Führer Trump - Page 6
Register

User Tag List

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 251 to 253 of 253

Thread: Führer Trump

  1. #251

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    That was something my professor covered in my college course "Green building." A big part of his focus was helping students to understand that the majority of 'green' solutions pushed are not actually very green at all and to identify which solutions actually had a positive impact on the environment.
    I am not sure where he got that figure but he hammered pretty hard on 'basic' solar energy and recycled metal studs. He did mention some new tower design that used mirrors to basically focus solar energy into a laser as being promising specifically because it cut out solar panels. I just spent some time poking around looking for the thing he covered but I couldn't find it.
    He was also excited about wind energy that was attached to blimps which could change their altitude to catch the wind and tidal energy. Although because tidal energy used hydraulics it has a positive carbon footprint but a very very negative economic one. Anything hydraulic is very costly..
    I get you, and I agree that green energy isn't a bandaid fix for overconsumption which is the vast majority of the issue leading to global warming. I remember reading an analysis somewhere that even if we go to full 100% green energy and everyone drives electric cars and shit we're still fucked because the amount of food and commodity production we need for our population is high enough alone to fuck us over.

    But I still don't buy your statement that solar energy is more CO2 releasing than fossil fuels. I can't find a single source that backs that statement up. I do agree with the tidal energy though, from what I've seen it isn't feasible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oberon View Post
    depends what you mean by less polluting methods. i do agree that the more efficient energy collection mechanisms played a (large) role in it, but probably not in the way you're saying.
    coal itself has gotten much, much cleaner in the last ~50 years or so, to give you an example.
    the transition to natural gas also helped considerably because natural gas does not pollute as much coal (even clean coal is 'dirtier' than natural gas)
    theres also the idea that energy usage has become more efficient simply because technologies become more efficient as time passes by. you wont generate as much sulphur in a chemical plant today as you would've in 1960.
    I mean you can actually read the article I linked and find out what I mean by less polluting methods. I'm not gonna summarize it for you, because you can read it and I think you glossed over some of the points yourself.

    I'm wondering what your conclusion from pointing this out is meant to be.

  2. #252

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I get you, and I agree that green energy isn't a bandaid fix for overconsumption which is the vast majority of the issue leading to global warming. I remember reading an analysis somewhere that even if we go to full 100% green energy and everyone drives electric cars and shit we're still fucked because the amount of food and commodity production we need for our population is high enough alone to fuck us over.

    But I still don't buy your statement that solar energy is more CO2 releasing than fossil fuels. I can't find a single source that backs that statement up. I do agree with the tidal energy though, from what I've seen it isn't feasible.
    The way he explained it was something like this:

    Its not the energy production thats creating a carbon footprint. Its creating the capitol goods that produce and store the energy. Think about how much CO2 was produced to run heavy equipment to mine the raw materials, then to transport them and modify them into usable goods. Then how much more to produce the solar panels and battery's.

    The reason they are not viable is their life-span. Even if you ignore factors of weather that can damage the panels they will last 30 years at the high end with depreciating energy gathering as that time goes on (even with maintenance.) Batteries are a much larger issue with a whole home battery system lasting 15 years on the high end. So 'if' you are in a perfect environment and buy on the high end of the market 'and' your the odd homeowner who actually preforms home maintenance you will go through 2 sets of batteries and a full set of solar panels every 30 years. Then all that goes to waste and you buy an entire new system.

    So his argument was ^All that < The clean versions of fossil fuel energy generation.

    If I come in touch with him again I will ask him where he got that info because I am now curious as to exactly how that was calculated within the scope I mentioned.
    What does not kill you makes you feel stupid when you wish it would have
    It only makes you stronger if you choose to not be a victim

  3. #253

    Re: Führer Trump

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    The way he explained it was something like this:

    Its not the energy production thats creating a carbon footprint. Its creating the capitol goods that produce and store the energy. Think about how much CO2 was produced to run heavy equipment to mine the raw materials, then to transport them and modify them into usable goods. Then how much more to produce the solar panels and battery's.

    The reason they are not viable is their life-span. Even if you ignore factors of weather that can damage the panels they will last 30 years at the high end with depreciating energy gathering as that time goes on (even with maintenance.) Batteries are a much larger issue with a whole home battery system lasting 15 years on the high end. So 'if' you are in a perfect environment and buy on the high end of the market 'and' your the odd homeowner who actually preforms home maintenance you will go through 2 sets of batteries and a full set of solar panels every 30 years. Then all that goes to waste and you buy an entire new system.

    So his argument was ^All that < The clean versions of fossil fuel energy generation.

    If I come in touch with him again I will ask him where he got that info because I am now curious as to exactly how that was calculated within the scope I mentioned.
    All of that makes sense but we'd need some data to say if it's actually as bad or worse than comparable fossil fuel generation. Recycling has similar problems (the factories let off a ton of nasty chemicals and a lot of the materials just get dumped into the trash anyway due to impurities. Wouldn't it be better to have people stop using disposable plastic bottles rather than make them feel like it's okay because they can just throw it in a recycling bin?), but studies have still shown that the net effect is much less than if we did not recycle.

    Plus, while home-use solar equipment just gets trashed now, if the business gets large enough then we can expect that the materials begin to be recycled and regulated, especially with the large solar farm companies that are starting to pop up all over.
    Have you ever heard the tragedy of Darth Jar Jar the wise?

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •