Linkping University: How non-toxic and efficient solar cells can be produced

[NNadir]

9. Ah, the good ole strawman...

Last edited Wed Dec 4, 2024, 07:25 PM - Edit history (1)

I wrote a rather elaborate post on this subject referring to a decidedly not too bright antinuke carrying on about "strawmen."

Before referring to it, let me post another recent post of mine, being sure to expect criticism of my self absorption, which makes me question whether I should jump up and down for joy over the chanting of "renewables will save us" types:

The Disastrous 2024 CO2 Data Recorded at Mauna Loa: Yet Another Update 12/03/2024

Any interest?

No?

I thought so.

Would the planet be burning because of "straw?" Wait, couldn't straw be more of that magical so called "renewable energy?" Ya think?

From my perspective, this post of mine referring to the data at the Mauna Loa CO₂ Observatory, which I have followed through decades of bullshit here about solar, wind, batteries and hydrogen that didn't do a damned thing, doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy for the trillions of dollars squandered on so called "renewable energy," and similiarly, the money squandered to satiate the idiotic contempt for the laws for thermodynamics represented by money squandered on energy storage and lacing wires all over the planet to connect all of this unreliable junk.

My post in response to a "strawmen" accusation, which I found amusing, predictably from someone who clearly can't think very well of a certain type one can see around here - a locution often raised by defenders of the indefensible - is here:

828 Underground Nuclear Tests, Plutonium Migration in Nevada, Dunning, Kruger, Strawmen, and Tunnels

Now, to be clear, I wrote in response to a "'I'm not an antinuke' antinuke" of my unfortunate acquaintance, and of course, addressing people at this level is clearly a waste of time - it's not like they can be educated - but I became fascinated by the topic, after a remark I made, clearly sarcastic, that little shit for brains antinukes are more worried about a radioactive atom tunneling into their tiresome and weak little brains than about, oh, I don't know - about the data, at Mauna Loa, for just one instance. My sarcastic remark about radioactive atoms in antinuke brains was generated by an asinine comment in one of my old posts, called up to let me know all about the collapse of a tunnel at the Hanford Nuclear Weapons Reservation. (I showed that the antinuclear radiation paranoia, as is the case with the big bogeyman at Fukushima, is likely to have killed more people - from air pollution - than the collapsed tunnel).

I'm rather glad I wrote that post addressing the air head, because the research into the primary scientific literature, which has over 200,000 papers on organic solar cells - aren't they wonderful? - caused me to consider the chemistry of plutonium, the element I believe might still save some of what is left to save, and the wonderful synthetic element technetium.

I learned a lot writing it.

I would suggest that someone who wants to learn new things should learn how to read, but, clearly many people don't bother. They'd rather demand worship of the "solar and wind will save us" cults, except solar and wind isn't saving a damned thing. It's soaking up money and making things worse, not better.

As for what credulous rubes care to "believe," I couldn't care less. I think I made it clear how I feel about soothsaying.

Not that I expect it to be read, no matter how many times I post it:

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power (Pushker A. Kharecha* and James E. Hansen Environ. Sci. Technol., 2013, 47 (9), pp 4889–4895).

From the abstract:

In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning.

The bold is mine.

Of course, one won't expect anyone carrying on for more than forty years about Three Mile Island to get it, would one?

These sorts clearly don't give a shit about carbon dioxide, or for that matter, human lives lost to air pollution.

I'm wishing you the happiest of the upcoming December holidays, even if they result, in the winter solstice during the Saturnalian festivals, in Dunkleflaute in that coal burning hellhole, Germany.