Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Science

Hugh_Lebowski

(33,643 posts)

5. I've always been sketchy on that term as well ...

Reply to NNadir (Reply #4)

Wed Sep 15, 2021, 01:43 PM

Sep 2021

Is your grounds, though, the fact that they still require consistent backup power from sources like LNG plants? What if they were backed up by Nuclear, would they qualify as 'renewable' then? How about Hydro? IOW is their inherently intermittent nature what makes you say 'renewable' is the wrong word?

Or is it the fact that the parts wear out, and that you can't really make (and deliver?) those parts in the first place without some fossil fuel usage?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A Different Perspective on How Many Billions of Tons of CO2 Equivalents We Dump Each Year. [View all] NNadir Sep 2021 OP

Despite your nuclear cornucopian views, I still hold that the population of the earth needs to be Hugh_Lebowski Sep 2021 #1

I wouldn't characterize my views as "cornicopian." NNadir Sep 2021 #2

"by allowing people to afford lower birth rates" Hugh_Lebowski Sep 2021 #3

I'll probably have more to say about your remarks... NNadir Sep 2021 #4

I've always been sketchy on that term as well ... Hugh_Lebowski Sep 2021 #5