Canadian Defence News

[Legato]

12 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

And yet other countries currently manage mixed fighter fleets even with F35s and Canada has always had mixed fighter fleets historically prior to the cf-18 era. 
 

Gripen would not “severely complicate” anything  4th generation aircraft including Gripens are abundant in NATO and the US military and will still be for a while. 
 

Already being worked on

 

“Frequently” is an exaggeration as the Global has good endurance. It can also use shorter runways than e7 so can operate from more northern airfields closer to the arctic 

Another exaggeration Globaleye can communicate and datalink with any aircraft in real time including F35. . Link 16 is the NATO standard. Granted it’s not as optimized as the new native datalink that f35 has and presumably US E7 will have but it’s not a showstopper if US refuses to allow Canadian Globaleyes to have the same link.  USA still uses 4th generation fighters and F16s in NORAD FFS

 

The military isn’t responsible for political sovereignty and keeping Canada from becoming a puppet state so naturally it’s not a concern for them. It is however the responsibility of the elected government, who also ultimately decides what costs are worthwhile or not. 

Despite an original plan to acquire 88 F-35s and putting down payments on an initial batch, political friction and trade tensions forced Ottawa to review this strategy. The government has considered capping the F-35 order and purchasing Saab Gripen fighters instead. The RCAF is strongly opposed to this, for several reasons: 

Training & Personnel: A divided training regime for pilots and ground crews would further strain a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) already navigating a severe personnel shortage. 

Supply Chains: The F-35 and the Gripen share very few interchangeable parts. This means maintaining two distinct supply lines for spare parts, mechanical equipment, and maintenance software. 

Interoperability: The F-35 is heavily optimized to share data seamlessly with American and NORAD fifth- and sixth-generation systems. Integrating a European-designed 4.5-generation fighter like the Gripen would severely complicate tactical communications and interoperability with allies. 

 

The GlobalEye vs. Boeing E-7

In a pivot away from total U.S. reliance, Canada chose to enter negotiations to procure the Saab GlobalEye (built using Bombardier Global 6500 jets) for airborne surveillance rather than the American Boeing E-7 Wedgetail. While the GlobalEye offers excellent technology, it presents unique logistical bottlenecks for the Canadian Armed Forces: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• No Air-to-Air Refueling: The current configuration of the GlobalEye cannot be refueled in mid-air, significantly limiting its time on station. During long missions in the Arctic, the aircraft would have to return to base frequently, leaving Canadian airspace temporarily without airborne warning and control coverage. 
• System Disconnects: Experts point out that the GlobalEye is not fully optimized to communicate and coordinate in real time with the U.S. and Canadian future F-35 interceptors, which are essential for northern NORAD operations
• The push to buy these two different types of aircraft boils down to a classic tug-of-war between military effectiveness and domestic industrial strategy. While a mixed-fleet and buying Swedish platforms creates thousands of jobs in Canada and diversifies away from Washington's orbit, top Canadian military officials have repeatedly warned that splitting up fleets heavily degrades operational efficiency and increases costs in the long run. 

The Carney debacles continue without a minutes let up.

 

•  

[BeaverFever]

6 minutes ago, Legato said:

Despite an original plan to acquire 88 F-35s and putting down payments on an initial batch, political friction and trade tensions forced Ottawa to review this strategy. The government has considered capping the F-35 order and purchasing Saab Gripen fighters instead. The RCAF is strongly opposed to this, for several reasons: 

Training & Personnel: A divided training regime for pilots and ground crews would further strain a Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) already navigating a severe personnel shortage. 

Supply Chains: The F-35 and the Gripen share very few interchangeable parts. This means maintaining two distinct supply lines for spare parts, mechanical equipment, and maintenance software. 

Interoperability: The F-35 is heavily optimized to share data seamlessly with American and NORAD fifth- and sixth-generation systems. Integrating a European-designed 4.5-generation fighter like the Gripen would severely complicate tactical communications and interoperability with allies. 

