than the long term inhabitability of the planet, of course. Now THAT is scary stuff.

Then don't use coal and make the turbines here? You're making this much more complicated than it needs to be. I don't agree with your fatalistic approach, this is on a global scale a small island, if we've the capacity to produce 80% from renewables I can only see this improving over the next decade. Of course that's considering this govt don't scupper any endeavours made to get greener in favour of the fuel industries.

We (hard to swallow pill) don't have the manufacturing capacity nor the cheap labour to mass produce turbines (or anything else) in an economically viable way in the west. China is running rampant at the moment, if Europe and the US could fully trade sanction them into submission we'd be doing it... We're not because the global economy is dependant on cheap, carbon-heavy manufacturing.

Yes the answer is "don't use coal" but we have to use something, that's the point, and the only viable option is nuclear energy. Its NOT fatalistic, in real terms the risks are miniscule and far, far preferable to continuing with carbon fuels. The only reason we're not doing it is because the public is disproportionately scared of it. We should be switching to a mostly nuclear model until renewables are advanced enough to truly take the reins. But I doubt it'll happen because all people want is "100% renewables, right now!" which just is not possible :shrug:. Literally not possible. The technology doesn't exist.

Whats a hard to swallow pill "/
Why would we need cheap labour... what happeneed to a fair days work for a fair days pay?
Then we must make it work, why spend 10yrs focusing on the 20% that is lacking, when in 10 years who knows what advancements there might be. I'm not thinking of the right now I'm thinking of the future, I really think that for Britain as an island renewables are our only and most importantly safest option.

I'm with TS on that. Nuclear has a place. France generates 80% its electricity that way.
By and large it is safe if done properly.
Chernobyl and Fukushima were extreme cases. First bc of sheer stupidity and second too tbh.
Knowing communist work ethic it's a miracle there were not more accidents in Soviet Union.
As for Japan I expected them to know better. Putting plants in earthquake zones bc they wanted cheap cooling using water from the Pacific was stupid when coupled with flood protection walls not tall enough to protect much.

Professor Trump test drives the English language but decides not to make a purchase.

Dr. Trump muses about his medication needs.

Did Siri type this for him?

I think that old dog meme wrote it.

Much very good wow

:joker:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZKw_fPV...g&name=900x900