Utopia Temple Forums

Utopia Temple Forums (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/index.php)
-   Respectable General Discussions (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/forumdisplay.php?f=57)
-   -   A green future - yeh right (https://forums.utopiatemple.com/showthread.php?t=78933)

Black Oranje 26-Jul-2012 22:09

A green future - yeh right
 
Rite,

so to start off -everyone- should by now know about the whole climate change CO2 emissions topic. If you don't, I hope your back's okay - I heard caves have really hard floors which are not comfy to sleep on.

Anyway, greenfreaks are trying to get everyone to care about this, and even governments are tryin to set green standards. Basically the idea is that if we don't green up within 50 years or so, OMFGWTFBBQ DIZAZTORRR AWAITS!

Okay, so the challenge is set. But really? Are we going to make it?

I mean there's already a sizable chunk of people dismissing climate change. They either don't think it's happening, or think it's something humans have or had no influence on.
There's giant upcoming economies that couldn't give a rat's ass about climate change.
There's an economic crisis which doesn't really help opening up access to funds for research into greener tech.
Green energy? Sure there are fantastic numbers out there for the potential of solar wind and water, but so far noone seems to be too entousiastic about tapping into that potential. Have you noticed how cold fusion is always about 50 years away? (As is a base on mars)
Whatever happened to Kyoto?


So yeh, I state that besides all good intentions, we won't manage to reach any of our climate goals. There's money to be made sir, screw the climate.

Azure Dragon 26-Jul-2012 23:12

I think its pretty clear to everyone why clean technology isn't as widespread and advanced as it could be.

Once it reaches the point where the cost of oil makes the American military uneconomical, that's when you'll suddenly see cold fusion technology appear.

Gotterdammerung 27-Jul-2012 09:01

The irony is that it would be ultimately better for the environment to burn the fossil fuels as fast as possible now than to prolong its use into the unforeseen future.

Greeney 28-Jul-2012 01:48

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
I was green before green was cool. :nerd

Quote:

Okay, so the challenge is set. But really? Are we going to make it?
Not if the time limit is 50 years.

Black Oranje 28-Jul-2012 11:36

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Greeney (Post 1700616)
I was green before green was cool. :nerd

Hipster :p

Quote:

Not if the time limit is 50 years.
What kind of time span do you think we'll need to turn our society green? Will it ever turn completely 100% green, or will we manage to mostly rely on green sources with some CO2 still produced here and there in some specific applications? (which should still be possible - I mean nature would be able to handle a little bit of emission) How far do you think we'll manage to get in the next 50 years? How hard will the political opposition be?

Greeney 28-Jul-2012 17:32

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Aurora (Post 1700630)
Hipster :p



What kind of time span do you think we'll need to turn our society green? Will it ever turn completely 100% green, or will we manage to mostly rely on green sources with some CO2 still produced here and there in some specific applications? (which should still be possible - I mean nature would be able to handle a little bit of emission) How far do you think we'll manage to get in the next 50 years? How hard will the political opposition be?

No idea, I just can't see us getting co2 emissions down to, say, 10% of what it currently is within 50 years.

Nimon 29-Jul-2012 02:05

It's inevitable. The signs will be clearer and clearer, and the majority come to support a big "green" shift in energy and elsewhere. Of course, the question then becomes how long that will take. Personally, I believe it will happen before we're past the point of no return. I don't even believe there is a point of no return, as such. Not that we shouldn't do it as soon as possible anyway, to avoid a whole lot of uncomfortable changes.

Most western countries are owning up to the reality in any case. The US is lagging behind, and that's obviously a big problem, considering how important the US is in setting the energy trends of the world. But I also think this is something that is going to change. I think a large part of the reason why it is lagging behind so much is the current atmosphere of the Republican Party, which has been occupied by the ridiculous Tea Party gang.

Hopefully another crushing defeat will convince the Republican Party that this flirt with the extreme far-right isn't going to get them anywhere, and they will go back to at least a semblance of moderate conservatism. There are actually quite a few very nearly responsible Conservative politicians.

All is not lost.

Gotterdammerung 29-Jul-2012 04:15

LOL?

Green energy is a scam. It's the equivalent of giving all your friends nerf guns because real guns are evil.

Nimon 29-Jul-2012 09:47

I am struggling to find some part of that post that wasn't complete nonsense. What exactly are you trying to say? In what way is green energy "a scam"? Assuming the goal of green energy is to lower pollution, and particularly greenhouse gas emissions, then as long as it does that and still works then it is by definition not a scam. Unless you're trying to say there's no such thing as global warming, in which case you should just come right out and say it. Even RA3 probably accepts man made climate change by now.

And yes, if the problem you've got is that a lot of people are getting shot, then replacing all their guns with nerf guns would work great. I'm not sure where you thought you were going with that inane comparison.

Greeney 29-Jul-2012 15:11

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimon (Post 1700640)
Even RA3 probably accepts man made climate change by now.

I doubt it. Unless his church finally allowed him to believe it.

Quote:

I'm not sure where you thought you were going with that inane comparison.
I'll sum it up for you: "You mentioned Tea Party so I responded with something of their retarded calibre! Give me more attention!!!"

