RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Mistwell]

^ and where does the electric come from to power said vehicle?

The electricity fairy off course!

Seriously tho, in most of the world? From burning fossil fuels. Because Solar & Wind are just pipe dreams and the ecoterrorists managed to stop/decomision nuclear.

Me: I have a hybrid electric car with an upcoming solar panels and battery for power storage. If I end up being the guy with power when others don't it's gonna be funny.
Him: But where does the electricity come from?
You: The electricity fairy of course.

So, did you and him lie, or are you literally not able to read what was a couple simple sentences?

It's not like I was advocating for anyone else to get an electric car and solar and a battery. I literally just said if power was lost and I happened to be the guy still able to drive I'd laugh. And you guys lost your shit and started ranting and patting each others backs about complete nonsense nobody had said or implied.

IF/WHEN you manage to have your electric car charged ALWAYS only with solar we can talk. And this means all the process IS powered only by solar, meaning the minning, transportation, processing of materials, manufacturing, transportation (of the finished product).

Pro tip that's also a pipe dream. At best you're moving the contamination to where you can't see it.

WTF are you still ranting about. OK, am now left with only one conclusion: You're a fucking idiot. Like actually not bright enough to comprehend the difference between broader advocacy and an off-hand personal joke.

There is no dream here to be a pipe dream. I am not moving anything, or advocating anything. I didn't make any comment about the environment, or mining, or anything. I didn't say or imply I am morally superior in any way about anything. I am however saying you're a fucking idiot for your inability to see what was in front of you in this thread.

Here I will say it even plainer for you: If I end up to be the schmuck left still able to drive after the catastrophe that I am saying won't happen, I am going to laugh at you guys saying it will happen who don't have a way to drive. There, easy enough for you to digest now? Do you see me advocating for anything there?

[Pat]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, almost half our power comes from hydro.

Hydro provides about 7% of US power, and we're basically at maximum capacity. And the demand for energy keeps rising.

And that's the ignoring the real environmental impacts of dams. They've mitigated some of it with things like fish ladders, but they're far less effective than most people assume.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective

We're nowhere close to maximum capacity on hydro. We have not even really begun to generate power from the ocean for example. Which, as you rightly point out, is as always blocked by environmentalists. Who cannot make up their minds about which is more important, global warming from gasoline, or minor environmental damage to fish.

We've dammed up pretty much everywhere we can on the rivers, and hydro isn't generally used to refer to oceans. But if you want to include it, I haven't really seen much on the topic, so I know very little about it. Though I suspect it's in the same category as geothermal -- nice in theory, but daunting in implementation.

They're inter-related (coral bleaching due to acid due to rising temperatures, for instance), but I'm more concerned about biodiversity and fish populations than I am about most of the public worries about global warming. We can deal with rising oceans, for instance, but lost species are irrecoverable, and we've seen major faunal turnovers in places like the Black Sea and Great Lakes, and the consequences are far-reaching and impossible to predict.

[Mistwell]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, almost half our power comes from hydro.

Hydro provides about 7% of US power, and we're basically at maximum capacity. And the demand for energy keeps rising.

And that's the ignoring the real environmental impacts of dams. They've mitigated some of it with things like fish ladders, but they're far less effective than most people assume.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective

We're nowhere close to maximum capacity on hydro. We have not even really begun to generate power from the ocean for example. Which, as you rightly point out, is as always blocked by environmentalists. Who cannot make up their minds about which is more important, global warming from gasoline, or minor environmental damage to fish.

We've dammed up pretty much everywhere we can on the rivers, and hydro isn't generally used to refer to oceans. But if you want to include it, I haven't really seen much on the topic, so I know very little about it. Though I suspect it's in the same category as geothermal -- nice in theory, but daunting in implementation.

They're inter-related (coral bleaching due to acid due to rising temperatures, for instance), but I'm more concerned about biodiversity and fish populations than I am about most of the public worries about global warming. We can deal with rising oceans, for instance, but lost species are irrecoverable, and we've seen major faunal turnovers in places like the Black Sea and Great Lakes, and the consequences are far-reaching and impossible to predict.

