Page 1 of 2 [ 20 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,760
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper Pets: Cats and Ducks

30 Mar 2021, 1:05 pm

We have already seen the figures where electric and hybrid cars create more polution to make them then the entire polution that is created by building and running a conventional car for a typical period of at least 40 years of regular use, if not more.

But what about wind farms and solar power farms? Are they actually "Green" and if not, then why are we still producing them?



Isn't it about time we have governments which look after the people and not after the giant multinational companies profits?

Why does everything have to be about money?


_________________
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39.
Shutdown link: --》 Music I love: --》
Shutdown Experience similar to mine: --》


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 75,923
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Mar 2021, 1:08 pm

Electric cars, hydroelectric technology, and wind power certainly don't produce emissions which cause pollution.

Guys.....we're running out of oil, anyway-----why not change to "green" technology?



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,932
Location: Stendec

30 Mar 2021, 1:11 pm

The "Non-Green" aspect is being deferred in a way that is similar to "Passing the Buck" or "Kicking the Can Down the Street", in that the pollution has been moved from the consumption stage back to the production stage.

The production of batteries for electric vehicles produces its own pollution, and the production of electricity to run those vehicles pollutes the environment as well.

A totally "Green" society is only a dream.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 75,923
Location: Queens, NYC

30 Mar 2021, 1:36 pm

That's true-----but the pollution produced in the "production" stage would not be as pervasive and spreading as pollution, say, which is emitted out of millions of cars going to millions of places.



Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,847
Location: England

30 Mar 2021, 2:06 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Guys.....we're running out of oil, anyway-----why not change to "green" technology?


"Green" locks you into dependence on fossil fuels for one. It's go nuclear or don't bother.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,932
Location: Stendec

30 Mar 2021, 2:38 pm

Mikah wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Guys.....we're running out of oil, anyway-----why not change to "green" technology?
"Green" locks you into dependence on fossil fuels for one.  It's go nuclear or don't bother.
No, "Green" energy, by definition, is a turning away from dependence on fossil fuels and a turning toward energy sources like hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind.

Of course, to set those up, a "burst" of burning of fossil fuels may be necessary; but once those green systems come fully online, we can dispense with fossil fuels altogether.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


Mountain Goat
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 May 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,760
Location: Wales,UK Relationship: Single Interests: Trains AgeGroup: 40's FavouriteColor: Green Music: CyndiLauper Pets: Cats and Ducks

30 Mar 2021, 3:00 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
Electric cars, hydroelectric technology, and wind power certainly don't produce emissions which cause pollution.

Guys.....we're running out of oil, anyway-----why not change to "green" technology?


https://www.investors.com/politics/comm ... ces-crude/


_________________
Awaiting asessment. Neurodiverse 173/200. Neurotypical 21/200. Empathy 11/80. AQ 39.
Shutdown link: --》 Music I love: --》
Shutdown Experience similar to mine: --》


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,847
Location: England

30 Mar 2021, 4:03 pm

Fnord wrote:
Mikah wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Guys.....we're running out of oil, anyway-----why not change to "green" technology?
"Green" locks you into dependence on fossil fuels for one.  It's go nuclear or don't bother.
No, "Green" energy, by definition, is a turning away from dependence on fossil fuels and a turning toward energy sources like hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind.

Of course, to set those up, a "burst" of burning of fossil fuels may be necessary; but once those green systems come fully online, we can dispense with fossil fuels altogether.


I seem to have this argument once a month now. I used quotation marks around "Green" to convey irony. Hydro and Nuclear are indeed about as green as you can get, though hydro is obviously limited by geography. There's an outlay of often dirty, polluting work and production in their construction (though considerably less than is necessary for solar and wind), but once they are running there's very little pollution.

Solar and Wind though are very much "Green" in the ironic sense. Until yet-unrealised mythical battery technology comes along and practical plans to source and build vast hypothetical battery farms appear, you need fossil fuel backup generators (usually gas or diesel) to have solar panels and wind turbines be at all useful for a modern electrical grid. That's why natural gas companies are so eager to promote solar and wind, because those cynical as*holes know. Nuclear of course, they spend untold millions propagandising against, because it would put them out of business.