 

The GlobalEye vs. Boeing E-7

In a pivot away from total U.S. reliance, Canada chose to enter negotiations to procure the Saab GlobalEye (built using Bombardier Global 6500 jets) for airborne surveillance rather than the American Boeing E-7 Wedgetail. While the GlobalEye offers excellent technology, it presents unique logistical bottlenecks for the Canadian Armed Forces: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• No Air-to-Air Refueling: The current configuration of the GlobalEye cannot be refueled in mid-air, significantly limiting its time on station. During long missions in the Arctic, the aircraft would have to return to base frequently, leaving Canadian airspace temporarily without airborne warning and control coverage. 
• System Disconnects: Experts point out that the GlobalEye is not fully optimized to communicate and coordinate in real time with the U.S. and Canadian future F-35 interceptors, which are essential for northern NORAD operations
• The push to buy these two different types of aircraft boils down to a classic tug-of-war between military effectiveness and domestic industrial strategy. While a mixed-fleet and buying Swedish platforms creates thousands of jobs in Canada and diversifies away from Washington's orbit, top Canadian military officials have repeatedly warned that splitting up fleets heavily degrades operational efficiency and increases costs in the long run. 

The Carney debacles continue without a minutes let up.

 

•  

Simply repeating yourself doesn’t nullify the rebuttal you have already received on these arguments. 

[Legato]

9 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Simply repeating yourself doesn’t nullify the rebuttal you have already received on these arguments. 

Rebuttal? Let me know when you have one, not some furiously spinning nonsense.

BTW the US does not have any Gripens. We are working on it. Lol.

[BeaverFever]

46 minutes ago, Legato said:

Rebuttal? Let me know when you have one, not some furiously spinning nonsense.

BTW the US does not have any Gripens. We are working on it. Lol.

None of what I said was “furiously spinning nonsense”   Just because the FACTS I presented don’t support the narrative you are pushing doesn’t mean you can pretend it’s “nonsense”. That’s the problem with debating you internet kooks you can’t debate honestly.   
 

NATO has Gripens. I never said US does. US has hundreds of 4th gen fighters 

[Legato]

42 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

None of what I said was “furiously spinning nonsense”   Just because the FACTS I presented don’t support the narrative you are pushing doesn’t mean you can pretend it’s “nonsense”. That’s the problem with debating you internet kooks you can’t debate honestly.   
 

NATO has Gripens. I never said US does. US has hundreds of 4th gen fighters 

Quote

4th generation aircraft including Gripens are abundant in NATO and the US military and will still be for a while. 

The rest as I said, pure spin and nonsense. Just a deliberate whitewash of the Carney's bumbling inadequacy.

Honest debate?? Lol

He's a bankerbrat and that's alright

He spins all day and he spins all night.

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Students are not counted in the labour force though, that’s what matters.

They are. 

Students are only counted in the Canadian labour force if they are currently employed or actively seeking paid work. If a student is solely focused on their studies and not looking for a job, they are classified by Statistics Canada as "not in the labour force". [1, 2, 3]

A more detailed breakdown of how students fit into the labour market includes:

1. Employed Students

Students who work part-time or full-time (e.g., during summer breaks) are counted as part of the employed labour force. [1, 2]

2. Unemployed Students (Looking for Work)

If a student does not have a job but is actively searching for one and available to work, they are counted as unemployed. Together with the employed, these individuals make up the total labour force. [1, 2]

3. Not in the Labour Force

Full-time students who are not working and not looking for a job are excluded from the labour force entirely. For example, a full-time university student taking classes and not actively seeking employment is not counted when calculating Canada's official labour force

 

So the vast vast majority of foreign students work. At least part time. 

 

"Yes, a significant majority of foreign students work during their studies. Across major study destinations like Canada, a majority of international students take on part-time jobs to offset high tuition fees and cover living costs. [1, 2, 3]"

 

So you're wrong again. 

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Growing the economy by the growing the population is of course the whole point of immigration it is not an evil plot to hide anything.

As we have seen by the fact that I needed to correct you on virtually every element including your last state ment, you are not aware or knowledgeable about what immigration is all about 

Immigration has several purposes. Historically it is absolutely not been an economy Builder, if anything it held the economy back a fair bit.

That changed largely in 2006 when Canada moved to a much more filtered points-based system. But even so generally speaking it takes at least a generation after immigration before the economy notices a benefit from integration that is substantial and real

However, and be used to mask or create the illusion of a good economy when in reality the economy is poor. Which is absolutely what trust and Trudeau was doing and it is now being acknowledged by experts everywhere. It was noted at the time by many but the liberals are now using that fact as an excuse as to why it looks like they're doing worse than Justin did. 