We can do it right now. Here is an animated promo video for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcStpg3i5V8

And here is one in actual action off northern Ireland. One is powering 1500 households, from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCpBNQfpKDA

And that resulted in this one in Scotland, from last year, which is powering 2000 households:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d9zs0W9u2A

It's not a magic bullet. It won't supply electricity to the entire planet. But it's a good component of a larger system of nuclear, solar, wind, etc..

[Pat]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, almost half our power comes from hydro.

Hydro provides about 7% of US power, and we're basically at maximum capacity. And the demand for energy keeps rising.

And that's the ignoring the real environmental impacts of dams. They've mitigated some of it with things like fish ladders, but they're far less effective than most people assume.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective

We're nowhere close to maximum capacity on hydro. We have not even really begun to generate power from the ocean for example. Which, as you rightly point out, is as always blocked by environmentalists. Who cannot make up their minds about which is more important, global warming from gasoline, or minor environmental damage to fish.

We've dammed up pretty much everywhere we can on the rivers, and hydro isn't generally used to refer to oceans. But if you want to include it, I haven't really seen much on the topic, so I know very little about it. Though I suspect it's in the same category as geothermal -- nice in theory, but daunting in implementation.

They're inter-related (coral bleaching due to acid due to rising temperatures, for instance), but I'm more concerned about biodiversity and fish populations than I am about most of the public worries about global warming. We can deal with rising oceans, for instance, but lost species are irrecoverable, and we've seen major faunal turnovers in places like the Black Sea and Great Lakes, and the consequences are far-reaching and impossible to predict.

We can do it right now. Here is an animated promo video for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcStpg3i5V8

And here is one in actual action off northern Ireland. One is powering 1500 households, from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCpBNQfpKDA

And that resulted in this one in Scotland, from last year, which is powering 2000 households:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d9zs0W9u2A

It's not a magic bullet. It won't supply electricity to the entire planet. But it's a good component of a larger system of nuclear, solar, wind, etc..

Well, the animation is in the uncanny valley. And "Voight" sound uncomfortably close to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3znNClo_aw8

The other two are better. Though while I think it's good to explore these alternatives, that's a long way from demonstrating it'll be useful at scale.

[GeekyBugle]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, almost half our power comes from hydro.

Hydro provides about 7% of US power, and we're basically at maximum capacity. And the demand for energy keeps rising.

And that's the ignoring the real environmental impacts of dams. They've mitigated some of it with things like fish ladders, but they're far less effective than most people assume.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective

We're nowhere close to maximum capacity on hydro. We have not even really begun to generate power from the ocean for example. Which, as you rightly point out, is as always blocked by environmentalists. Who cannot make up their minds about which is more important, global warming from gasoline, or minor environmental damage to fish.

We've dammed up pretty much everywhere we can on the rivers, and hydro isn't generally used to refer to oceans. But if you want to include it, I haven't really seen much on the topic, so I know very little about it. Though I suspect it's in the same category as geothermal -- nice in theory, but daunting in implementation.

They're inter-related (coral bleaching due to acid due to rising temperatures, for instance), but I'm more concerned about biodiversity and fish populations than I am about most of the public worries about global warming. We can deal with rising oceans, for instance, but lost species are irrecoverable, and we've seen major faunal turnovers in places like the Black Sea and Great Lakes, and the consequences are far-reaching and impossible to predict.

We can do it right now. Here is an animated promo video for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcStpg3i5V8

And here is one in actual action off northern Ireland. One is powering 1500 households, from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCpBNQfpKDA

And that resulted in this one in Scotland, from last year, which is powering 2000 households:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d9zs0W9u2A

It's not a magic bullet. It won't supply electricity to the entire planet. But it's a good component of a larger system of nuclear, solar, wind, etc..