Image

Edit: Fnord, I think you once said you come from an engineering background, you probably know what AM/FM refers to. Grand nationwide grids of glinting solar panels, whirring turbines and miles-long vaults of batteries very much lie on the FM side of the spectrum. The AM solution is boring but reliable nuclear plants dotting the landscape.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Fenn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Pennsylvania

30 Mar 2021, 7:38 pm

Think carefully about it - the sun is shining all the time - and most of the time energy from it goes someplace that is not Earth.
Space based solar is the only sustainable energy solution - Blue Origin is working on it - so are the Chinese.
"Green" technology is a strange term - Plants love carbon-dioxide.
Sustainable energy is what we need. Earth based solar isn't it. Petroleum isn't it. Natural Gas isn't it. Nuclear isn't it. Biodiesel isn't it. Hydro isn't it.
The only Sustainable energy in sight is Space Based Solar - and we had better realize that.
We will have to when the petroleum and natural gas get harder and harder to get - and the price goes up and up - all of a sudden the space based solar will look cheaper and cheaper.
Once we start using it we will need to be more careful about global warming - space based settlements will make more sense too.
Cabon negative technology is possible. We need more of it.
Read up on a fellow name Gerard K. O'Neill - he used to be Jeff Bezos' physics professor. He also invented the cyclotron.

Meanwhile on earth - hydro and mirror based solar (not photovoltaic based solar) are the best bet - but they really cannot replace all the hydrocarbon fuel the planet uses each year.


_________________
ADHD-I(diagnosed) ASD-HF(undiagnosed - maybe)
RDOS scores - Aspie score 131/200 - neurotypical score 69/200 - very likely Aspie


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,847
Location: England

31 Mar 2021, 4:53 am

Fenn wrote:
The only Sustainable energy in sight is Space Based Solar - and we had better realize that.


That's even crazier. Solar energy is still diffuse, even in space, so you still have the same problem of building unfathomable quantities of panels/magical energy collectors to provide any useful amount of power. But on top of that, now you have to get it into space. We can just about manage to get lightweight toys into orbit while suffering the occasional rocket explosion. So, all we have to do is figure out how to cheaply and safely get millions of tons of equipment into space or even better, master the finer points of mega-construction in orbit and the problem is solved guys

We are so far away from being able to do this it isn't even funny.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


QuantumChemist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,348
Location: Midwest

31 Mar 2021, 8:12 am

The real answer to the energy question is one we cannot do yet: annihilation reactor. To be able to do this process we need to unlock the ability to “create” anti-matter from electromagnetic energy using a process that does not involve pair production. This will cost large amounts of energy to do. It would likely involve creating certain isotopes and capturing the decay products in a vacuum using a strong magnetic field. (Positrons would be a likely target particle for this conversion.)

Once that has been done, controlled annihilation events can be used in tandem with solar cells to produce almost limitless amounts of usable electric energy. Think of it as a nearly 100% efficient nuclear reactor process, with losses on the solar cell side only.

Will it get done in our lifetimes? I would not hold your breath for it.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 48,932
Location: Stendec

31 Mar 2021, 8:26 am

Mikah wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Mikah wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
Guys.....we're running out of oil, anyway-----why not change to "green" technology?
"Green" locks you into dependence on fossil fuels for one.  It's go nuclear or don't bother.
No, "Green" energy, by definition, is a turning away from dependence on fossil fuels and a turning toward energy sources like hydro, nuclear, solar, and wind.  Of course, to set those up, a "burst" of burning of fossil fuels may be necessary; but once those green systems come fully online, we can dispense with fossil fuels altogether.
I seem to have this argument once a month now....
We agree that getting away from fossil fuels is important -- "why" is where most arguments begin, and "how" is where most arguments get completely bogged down.

If the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, then let's leave fossil fuels in the ground where they belong.