Your premise is entirely wrong. The excessive immigration we saw under the Trudeau liberals was absolutely an effort to artificially conceal the weaknesses and failures of the Canadian economy during his time. And that is one of the reasons that the economy is appearing to completely crash under Carney

It's not the carney completely crashed the economy, it's that it was horrible all along and now we can finally see it for what it is. Carney's problem is he hasn't improved it despite promising the fastest growth in the G7

Highly targeted immigration can benefit the economy even in the short term if it's done right, but we have fairly limited amounts of that. Most of our immigration does not benefit our economy at all for at least one generation, and it sucks up tax dollars at an alarming rate by reducing GDP for capita

 

[Army Guy]

21 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

And yet other countries currently manage mixed fighter fleets even with F35s and Canada has always had mixed fighter fleets historically prior to the cf-18 era. 
 

Gripen would not “severely complicate” anything  4th generation aircraft including Gripens are abundant in NATO and the US military and will still be for a while. 
 

Already being worked on

 

“Frequently” is an exaggeration as the Global has good endurance. It can also use shorter runways than e7 so can operate from more northern airfields closer to the arctic 

Another exaggeration Globaleye can communicate and datalink with any aircraft in real time including F35. . Link 16 is the NATO standard. Granted it’s not as optimized as the new native datalink that f35 has and presumably US E7 will have but it’s not a showstopper if US refuses to allow Canadian Globaleyes to have the same link.  USA still uses 4th generation fighters and F16s in NORAD FFS

 

The military isn’t responsible for political sovereignty and keeping Canada from becoming a puppet state so naturally it’s not a concern for them. It is however the responsibility of the elected government, who also ultimately decides what costs are worthwhile or not. 

You mean other countries that have allotted serious defense budgets to operate and upgrade them...Canada has never really took defense serious for decades...in fact i remembered the liberals voters crying that 19 bil on 88 F-35 was crazy talk...That past liberal government actually campaigned on canceling the whole project...and now today there is talk of bring in 2 different sets of combat aircraft...perhaps someone can explain the liberal logic in all of this...The next question of all the modern aircraft out there why the gripen ...i could list a 1/2 dozen better suited gen 4.5 aircraft that could out perform the gripen on a bad day...

Gripen E/F are not abundant in NATO, in fact Sweden has ordered 60 with possibly another 10... all the other Gripen operators have  c/d models which are gen 4 at best....and even then there is not an abundant of them....once again it raise the question of why the gripen E/F ..and why not a much better aircraft that is "ABUNDANT" like the Euro fighter.... 

But it does not have air to air refueling....nor is its radar 360 degrees coverage, but rather only 300 degrees....while the E-7 has air to air refueling , much larger radar with longer range, and it covers 306 degree even while turning.....it sounds like a political buy...not one designed for the military...and to get all this in a global eye, it will be back to the drawing board, as this stuff just can't be slapped on and expected to work.....much like the other paper global 6500 aircraft that was purposed for the P-8 competition. Either way our government decision are all over the map....

 

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

remembered the liberals voters crying that 19 bil on 88 F-35 was crazy talk...That past liberal government actually campaigned on canceling the whole project...and now today there is talk of bring in 2 different sets of combat aircraft...perhaps someone can explain the liberal logic in all of this..

Because a lot changes in 10 years. Bombing Germany in 1930was crazy talk. In 1940 it was a must-do. In 1950 it was crazy talk again. 
 

 

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

You mean other countries that have allotted serious defense budgets to operate and upgrade them...Canada has never really took defense serious for decades..

Well that’s changed now. 
 

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

The next question of all the modern aircraft out there why the gripen ...i could list a 1/2 dozen better suited gen 4.5 aircraft that could out perform the gripen on a bad day...

There aren’t half a dozen alternatives realistically there was rafale and typhoon, both very expensive and likely limited economic benefits compared to gripen. IIRC they were disqualified or withdrew because they couldn’t meet NORAD integration requirements and typhoon didn’t like the industrial offsets requirement  There was also the super-hornet was deemed leas advanced than gripen. 
 

 

[Army Guy]

So what has changed in the last 10 years, that would force our nation to start taking our defense and defense commitments seriously...

 

For now, Canada has a long history of being a defense lagard, and some how Carney comes along and poof spending on defense is now cool, cutting other social programs cool, you know what they say, if it is to good to be true it isn't...

actually there is 18 globally, 8 of them are from western nations....all would give gripen a run for price, and performance...

