News:
R.I.P to the great Charlie Kirk!
- Welcome to THeBlueCashew.
Posted by Lokmar
- Today at 02:35:36 PMCoal is perfectly fine to use as well. Coal fired powerplants built in the last 20 years have catalysts and scrubbers just like cars and trucks. What about the waste? Put it back where you got it from ITFP!
We have such a coal fired power plant right here in Springfield, IL.
We have such a coal fired power plant right here in Springfield, IL.
Posted by MrNiceGuy
- Today at 01:22:25 PMQuote from: Thiel on Today at 01:04:28 PMNuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.
Solar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They also have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needs for wind turbines and solar panels come from developing countries. They are non renewable.
Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.
Capturing methane from landfills is a far better use of a land for power tradeoff than wind farms. And landfills are a necessity... windfarms are not.
Posted by Thiel
- Today at 01:04:28 PMQuoteThe few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.Nuclear is environmentally friendly and it won't run out. Natural gas is environmentally friendly and it won't run out either. No, it does not come from dinosaurs.
Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway.
Solar and wind power are the least environmentally friendly sources. They have a massive environmental cost because the rare earth minerals needed for wind turbines and solar panels come from mines in developing countries. They are very very non renewable.
Wind and solar use up more of another important finite resources too - land. They require a lot more land than wind or solar to provide less energy than natural gas nuclear or hydroelectric.
Posted by MrNiceGuy
- Today at 12:40:03 PMQuote from: wizer on Today at 02:34:09 AMThe few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.
Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway.
I think big oil played up the nuclear scare and frankly set us the fuck backwards. We should have pushed nuclear fission until we achieve nuclear fusion full throttle.
And now Bill Gates realizes AI needs power so he's okay with flipping on climate change.
Posted by Biggie Smiles
- Today at 12:32:07 PMHow so many companies have been seduced by this idea of operating vs capital expenditures for resources that you will never truly own defies belief.
I literally know of customers paying upwards of 400K a year to consume Azure resources on a month to month basis in perpetuity for systems that would litterally have a one time cost of 150K and maybe 20% of that per anum in support fees.
With technology and senior business leaders becoming this mind numbingly stupid is it any wonder the elites prefer a world with less than 5% of it's current population?
This is exactly why it is equally baffling when elite puppet masters parade some celebrity like Taylor Swift or Megan the Sasquatch in front of gullible voters to sway their voting preferences. Do these common folks have ANYTHING in common with said elites? Anything at all?
Ever seen one on a cruise? A resort you can afford to stay at? In a seat next to yours at a sporting event?
These people have NOTHING in common with your average plebs yet the average plebs go right on supporting whatever narrative they are fed by these elites to their own detriment.
I literally know of customers paying upwards of 400K a year to consume Azure resources on a month to month basis in perpetuity for systems that would litterally have a one time cost of 150K and maybe 20% of that per anum in support fees.
With technology and senior business leaders becoming this mind numbingly stupid is it any wonder the elites prefer a world with less than 5% of it's current population?
This is exactly why it is equally baffling when elite puppet masters parade some celebrity like Taylor Swift or Megan the Sasquatch in front of gullible voters to sway their voting preferences. Do these common folks have ANYTHING in common with said elites? Anything at all?
Ever seen one on a cruise? A resort you can afford to stay at? In a seat next to yours at a sporting event?
These people have NOTHING in common with your average plebs yet the average plebs go right on supporting whatever narrative they are fed by these elites to their own detriment.
Posted by MrNiceGuy
- Today at 12:22:09 PMQuote from: Oliver the Second on November 01, 2025, 12:18:14 PMYup, it''s now an 'issue' but no longer an existential threat for some reason.
Bill Gates needs moar power for the A.I. to construct his afterlife armor suit so when he croaks his brain will transferred over & continue for generations. Like Windows operating system.
Posted by Brent
- Today at 11:47:16 AMQuote from: DKG on Today at 07:21:48 AMIn 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.They grow they recede. I was reading the Antarctica has gained back 200 tons of ice recently after losing ice for years.
The point here is that we have real environmental problems like the filth and contamination in our oceans coming from third world cesspools. We are wasting too much time and money on C02 emissions.
Posted by wizer
- Today at 07:24:18 AMQuote from: DKG on Today at 07:21:48 AMIn 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.
The Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported that two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has seen the highest levels of coral cover in over 36 years. This recovery is primarily due to the growth of fast-growing Acropora corals, which have been dominant in the northern and central regions of the reef. However, the southern section has experienced a decline in coral cover due to ongoing outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. Despite this, the reef demonstrates resilience and the ability to recover from disturbances, but scientists warn that climate change poses increasing risks to its long-term health
Posted by DKG
- Today at 07:21:48 AMQuote from: wizer on Today at 02:59:49 AMTell that to all the dead coral.In 2022, the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) reported the highest levels of coral cover across two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in over 36 years.
Posted by wizer
- Today at 02:59:49 AMQuote from: DKG on November 02, 2025, 10:03:11 AMIf more plants and trees are carbon sinks and higher C02 levels make the world more green and lush the so called C02 problem solves itself.
Tell that to all the dead coral.
Posted by wizer
- Today at 02:57:21 AMQuote from: Brent on November 02, 2025, 11:38:20 AMIf you believe a disaster is coming and will be caused by rising C02 emissions how much have you reduced your own emissions?
I don't give a fuck if the earth collapses on itself as long as it lasts until I take my last breath.
Posted by wizer
- Today at 02:36:16 AMQuote from: Brent on November 02, 2025, 11:43:16 AMHow did intelligent people let themselves be fooled into believing C02 is a pollutant that will destroy the planet and eight million metric tonnes of plastics annually and chemical runoff from third world rivers into our oceans is not.
The two completely unrelated problems do not somehow negative the devastating impact of the other.
C02 is not a pollutant so much as a "heat trapping blanket" which is a layman's term for the heat trapping effect that massive amounts of artificially produced C02 have on the atmosphere.
Posted by wizer
- Today at 02:34:09 AMQuote from: Biggie Smiles on November 02, 2025, 01:29:08 PMif nations such as the U.S deprive ourselves of the ability to tap into such resources. The demand will simply be met elsewhere, and what does elsewhere actually mean?
The few available options that are environmentally friendly is the production of energy via nuclear energy, solar and wind power.
Sooner or later the oil's going to run out anyway.
Posted by Thiel
- November 02, 2025, 01:38:12 PMQuote from: wizer on November 01, 2025, 01:14:01 PMWith other people I presume.Oh heavens no. Jo Jo and I are in a monogamous relationship.
Posted by Biggie Smiles
- November 02, 2025, 01:29:08 PMQuote from: Brent on November 02, 2025, 11:43:16 AMHow did intelligent people let themselves be fooled into believing C02 is a pollutant that will destroy the planet and eight million metric tonnes of plastics annually and chemical runoff from third world rivers into our oceans is not.
Here is the situation as I see it. Is there truth to the consequence of such emissions? Maybe, maybe not, but my spin the the matter does not directly attack the truthfulness of the statement. The way I look at is the demand for energy by mankind as a whole is not going to decrease if nations such as the U.S deprive ourselves of the ability to tap into such resources. The demand will simply be met elsewhere, and what does elsewhere actually mean? Does it mean that India closes said gap in energy production at 5 maybe 10 times the negative consequence?
in such a scenario I see us doing more harm then good by reducing our own ability to produce the output the world needs. Sure our way merely delays the inevitable in such a context. I totally get that, but the buying of additional time does bring with it a level of positivity that I cannot help but say we should leverage