Well, the animation is in the uncanny valley. And "Voight" sound uncomfortably close to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3znNClo_aw8

The other two are better. Though while I think it's good to explore these alternatives, that's a long way from demonstrating it'll be useful at scale.

Demonstrating? Dude it's the cult's dogma, how dare you demand proof it works? Or that it doesn't end up contaminating way more because of all the fossil fuel usage you just don't see and the destruction of ecosystems by minning the minerals needed for the batteries?

Solar, Eolic and Tidal aren't really an option, you can produce what you can produce, and there's no way your energy "farm" can increase it's output to match the demand during certain hours.

Our ONLY option is Nuclear and dams, because we can control the output of those, but dams can be built only in certain places AND the ecoterrorists are against both solutions.

[oggsmash]

  If you want power from the oceans, a Hydrogen fire plant is much better at providing it.  A buddy of mine worked on one for a while (he is an plant operator/engineer and we were at the same Nuclear Prototype and ship together) and he felt it was the future....if dumbasses would get out of the way and let it be.  The process for electrolysis is much cheaper than it once was and makes hydrogen fire on par with natural gas when it is at its cheapest.  That and Nuclear power are far better options than Hydro.  I think Solar will keep getting better and have a future, but Nuclear as a place holder till that happens (and in the meantime hydrogen fire may well be able to replace Nuclear). 

   The buddy I mentioned used to work in Nuclear plants, but the USA has been actively doing all it can to discourage the industry (while providing no realistic alternative) so he went to the Hydro plant and now works as an engineer making cars in a totally unrelated field.   So it is what it is.  Things that are not really viable will likely continue to be pushed while using things that are not as clean or efficient as Nuclear or Hydro fire (natural gas) to fill in the gap.  Makes no sense.

[Reckall]

But sure, lets condemen most of the world's population to missery because someday some Russian troops might shell a nuclear plant.

Someday?

[HappyDaze]

^ and where does the electric come from to power said vehicle?

The electricity fairy off course!

Seriously tho, in most of the world? From burning fossil fuels. Because Solar & Wind are just pipe dreams and the ecoterrorists managed to stop/decomision nuclear.

Me: I have a hybrid electric car with an upcoming solar panels and battery for power storage. If I end up being the guy with power when others don't it's gonna be funny.
Him: But where does the electricity come from?
You: The electricity fairy of course.

So, did you and him lie, or are you literally not able to read what was a couple simple sentences?

It's not like I was advocating for anyone else to get an electric car and solar and a battery. I literally just said if power was lost and I happened to be the guy still able to drive I'd laugh. And you guys lost your shit and started ranting and patting each others backs about complete nonsense nobody had said or implied.

IF/WHEN you manage to have your electric car charged ALWAYS only with solar we can talk. And this means all the process IS powered only by solar, meaning the minning, transportation, processing of materials, manufacturing, transportation (of the finished product).

Pro tip that's also a pipe dream. At best you're moving the contamination to where you can't see it.

WTF are you still ranting about. OK, am now left with only one conclusion: You're a fucking idiot. Like actually not bright enough to comprehend the difference between broader advocacy and an off-hand personal joke.

There is no dream here to be a pipe dream. I am not moving anything, or advocating anything. I didn't make any comment about the environment, or mining, or anything. I didn't say or imply I am morally superior in any way about anything. I am however saying you're a fucking idiot for your inability to see what was in front of you in this thread.

Here I will say it even plainer for you: If I end up to be the schmuck left still able to drive after the catastrophe that I am saying won't happen, I am going to laugh at you guys saying it will happen who don't have a way to drive. There, easy enough for you to digest now? Do you see me advocating for anything there?

It's not that Geeky is a fucking idiot. He's just impaired when it comes to picking up on off-hand jokes and subtlety of any kind. He's said so himself on a few occasions, but it sometimes bears repeating.

[GeekyBugle]

^ and where does the electric come from to power said vehicle?

The electricity fairy off course!