Funny you mention price, if that was truly a concern why even buy a second fighter....why just purchase more F-35's save on logistics tail, price, and compatibility with most of NATO...both European jets are more plentiful than gripen meaning more spares, and more R&D funding, more compatibility...meeting NORAD integration, is a BS answer, any aircraft could easily meet those standards...the real reason was Canada was looking for to much in offsets at the time....we got to greedy...the point was to buy a fighter not enrich liberal voters...

Super hornet was the liberals pick until the mix up with Boeing and Canada's crown prince of planes....what has changed with the hornets...nothing which aircraft is better...is a matter of opinion....both are 4.5 gen with the F-18 coming out ahead in more categories than the gripen, the f-18 has a better price point , Canadian air men already familiar with type, the list goes on and on....the Gripen is a political buy, and no one knows why,  our Air force has already spoken on the topic....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:4.5-generation_jet_fighters

[User]

On 6/6/2026 at 5:21 PM, BeaverFever said:

You mean “barrels of gasoline “?  And during peak electricity demand they bust out the barrels and plug their laptops into them, right?

Just a reminder Fox brought up “barrels of gasoline” because he didn’t understand what battery storage was as for or what gas plants were fueled by or how they recorded their fuel  You tried to insert yourself into the argument by pretending “barrels of gasoline” is the same as underground storage and somehow helps the gas plants produce more electricity during peak times because their pipelines can’t produce fuel power…or something…you guys often don’t have a point when you argue you just try disagree with whatever was said last 

Now answer me, b1tch. And don’t you dare think you can keep me waiting like I keep you waiting on me.  

No, I clearly meant underground storage... but you have to try to find some way to dodge admitting you are a cowardly, lying POS. 

 

[BeaverFever]

16 minutes ago, User said:

No, I clearly meant underground storage... but you have to try to find some way to dodge admitting you are a cowardly, lying POS. 

 

Why would you even have been talking about “underground storage” when that had nothing to do with the conversation which was about batteries supplying additional electricity during peak hours?  
 

To recap, what happened is you butted in to try and rescue Cdnfux from his gibberish about “barrels of gasoline” . So you started in with your own gibberish about plants having storage beneath them which is barely even a thing and then most recently you pivoted to the natural geological formations storage as a last desperate attempt  

 

But again I remind you that has absolutely nothing to do with the original conversation which was about battery storage,  which charges from existing generation during low demand hours so it can add additional electricity to the grid alongside the generators during peak hours. 

[CdnFox]

Just now, BeaverFever said:

Why would you even have been talking about “underground storage” when that had nothing to do with the conversation which was about batteries supplying additional electricity during peak hours?  
 

To recap, what happened is you butted in to try and rescue Cdnfux from his gibberish about “barrels of gasoline” . So you started in with your own gibberish about plants having storage beneath them which is barely even a thing and then most recently you pivoted to the natural geological formations storage as a last desperate attempt  

 

But again I remind you that has absolutely nothing to do with the original conversation which was about battery storage,  which charges from existing generation during low demand hours so it can add additional electricity to the grid alongside the generators during peak hours. 

That was never the conversation. Your problem is you change the conversation so often trying desperately to get away from your own faulty logic but you can't even remember what the hell you were talking about

Our conversation was about renewable energy replacing non-renewable. Specifically wind and solar. And I pointed out that until you can store electricity as effectively as you can store chemical energy and for the same price there's no chance of that happening

The cost of a large oil storage tank is absolutely tiny compared to the cost of a similar battery bank holding the same potential energy.

And yes when you run out of power it's super easy to put a little hose into the storage of oil and run it to a generator and produce as much electricity as you need for as long as the oil holds out.

This is beyond simple but because it upset your echo chamber view of renewable energy you had a little freak out and try to defend the indefensible

If you look at how much energy you can generate from a barrel of oil and how much energy you get out of a similarly sized and expense battery the oil produces vastly more electrical output and it can do it on demand

Solar power will never be a replacement for regular power until the day comes where we can store it as cheaply and as effectively as we store chemical energy.

That's a simple truth and I get that you don't like it and I get that you feel stupid forever arguing it but here we are

[User]

3 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Why would you even have been talking about “underground storage” when that had nothing to do with the conversation which was about batteries supplying additional electricity during peak hours?  
 

To recap, what happened is you butted in to try and rescue Cdnfux from his gibberish about “barrels of gasoline” . So you started in with your own gibberish about plants having storage beneath them which is barely even a thing and then most recently you pivoted to the natural geological formations storage as a last desperate attempt  

 

But again I remind you that has absolutely nothing to do with the original conversation which was about battery storage,  which charges from existing generation during low demand hours so it can add additional electricity to the grid alongside the generators during peak hours. 