If the goal is to eliminate all forms of environmental pollution, then there is no truly "green" energy source.

I think that unless an efficient and safe "Zero-Point-Energy" module is developed, humanity will always have to deal with some form of environmental pollution to produce energy.  Even with a ZPM, however, there is thermal pollution -- a heat rise in the local environment.

Of course, a ZPM is a purely speculative device.


_________________
 Link to Official List of Trump's Atrocities 

45OFFICE = TRE45ON
Lock Him Up!


Fenn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Pennsylvania

01 Apr 2021, 8:33 pm

Please read O'Neill.
You don't get equipment into space from Earth - you take it from someplace where the gravity isn't so deep.
From where? The moon and the asteroid belt. Now read some quotes from Jeff Bezos on why he wants to go to the Moon - the answer will be "resources".
Sunlight isn't more defuse in space if you simply go to other places in Earth orbit and you don't have to worry about atmosphere - so it is actually more dense.
And closer to the sun it is more dense yet.
And the equipment isn't all that complicated: set up a bunch of mirrors - aim them all at one spot, use the concentrated energy to create steam and run a turbine. Do some research - this exactly how the biggest earth based solar plants work.
Only small plants use inefficient photovoltaic.
Sit down with a piece of paper - draw the sun as a circle in the center of it. Draw the earth as a smaller circle next to it. Draw a circle around the sun to represent Earth orbit. Now look how much of that circle is receiving energy from the sun that is Earth and how much is receiving energy from the sun that is not Earth. Answer most of the energy is someplace there is no Earth.
Further - if we set up settlements closer to the energy gathering places we don't have to "get that energy back" either.
What makes it hard to get stuff to space is Earth's gravity - if you get resources from some place else you avoid that problem.


_________________
ADHD-I(diagnosed) ASD-HF(undiagnosed - maybe)
RDOS scores - Aspie score 131/200 - neurotypical score 69/200 - very likely Aspie


Fenn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Pennsylvania

01 Apr 2021, 8:48 pm

Note - if by nuclear you mean uranium - you have just moved to another fossil fuel.
If you mean fusion - the only development there is the multi country project which is mired in red tape.
If it succeeded you will have a mini sun.
But we already have a sun. And it already works.

I found the "Spokesperson for BP says we will never run out of petroleum" article interesting. I also noticed that it just might be from a biased source. It wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal and one of the sources it cited led to a PDF which didn't support the claim.

Graph - what percent earth's energy usage comes from what type of source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy
Summary - "switching" from Oil, Coal and Natural Gas to anything else is HARD.


_________________
ADHD-I(diagnosed) ASD-HF(undiagnosed - maybe)
RDOS scores - Aspie score 131/200 - neurotypical score 69/200 - very likely Aspie


Mikah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Oct 2015
Age: 33
Posts: 1,847
Location: England

02 Apr 2021, 2:02 am

You didn't read my post very carefully, Fenn.

Fenn wrote:
You don't get equipment into space from Earth - you take it from someplace where the gravity isn't so deep.
From where? The moon and the asteroid belt. Now read some quotes from Jeff Bezos on why he wants to go to the Moon - the answer will be "resources".


I pre-empted that:
or even better, master the finer points of mega-construction in orbit

Fenn wrote:
Sunlight isn't more defuse in space if you simply go to other places in Earth orbit and you don't have to worry about atmosphere - so it is actually more dense.


I said: Solar energy is still diffuse, acknowledging that it is less so than on the ground.

Fenn wrote:
And the equipment isn't all that complicated: set up a bunch of mirrors - aim them all at one spot, use the concentrated energy to create steam and run a turbine. Do some research - this exactly how the biggest earth based solar plants work.
Only small plants use inefficient photovoltaic.


You still need huge amounts of equipment, which is the problem with a diffuse energy source.

Fenn wrote:
Sit down with a piece of paper - draw the sun as a circle in the center of it. Draw the earth as a smaller circle next to it. Draw a circle around the sun to represent Earth orbit. Now look how much of that circle is receiving energy from the sun that is Earth and how much is receiving energy from the sun that is not Earth. Answer most of the energy is someplace there is no Earth.