Seriously tho, in most of the world? From burning fossil fuels. Because Solar & Wind are just pipe dreams and the ecoterrorists managed to stop/decomision nuclear.

Me: I have a hybrid electric car with an upcoming solar panels and battery for power storage. If I end up being the guy with power when others don't it's gonna be funny.
Him: But where does the electricity come from?
You: The electricity fairy of course.

So, did you and him lie, or are you literally not able to read what was a couple simple sentences?

It's not like I was advocating for anyone else to get an electric car and solar and a battery. I literally just said if power was lost and I happened to be the guy still able to drive I'd laugh. And you guys lost your shit and started ranting and patting each others backs about complete nonsense nobody had said or implied.

IF/WHEN you manage to have your electric car charged ALWAYS only with solar we can talk. And this means all the process IS powered only by solar, meaning the minning, transportation, processing of materials, manufacturing, transportation (of the finished product).

Pro tip that's also a pipe dream. At best you're moving the contamination to where you can't see it.

WTF are you still ranting about. OK, am now left with only one conclusion: You're a fucking idiot. Like actually not bright enough to comprehend the difference between broader advocacy and an off-hand personal joke.

There is no dream here to be a pipe dream. I am not moving anything, or advocating anything. I didn't make any comment about the environment, or mining, or anything. I didn't say or imply I am morally superior in any way about anything. I am however saying you're a fucking idiot for your inability to see what was in front of you in this thread.

Here I will say it even plainer for you: If I end up to be the schmuck left still able to drive after the catastrophe that I am saying won't happen, I am going to laugh at you guys saying it will happen who don't have a way to drive. There, easy enough for you to digest now? Do you see me advocating for anything there?

It's not that Geeky is a fucking idiot. He's just impaired when it comes to picking up on off-hand jokes and subtlety of any kind. He's said so himself on a few occasions, but it sometimes bears repeating.

^ and where does the electric come from to power said vehicle?

The electricity fairy off course!

Seriously tho, in most of the world? From burning fossil fuels. Because Solar & Wind are just pipe dreams and the ecoterrorists managed to stop/decomision nuclear.

I'm an aspie, but me thinks the one impaired to pick up on off-hand jokes (even when it's there in plain sight) is Mistwell, and maybe you too since you also didn't see why Mistwell started reeeeeeeeing.

Also: Mistwell? Care to point EXACTLY where do I say ANY catastrophe IS going to happen you fucking imbecile?

[Mistwell]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, almost half our power comes from hydro.

Hydro provides about 7% of US power, and we're basically at maximum capacity. And the demand for energy keeps rising.

And that's the ignoring the real environmental impacts of dams. They've mitigated some of it with things like fish ladders, but they're far less effective than most people assume.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective

We're nowhere close to maximum capacity on hydro. We have not even really begun to generate power from the ocean for example. Which, as you rightly point out, is as always blocked by environmentalists. Who cannot make up their minds about which is more important, global warming from gasoline, or minor environmental damage to fish.

We've dammed up pretty much everywhere we can on the rivers, and hydro isn't generally used to refer to oceans. But if you want to include it, I haven't really seen much on the topic, so I know very little about it. Though I suspect it's in the same category as geothermal -- nice in theory, but daunting in implementation.

They're inter-related (coral bleaching due to acid due to rising temperatures, for instance), but I'm more concerned about biodiversity and fish populations than I am about most of the public worries about global warming. We can deal with rising oceans, for instance, but lost species are irrecoverable, and we've seen major faunal turnovers in places like the Black Sea and Great Lakes, and the consequences are far-reaching and impossible to predict.

We can do it right now. Here is an animated promo video for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcStpg3i5V8

And here is one in actual action off northern Ireland. One is powering 1500 households, from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCpBNQfpKDA

And that resulted in this one in Scotland, from last year, which is powering 2000 households:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d9zs0W9u2A

It's not a magic bullet. It won't supply electricity to the entire planet. But it's a good component of a larger system of nuclear, solar, wind, etc..