LOL, you are such a dishonest clown. So, you lie and run like a coward about underground storage... and instead of dealing with that, you want to go back and relitigate why it was even mentioned in the first place?

OK, this is your argument to make, go dig up the conversation and make your case. Lets see it. 

You want to criticize my comments, go get them, lets see it. 

YOU were the one who brought this up in this discussion anyhow, all because I called out your stupidity on your Iran comments so you could run from that. 

 

[BeaverFever]

On 6/7/2026 at 11:37 PM, Army Guy said:

 

So what has changed in the last 10 years, that would force our nation to start taking our defense and defense commitments seriously...

 

For now, Canada has a long history of being a defense lagard, and some how Carney comes along and poof spending on defense is now cool, cutting other social programs cool,

 

Have you been in a coma the past year and a half?  
 

On 6/7/2026 at 11:37 PM, Army Guy said:

cutting other social programs coo

No social programs have been cut.

 

On 6/7/2026 at 11:37 PM, Army Guy said:

Funny you mention price, if that was truly a concern why even buy a second fighter....why just purchase more F-35's

1) the whole point is to be LESS dependent  on USA not even more dependent 

2) That would be even more expensive than a mixes fleet 

On 6/7/2026 at 11:37 PM, Army Guy said:

enrich liberal voter

Where do you get off claiming offsets only enrich liberal voters?

On 6/7/2026 at 11:37 PM, Army Guy said:

the Gripen is a political buy,

Rhey are all political buys when you get down to it. Even in the US it is highly political:  which prototypes get selected for production, how many are produced, where the components come from. USA is not the perfect meritocracy you think it is. 

[BeaverFever]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

That was never the conversation. Your problem is you change the conversation so often trying desperately to get away from your own faulty logic but you can't even remember what the hell you were talking about

No that’s you and especially User. So desperate to “nuh-uh” whatever was last said you’ll go down any rabbit hole no matter how far it takes you from having any point 

 

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Our conversation was about renewable energy replacing non-renewable. Specifically wind and solar. And I pointed out that until you can store electricity as effectively as you can store chemical energy and for the same price there's no chance of that happening

Not at all, and this just proves my point above. What happened was I posted an article about a new state of the art battery storage site and you replied to it with some nonsense about the money would have been better spent on storing “barrels of gasoline”. “Storing chemical energy” as you are now calling it has nothing to do with the topic. It  doesn’t add electricity to the grid unless you also build new power plants to burn that stored “chemical energy” and the the plants are all fed by pipelines theres no “storage” problem or shortage of “chemical energy” for our gas plants that needs solving.  You fundamentally don’t understand what you’re talking about and you are just shooting in the dark desperate to have some kind of point. 
 

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The cost of a large oil storage tank is absolutely tiny compared to the cost of a similar battery bank holding the same potential energy.

And yes when you run out of power it's super easy to put a little hose into the storage of oil and run it to a generator and produce as much electricity as you need for as long as the oil holds out.

This is beyond simple but because it upset your echo chamber view of renewable energy you had a little freak out and try to defend the indefensible

 

LMAO THE GIBBERISH CONTINUES!  So now cities have extra “generators” that run on “oil” and are just lying around unused and we can “put a hose into” the “oil” to power cities during peak hours?  Stop.  Just stop. You really are sounding so dumb I am embarrassed for you. 

Let me just clean up your gibberish into something intelligible  since there are no gas plants just sitting around unused waiting for gas, what you are advocating for is building more gas plants. Building the plant is where the costs come from , not the cost of storing the gas that feeds the plant and doesn’t even require much storage. So as I attempted to get through your thick skull in that thread building multimillion dollar gas plants just to run them a for few hours a day when electricity is most expensive to produce makes that electricity very expensive  

 

30 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

f you look at how much energy you can generate from a barrel of oil and how much energy you get out of a similarly sized and expense battery the oil produces vastly more electrical output and it can do it on demand

1) you are failing to include the cost of extract ling and converting that “barrel of oil” into an actual fuel (spoiler alert power plants don’t run on “oil”) and then to build the power plant that will burn that fuel, plus there is the cost of the fuel itself which you might have heard  some incompetent and crooked republican president has recently made extremely expensive  

2) you are comparing apples and oranges a battery doesn’t generate electricity it stores existing electricity  for later, allowing you to convert your “barrel of oil” (or whatever generation source is most convenient or affordable) to electricity when its cheapest and then supply it to the grid later when its most expensive.  The whole point of a battery is so you Don’t have to generate electricity on demand, you supply it on demand but you intentionally generate it when it’s not demanded, from any source you wish.

