|
Originally Posted by Podracer
(Post 3959112)
Yes. That is because if all you build is a couple measly tiny lines, embedded in a huge landscape that is accommodating to cars but hostile to pedestrians, it won't be useful to that many people. You need to build out the system so that it actually takes you places. A transit system is only useful if it takes you where you need to go. A classic example is Detroit. Its a huge joke. They build their people mover and the Q line that literally goes nowhere and they point at the low ridership and say "seeeee! nobody uses transit. our American blood is just different." and it becomes a self defeating negative feedback loop. Yet in NYC there are 4 million daily riders and its the only city in the USA where car ownership is below 50%. As ****ty and old as the MTA system is, it takes people where they need to go, so they use it.
Usually making enough lines and stations is enough. I argue that should come first. But pedestrianizing and densifying the urban landscape needs to happen fist. Transit needs to connect walkable areas because you wont have a car. On top of that, car infrastructure, ESPECIALLY parking, makes everything farther apart. The parking makes everything farther apart, which then reinforces the need for cars. |
Originally Posted by Whoopsmybad
(Post 3959142)
Well, densifying the urban landscape means you have to have these cities desirable places to live. I haven’t been to many I would want to live in.
I grew up in small town suburbs and swore to never to return. Living in a sunbelt sprawl city or suburban area is unthinkable to me. I would live in the true country if I had a community/family there, but suburbs? Hell no. Suburbs depress the hell out of me. Since I left my parents house I've only lived in urban areas. |
Originally Posted by SideStickMonkey
(Post 3958440)
Coal is nasty. There's no such thing as clean coal and coal burning plants actually release more radiation into the environment than nuclear plants.
What we need is a rebirth of the nuke sector in this country. It's happening but too slowly. We will always need a constant load into our power infrastructure that only nuclear, nat gas, and coal can do. We just need to pretty much get rid of coal altogether. Wind has been great and I just read China built a solar farm that's twice as big as Manhattan. It's all doable we just need the will to do it. Fly into Vegas, Phoenix, Cali and scratch your head why there’s not solar on every roof. Big solar farms can be wiped out by 1 freak hail storm. As it’s already happened. Nothing beats good old fashioned nuclear and fossil fuel use. Augment this power with solar and use wind only where it’s needed. But the rest is a joke. |
Originally Posted by Tailhookah
(Post 3959746)
Are you a green plant or a FOC (friend of China)? Coal is clean if burned correctly. The while plume coming out of stacks is steam…. You could stick your face in that plume and get a steam bath. Wind has not been good and only makes sense is very windy environments or very rural off grid areas. A wind generator doesn’t make enough electricity in its lifespan to overcome the cost of building it. And big solar farms are hit or miss. Where solar would be more reasonable is to mandate (in areas where there’s enough yearly sunlight and cloudless days, no trees etc) that every new home built/condo/apartment building to have mandatory solar panels on the roofs. Then solar makes sense. The combined solar output in those communities augments the KW needed to power those communities.
Fly into Vegas, Phoenix, Cali and scratch your head why there’s not solar on every roof. Big solar farms can be wiped out by 1 freak hail storm. As it’s already happened. Nothing beats good old fashioned nuclear and fossil fuel use. Augment this power with solar and use wind only where it’s needed. But the rest is a joke. |
Originally Posted by Tailhookah
(Post 3959746)
. A wind generator doesn’t make enough electricity in its lifespan to overcome the cost of building it.
|
Originally Posted by Tailhookah
(Post 3959746)
Are you a green plant or a FOC (friend of China)? Coal is clean if burned correctly. The while plume coming out of stacks is steam…. You could stick your face in that plume and get a steam bath. Wind has not been good and only makes sense is very windy environments or very rural off grid areas. A wind generator doesn’t make enough electricity in its lifespan to overcome the cost of building it. And big solar farms are hit or miss. Where solar would be more reasonable is to mandate (in areas where there’s enough yearly sunlight and cloudless days, no trees etc) that every new home built/condo/apartment building to have mandatory solar panels on the roofs. Then solar makes sense. The combined solar output in those communities augments the KW needed to power those communities.
Fly into Vegas, Phoenix, Cali and scratch your head why there’s not solar on every roof. Big solar farms can be wiped out by 1 freak hail storm. As it’s already happened. Nothing beats good old fashioned nuclear and fossil fuel use. Augment this power with solar and use wind only where it’s needed. But the rest is a joke. |
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
(Post 3959811)
This post was brought to you by ExxonMobil
|
Originally Posted by Khantahr
(Post 3959798)
Welp, I've reached the bottom of the Internet today. I better go outside and touch some sand.
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3959802)
if your media diet has fed you this, you really need to rethink the places from which you receive information
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
(Post 3959811)
This post was brought to you by ExxonMobil
Solar, wind, although it can kinda sorta augment traditional power generation, it's proven over there to be a failure for reliable energy. Look no more than the Ivanpah Solar plant. It cost over $2.2 billion to build (yeah right, at least 10% went to line some pockets). It made it about a decade and now it's being shuttered. Greenies will tell that it wasn't for the fact it was a colossal failure at power generation and plagued with bugs and glitches, no. They will tell you that the solar technology is "outdated" and needs to be replaced. Yeah sure. No, it's really the state of California finally realizing that traditional sources of power generation are better (efficiency, cost, reliability). And more reliable. Did I mention that? We gave you all a chance to prove your green technologies would work. We told you they would not suffice. Yet we had to waste trillions on this stuff (should have been building more nat gas, coal and nuclear plants instead) just to appease your unicorns and rainbows aspirations. Although noble, in some crazy way, it had to go down like this. Nat gas, coal are very clean now (nat gas was always a clean burner). Nuclear is not your father's (maybe grandfathers for some of you) TMI anymore either. You had your fun, now adults are back in charge. If you want solar and wind, put it on your house. |
Originally Posted by Meme In Command
(Post 3959811)
This post was brought to you by ExxonMobil
|
Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo
(Post 3959834)
He's correct. That's why your bestest buddies over in Euro land are now scrambling to construct traditional power generation capabilities - to include nuclear (gasp).
Solar, wind, although it can kinda sorta augment traditional power generation, it's proven over there to be a failure for reliable energy. Look no more than the Ivanpah Solar plant. It cost over $2.2 billion to build (yeah right, at least 10% went to line some pockets). It made it about a decade and now it's being shuttered. Greenies will tell that it wasn't for the fact it was a colossal failure at power generation and plagued with bugs and glitches, no. They will tell you that the solar technology is "outdated" and needs to be replaced. Yeah sure. No, it's really the state of California finally realizing that traditional sources of power generation are better (efficiency, cost, reliability). And more reliable. Did I mention that? We gave you all a chance to prove your green technologies would work. We told you they would not suffice. Yet we had to waste trillions on this stuff (should have been building more nat gas, coal and nuclear plants instead) just to appease your unicorns and rainbows aspirations. Although noble, in some crazy way, it had to go down like this. Nat gas, coal are very clean now (nat gas was always a clean burner). Nuclear is not your father's (maybe grandfathers for some of you) TMI anymore either. You had your fun, now adults are back in charge. If you want solar and wind, put it on your house. and no, he’s not right about the energy required to construct a wind generator. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:26 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands