Hi John, you wrote: > > > There is an effort in Mexico to now provide solar panels in Cuba. > Why was a socialist government far behind in thought to continue > the use of environmentally harmful fossil fuels - was not answered by your > response. > >
I merely pointed out the huge limitation of solar panels (especially in an underdeveloped country) and that wide spread use of them 10 years ago or so would not of helped Cuba that much. In fact, Cuba did/does have a decades long plant to use as much solar as possible but funds were limited. You are factually wrong to suggest Cuba didn't not plan for this since it was the the possible cut off of oil (primarily) and cooking gas (delivered in small propane/butane bottles) that was the center-piece of Cuba's economic policies. Getting off of fossil fuels is almost impossible for Cuba and most countries as you can't run a car on solar energy unless you want to convert to VERY expensive EVs (albeit they are lot cheaper now). The "environmentally harmful" us quite the tertiary issue for Cuba as the mere extremely low usage of fossil fuels in this small nation is hardly a blip on the screen of climate change. They have more important things to worry about such as feeding their nation of 11 million. Their per capita use of hydrocarbons is one of the lowest in the world. The real problem is that since Chavez was in office in Venezuela, Cuba did become reliant on oil and gas from that country, and it put Cuba in a bad long term position should that oil be cut off. Not good but they had few choices and none of them were particularly good. Getting off of fossil fuels is only possible if there is an actual line of march to do so (there isn't, IMO) and there exists a financial means to actually do this. John additionally wrote: > > > The other issues of promoting nuclear reactors when human beings > determined > to hate and harm through sabotage and releasing dangerous effects on the > population, seem also be something you seem to ignore the reality of. But > I > understand you have a compulsion to support that dangerous energy source - > > and ignore that reality. We can see Putin currently using dangerous > violence > against Ukraine's existing nuclear power plants. > > > Generalities and unsubstantiated assertions like this require some evidence. Not sure what "reality" you are referring too: nuclear remains the lowest form of on-demand generation there is. There is nothing particularly "dangerous" about nuclear energy except irrational radio-phobia. Nuclear remains, Chernobyl and Fukushima included, the safest of form of generation on a per-MW output of any form of generation. Cuba's abandonment of nuclear energy was motivated 100% by the lack of promised Soviet financing, full stop. We can discuss this if you want. David > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#41826): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/41826 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/119400124/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