3) what is a “similarly sized battery” in your statement ? Like are you talking about a battery that is the same physical size as a “barrel of oil”? That seems like pretty ridiculous statement. Especially since as I pointed out no power plant  burns “oil” and natural gas isn’t stored in “barrels”.   100 MW of gas powered electricity is the same as 100Mw of battery-supplied electricity is what you don’t seem to get.  For peak hours electricity usage The cost of the battery storage is less than the cost of a new “peaker” plant AND the cost of generating the electricity with a battery is lower because it can be generated off peak from existing generation instead of during peak. 
 

So enough of your gibberish and bullshit

[BeaverFever]

56 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, you are such a dishonest clown. So, you lie and run like a coward about underground storage... and instead of dealing with that, you want to go back and relitigate why it was even mentioned in the first place?

OK, this is your argument to make, go dig up the conversation and make your case. Lets see it. 

You want to criticize my comments, go get them, lets see it. 

YOU were the one who brought this up in this discussion anyhow, all because I called out your stupidity on your Iran comments so you could run from that. 

 

We went over it already. Can you even explain why you were babbling about “underground storage” on that thread?You can’t   I posted an article about a new state of the art battery installation and then you dummies went off on a pointless tangent.
 

 I have responded in that thread where this discussion belongs. 

[LinkSoul60]

On 6/7/2026 at 8:37 PM, Army Guy said:

So what has changed in the last 10 years, that would force our nation to start taking our defense and defense commitments seriously...

 

For now, Canada has a long history of being a defense lagard, and some how Carney comes along and poof spending on defense is now cool, cutting other social programs cool, you know what they say, if it is to good to be true it isn't...

Reading your usual biased nonsense and have to comment, and ask;  Comment....Trudeau spent more on our military in both dollars and as a percentage of GDP than Harper did.  Lose the world has ended BS because of the last 10 years will ya.  Comment... You just complained about the lack of military pending and now you're complaining about spending.  You should probably decide on one or the other, unless complaining about both is more fun.  Ask... What social programs have been cut to fund military spending?

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No that’s you and especially User.

You're projecting again kiddo   the problem with you is that every one can read the thread and see that it was you behaving that way. 

So you're fooling no one but yourself. 

3 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

What happened was I posted an article about a new state of the art battery storage site and you replied to it with some nonsense about the money would have been better spent on storing “barrels of gasoline”

No that's not what happened at all. What happened is exactly what I said happened. I said battery storage only allows solar to be a secondary power source, you can't store enough power in batteries to replace on demand generation from non-renewables other than hydro which isn't available in most places

I then provided a ton of information about the costs and capacity for these installations improved that it didn't even remotely come close to what was needed and cost a vast amount of money

I then pointed out correctly that this meant it was going to be radically cheaper and more secure to have oil storage rather than battery storage and you will never replace fossil fuels until you can change that, unless you go nuclear

You then had a meltdown and insisted that battery storage was both cheap and small and perfectly good and way better cost wise than chemical storage. Which is stupid

Right now for for any given amount of electrical capacity it is thousands of times cheaper and easier to store chemical energy versus electrical energy and until that changes chemical energy will need to be a major part of our energy grid

Although I certainly understand you lying about it trying to rewrite what she said given how stupid it turned out to be  

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

We went over it already. Can you even explain why you were babbling about “underground storage” on that thread?You can’t   I posted an article about a new state of the art battery installation and then you dummies went off on a pointless tangent.
 

 I have responded in that thread where this discussion belongs. 

Your article proves conclusively that battery storage is inefficient and expensive and could only provide supplementary energy.

Cry harder little boy  

[User]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

We went over it already. Can you even explain why you were babbling about “underground storage” on that thread?You can’t   I posted an article about a new state of the art battery installation and then you dummies went off on a pointless tangent.
 

 I have responded in that thread where this discussion belongs. 

Why do I need to explain anything? That has nothing to do with your ignorance of underground gas storage, then your being a coward and running away, then your dragging it back up here because you wanted to change the subject from your ignorant comments on Iran... to once again proving you are a dishonest, cowardly POS in lying about it, making up more crap, and now playing this dumb game.