Yeah. Diffuse.

Fenn wrote:
Further - if we set up settlements closer to the energy gathering places we don't have to "get that energy back" either.
What makes it hard to get stuff to space is Earth's gravity - if you get resources from some place else you avoid that problem.


All we need to do is set up space colonies now, phew, problem solved guys, I thought this was going to be tricky.

If you believe we will manage even a fraction of this within 5 generations, I have a bridge Hyperloop to sell you.

Fenn wrote:
Note - if by nuclear you mean uranium - you have just moved to another fossil fuel


It's still the best option. It's a mature technology and it will buy us time. Pursuing solar/wind/ techno space fantasy power systems will leave us with a third world standard energy grid and solve none of the problems it was supposed to solve.


_________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man -
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began: -
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;

And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!


Fenn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Sep 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Pennsylvania

02 Apr 2021, 10:56 am

Mikah
You like to be argumentative.

If you want me to take your posts seriously you will have to read what I say, not just keep repeating what you want to believe and accusing me of not reading what you say. I notice you never provide and reliable sources for any of the ideas you like to impolitely argue with people about, nor do you bother to research. Science isn't politics - you need real numbers and real science. Politicians might "make things true" by out bullying the other fellow but science doesn't work that way - you cannot bully the laws of the universe. If you want to keep up bullying posts about science I will just stop replying to them. You cannot bully the earth into producing more fossil fuels. Once they run out the powerful oil companies will either switch to sustainable or just loose all their power - including the power to push misinformation.

Uranium might buy us time but not much - "go nuclear or go home" makes sound like a viable solution to replace all the oil and gas an coal we use.
It isn't.
It is a stop-gap at best.
Where do you plan on getting that much uranium? Check the graphs again.
Make more?
Only a supernova can make more.
Just because you don't like the idea of developing new technology for "building mega structures in space" doesn't mean that it cannot be done.
The richest man in the world is already committed to doing it. I don't really think you "pre-empted" anything.
You just don't like the idea. You liking uranium isn't going to change his plans.
"Building mega structures in space" is more practical than making more uranium.
It is incrementally doable building on existing technology.
Assuming that technology development will stand still is not very realistic - it simply ignores history.
Stop-gap solutions are not sustainable.
Burning uranium is not sustainable. Dealing with nuclear waste is not sustainable.
Yes holding your hand over a nuclear reactor is hotter than holding it out on a sunny day.
Try holding your hand in front of the focal point of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_S ... r_Facility
And unlike uranium the sun will be there as long as humans are living on Earth - or in this Solar system.
That is sustainable.

Anyway - it is all just handwaving - the devil is in the details. Unless we plan on personally building any of this stuff it really doesn't matter what anyone on this list has to say, me included.

Here are some details about where Uranium comes from - not sustainable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Origin

Here are some about nuclear fusion reactors - planned and existing (all existing take in more energy than they put out).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak#C ... _operation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak#Planned
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARC_fusion_reactor

Here is a paper comparing earth based solar to space based solar
https://www.ijser.org/researchpaper/Eff ... ration.pdf

And additional articles comparing efficiency or various solar technologies - and the largest existing earth based power stations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovolt ... ficiencies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parabolic ... Efficiency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_the ... sh_designs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentra ... Efficiency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentra ... PV_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ch_country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... r_stations

Notice the largest in the world is hydro - a 22 TW capacity and the hydro plant gets its energy from the water cycle and the water cycle gets its energy from the sun. If diffuse solar energy can do that it only makes sense it can do more. The limit of PV solar on the earth is competing for ground space with farming, housing, and animal habitat. None of them are a problem in space.


_________________
ADHD-I(diagnosed) ASD-HF(undiagnosed - maybe)
RDOS scores - Aspie score 131/200 - neurotypical score 69/200 - very likely Aspie


Last edited by Fenn on 02 Apr 2021, 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.