Well, the animation is in the uncanny valley. And "Voight" sound uncomfortably close to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3znNClo_aw8

The other two are better. Though while I think it's good to explore these alternatives, that's a long way from demonstrating it'll be useful at scale.

Demonstrating? Dude it's the cult's dogma, how dare you demand proof it works?

The second and third videos are of the actual thing working. I demonstrated it, in the very post you're responding to. There is no dogma or cult here, this is a real thing in actual operation.

Or that it doesn't end up contaminating way more because of all the fossil fuel usage you just don't see and the destruction of ecosystems by minning the minerals needed for the batteries?

Not sure this one involves batteries. It operates 24/7/365, generating electricity directly from tides, pumping it right to the shore. Do you have any evidence at all it harms the ecosystem more or the same as oil and gas?

Solar, Eolic and Tidal aren't really an option, you can produce what you can produce, and there's no way your energy "farm" can increase it's output to match the demand during certain hours.

You think tide generated electricity depends on the time of day? Or you think they cannot lower more arms based on demand, and raise those arms when demand decreases?

[Mistwell]

  If you want power from the oceans, a Hydrogen fire plant is much better at providing it.  A buddy of mine worked on one for a while (he is an plant operator/engineer and we were at the same Nuclear Prototype and ship together) and he felt it was the future....if dumbasses would get out of the way and let it be.  The process for electrolysis is much cheaper than it once was and makes hydrogen fire on par with natural gas when it is at its cheapest.  That and Nuclear power are far better options than Hydro.  I think Solar will keep getting better and have a future, but Nuclear as a place holder till that happens (and in the meantime hydrogen fire may well be able to replace Nuclear). 

   The buddy I mentioned used to work in Nuclear plants, but the USA has been actively doing all it can to discourage the industry (while providing no realistic alternative) so he went to the Hydro plant and now works as an engineer making cars in a totally unrelated field.   So it is what it is.  Things that are not really viable will likely continue to be pushed while using things that are not as clean or efficient as Nuclear or Hydro fire (natural gas) to fill in the gap.  Makes no sense.

And now I need to go down the rabbit hole of Googling Hydrogen fire plants.

[Mistwell]

^ and where does the electric come from to power said vehicle?

The electricity fairy off course!

Seriously tho, in most of the world? From burning fossil fuels. Because Solar & Wind are just pipe dreams and the ecoterrorists managed to stop/decomision nuclear.

Me: I have a hybrid electric car with an upcoming solar panels and battery for power storage. If I end up being the guy with power when others don't it's gonna be funny.
Him: But where does the electricity come from?
You: The electricity fairy of course.

So, did you and him lie, or are you literally not able to read what was a couple simple sentences?

It's not like I was advocating for anyone else to get an electric car and solar and a battery. I literally just said if power was lost and I happened to be the guy still able to drive I'd laugh. And you guys lost your shit and started ranting and patting each others backs about complete nonsense nobody had said or implied.

IF/WHEN you manage to have your electric car charged ALWAYS only with solar we can talk. And this means all the process IS powered only by solar, meaning the minning, transportation, processing of materials, manufacturing, transportation (of the finished product).

Pro tip that's also a pipe dream. At best you're moving the contamination to where you can't see it.

WTF are you still ranting about. OK, am now left with only one conclusion: You're a fucking idiot. Like actually not bright enough to comprehend the difference between broader advocacy and an off-hand personal joke.

There is no dream here to be a pipe dream. I am not moving anything, or advocating anything. I didn't make any comment about the environment, or mining, or anything. I didn't say or imply I am morally superior in any way about anything. I am however saying you're a fucking idiot for your inability to see what was in front of you in this thread.

Here I will say it even plainer for you: If I end up to be the schmuck left still able to drive after the catastrophe that I am saying won't happen, I am going to laugh at you guys saying it will happen who don't have a way to drive. There, easy enough for you to digest now? Do you see me advocating for anything there?

It's not that Geeky is a fucking idiot. He's just impaired when it comes to picking up on off-hand jokes and subtlety of any kind. He's said so himself on a few occasions, but it sometimes bears repeating.

I must have missed that. Well then, that's on me. Sorry about that Geeky. I didn't realize that was an issue. I shouldn't have said or implied you were dumb for not catching something i suggested but failed to say directly.

[oggsmash]

  If you want power from the oceans, a Hydrogen fire plant is much better at providing it.  A buddy of mine worked on one for a while (he is an plant operator/engineer and we were at the same Nuclear Prototype and ship together) and he felt it was the future....if dumbasses would get out of the way and let it be.  The process for electrolysis is much cheaper than it once was and makes hydrogen fire on par with natural gas when it is at its cheapest.  That and Nuclear power are far better options than Hydro.  I think Solar will keep getting better and have a future, but Nuclear as a place holder till that happens (and in the meantime hydrogen fire may well be able to replace Nuclear). 

   The buddy I mentioned used to work in Nuclear plants, but the USA has been actively doing all it can to discourage the industry (while providing no realistic alternative) so he went to the Hydro plant and now works as an engineer making cars in a totally unrelated field.   So it is what it is.  Things that are not really viable will likely continue to be pushed while using things that are not as clean or efficient as Nuclear or Hydro fire (natural gas) to fill in the gap.  Makes no sense.

And now I need to go down the rabbit hole of Googling Hydrogen fire plants.

  Its simply using hydrogen instead of other fuels to burn.  The thing is electrolysis is MUCH cheaper to do on a large scale now, allowing for large scale production of hydrogen gas to burn cheaply, and given what the byproduct is...well its the best I think humanity is going to develop for large scale needs in the next 30-40 years maybe longer.  BUT given the source of the Hydrogen can be processed on the site, and the source of hydrogen is really easy to come by....I think there are lot$ of reason$ not to pu$h it$ development more. 

  The tide thing makes me think of "Fluid Karma" from the nutty movie Southland Tales.   At least the real life one can not have the same sort of "side effects" the one in the movie did.

[Mistwell]

^ and where does the electric come from to power said vehicle?

The electricity fairy off course!

Seriously tho, in most of the world? From burning fossil fuels. Because Solar & Wind are just pipe dreams and the ecoterrorists managed to stop/decomision nuclear.

Me: I have a hybrid electric car with an upcoming solar panels and battery for power storage. If I end up being the guy with power when others don't it's gonna be funny.
Him: But where does the electricity come from?
You: The electricity fairy of course.

So, did you and him lie, or are you literally not able to read what was a couple simple sentences?

It's not like I was advocating for anyone else to get an electric car and solar and a battery. I literally just said if power was lost and I happened to be the guy still able to drive I'd laugh. And you guys lost your shit and started ranting and patting each others backs about complete nonsense nobody had said or implied.

IF/WHEN you manage to have your electric car charged ALWAYS only with solar we can talk. And this means all the process IS powered only by solar, meaning the minning, transportation, processing of materials, manufacturing, transportation (of the finished product).

Pro tip that's also a pipe dream. At best you're moving the contamination to where you can't see it.

WTF are you still ranting about. OK, am now left with only one conclusion: You're a fucking idiot. Like actually not bright enough to comprehend the difference between broader advocacy and an off-hand personal joke.

There is no dream here to be a pipe dream. I am not moving anything, or advocating anything. I didn't make any comment about the environment, or mining, or anything. I didn't say or imply I am morally superior in any way about anything. I am however saying you're a fucking idiot for your inability to see what was in front of you in this thread.

Here I will say it even plainer for you: If I end up to be the schmuck left still able to drive after the catastrophe that I am saying won't happen, I am going to laugh at you guys saying it will happen who don't have a way to drive. There, easy enough for you to digest now? Do you see me advocating for anything there?

It's not that Geeky is a fucking idiot. He's just impaired when it comes to picking up on off-hand jokes and subtlety of any kind. He's said so himself on a few occasions, but it sometimes bears repeating.

^ and where does the electric come from to power said vehicle?

The electricity fairy off course!

Seriously tho, in most of the world? From burning fossil fuels. Because Solar & Wind are just pipe dreams and the ecoterrorists managed to stop/decomision nuclear.

I'm an aspie, but me thinks the one impaired to pick up on off-hand jokes (even when it's there in plain sight) is Mistwell, and maybe you too since you also didn't see why Mistwell started reeeeeeeeing.

Also: Mistwell? Care to point EXACTLY where do I say ANY catastrophe IS going to happen you fucking imbecile?

1. I am not passionate about this issue. No reeeing from me. The hybrid car and solar/battery are all economic issues for me. I live in California and the numbers are working out that this path is cheaper for me in the long term. That's it. Not advocating it's for everyone, because it's not.
2. You didn't say a catastrophe IS going to happen but TWO OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD DID and that was the post you were responding to, where I was responding to one of them.

[GeekyBugle]

Here in the Pacific Northwest, almost half our power comes from hydro.

Hydro provides about 7% of US power, and we're basically at maximum capacity. And the demand for energy keeps rising.

And that's the ignoring the real environmental impacts of dams. They've mitigated some of it with things like fish ladders, but they're far less effective than most people assume.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_fish_ladders_on_us_dams_are_not_effective

We're nowhere close to maximum capacity on hydro. We have not even really begun to generate power from the ocean for example. Which, as you rightly point out, is as always blocked by environmentalists. Who cannot make up their minds about which is more important, global warming from gasoline, or minor environmental damage to fish.

We've dammed up pretty much everywhere we can on the rivers, and hydro isn't generally used to refer to oceans. But if you want to include it, I haven't really seen much on the topic, so I know very little about it. Though I suspect it's in the same category as geothermal -- nice in theory, but daunting in implementation.

They're inter-related (coral bleaching due to acid due to rising temperatures, for instance), but I'm more concerned about biodiversity and fish populations than I am about most of the public worries about global warming. We can deal with rising oceans, for instance, but lost species are irrecoverable, and we've seen major faunal turnovers in places like the Black Sea and Great Lakes, and the consequences are far-reaching and impossible to predict.

We can do it right now. Here is an animated promo video for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcStpg3i5V8

And here is one in actual action off northern Ireland. One is powering 1500 households, from 2013.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCpBNQfpKDA

And that resulted in this one in Scotland, from last year, which is powering 2000 households:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d9zs0W9u2A

It's not a magic bullet. It won't supply electricity to the entire planet. But it's a good component of a larger system of nuclear, solar, wind, etc..

Well, the animation is in the uncanny valley. And "Voight" sound uncomfortably close to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3znNClo_aw8

The other two are better. Though while I think it's good to explore these alternatives, that's a long way from demonstrating it'll be useful at scale.

Demonstrating? Dude it's the cult's dogma, how dare you demand proof it works?

The second and third videos are of the actual thing working. I demonstrated it, in the very post you're responding to. There is no dogma or cult here, this is a real thing in actual operation.

Stirling engines ALSO work, doesn't mean they are a suitable replacement to generate electricity on scale.

Or that it doesn't end up contaminating way more because of all the fossil fuel usage you just don't see and the destruction of ecosystems by minning the minerals needed for the batteries?

Not sure this one involves batteries. It operates 24/7/365, generating electricity directly from tides, pumping it right to the shore. Do you have any evidence at all it harms the ecosystem more or the same as oil and gas?

And it generates EXACTLY the same ammount of energy at all times of day in whatever season no matter the climate conditions...

Solar, Eolic and Tidal aren't really an option, you can produce what you can produce, and there's no way your energy "farm" can increase it's output to match the demand during certain hours.

You think tide generated electricity depends on the time of day? Or you think they cannot lower more arms based on demand, and raise those arms when demand decreases?

Does the tide change during the day? YES

Does the tide change depending on the seasson of the year? YES

Would massive tidal farms disrupt ocean life? Probably.