Gotterdammerung 30-Jul-2012 01:16

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimon (Post 1700640)
I am struggling to find some part of that post that wasn't complete nonsense. What exactly are you trying to say? In what way is green energy "a scam"? Assuming the goal of green energy is to lower pollution, and particularly greenhouse gas emissions, then as long as it does that and still works then it is by definition not a scam. Unless you're trying to say there's no such thing as global warming, in which case you should just come right out and say it. Even RA3 probably accepts man made climate change by now.

And yes, if the problem you've got is that a lot of people are getting shot, then replacing all their guns with nerf guns would work great. I'm not sure where you thought you were going with that inane comparison.

The reason why you don't give your friends nerf guns is because they are ineffective against real guns and they will die.

I thought that that was exceedingly obvious.

Green energy is inferior.

It's a scam because if your competitors convince you to 'downgrade' to green energy then you will be disadvantaged. Also there is the matter of manufacting green products, as they invariable involve materials that are sources from oil, like plastic.

Also, do you even know how solar panels (for example) are made? They barely outweigh the energy of fossil fuels used to manufacture them over their entire service lifetime. Do you know what that means right? It means that it's impossible for the industry to not use fossil fuels in manufacture because all other sources of energy do not produce the miminal critical watts per unit to expand industry. Even if they the 'technology' could be refined and improved, coal and gas are rediculously potent compared to green alternatives.

Economically, green energy totally fails. No one should be stupid enough to go bankrupt over it. You'd have to be brainwashed to shoot yourself in the foot like that and literally hand over billions of dollars to your competitors because they scammed you so bad.

Gotterdammerung 30-Jul-2012 06:07

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
You guys would have seen Penn & Teller, right? - Very entertaining + informative and supports my point :)

[Contains strong language]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSxSI...feature=relmfu

[ZOMG double Post - merge plox?]

Voice of Reason 30-Jul-2012 12:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by Black Aurora
I mean there's already a sizable chunk of people dismissing climate change. They either don't think it's happening, or think it's something humans have or had no influence on.

There is a noisy lunatic fringe, not a sizeable chunk of people. Realistically the debate really is over, as the lunatic fringe require the laws of physics to have changed, so that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas, to explain why the 35 billions tons or so of CO2 being released into the atmosphere every year is *not* doing what greenhouse gasses always do.


Quote:

There's money to be made sir, screw the climate.
You are right, private enterprise won't fix this problem. That is why governments need to regulate.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung
Also, do you even know how solar panels (for example) are made? They barely outweigh the energy of fossil fuels used to manufacture them over their entire service lifetime.

"These four types of solar cells pay back the energy involved in their manufacture in one to three years, according to an earlier analysis by the same team. And even the most energy-intensive to produce—monocrystalline silicate cells with the highest energy conversion efficiency of 14 percent—emit just 55 grams (1.9 ounces) of globe warming pollution per kilowatt-hour—a fraction of the near one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of greenhouse gases emitted by a coal-fired power plant per kilowatt-hour."

Then, of course is the small matter of determining the service life of a solar panel. The standard is 20 years, but practical experience says that 30 years plus is more realistic.


Quote:

It means that it's impossible for the industry to not use fossil fuels in manufacture because all other sources of energy do not produce the miminal critical watts per unit to expand industry.
Nuclear, hydro, geo-thermal, just to mention the most glaringly obvious non-fossil fuel sources.

Nimon 30-Jul-2012 18:50

Someone should really let the Norwegian government know that it's impossible to adequately use any non-fossil fuel. They've been producing the vast majority of their electricity by hydroelectric power plants for years now.

Nimon 30-Jul-2012 18:53

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700648)
You guys would have seen Penn & Teller, right? - Very entertaining + informative and supports my point :)

[Contains strong language]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSxSI...feature=relmfu

[ZOMG double Post - merge plox?]

Penn and Teller doubt the very existence of global warming, and think that second-hand smoking is completely safe. Using them as any kind of source for your argument won't do it any favours.

Gotterdammerung 04-Aug-2012 06:40

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason (Post 1700649)
There is a noisy lunatic fringe, not a sizeable chunk of people. Realistically the debate really is over, as the lunatic fringe require the laws of physics to have changed, so that CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas, to explain why the 35 billions tons or so of CO2 being released into the atmosphere every year is *not* doing what greenhouse gasses always do.

Sure, but what's to care.

Quote:

"These four types of solar cells pay back the energy involved in their manufacture in one to three years, according to an earlier analysis by the same team. And even the most energy-intensive to produce—monocrystalline silicate cells with the highest energy conversion efficiency of 14 percent—emit just 55 grams (1.9 ounces) of globe warming pollution per kilowatt-hour—a fraction of the near one kilogram (2.2 pounds) of greenhouse gases emitted by a coal-fired power plant per kilowatt-hour."

Then, of course is the small matter of determining the service life of a solar panel. The standard is 20 years, but practical experience says that 30 years plus is more realistic.
You don't get it do you. You need fossil fuels to make solar panels. You can't use solar panels to make solar panels. Then you have to store the energy in (what's that?) batteries.

Fossil fuels are the primary source of manufactoring, until you replace this, they will be supreme.

Quote:

Nuclear, hydro, geo-thermal, just to mention the most glaringly obvious non-fossil fuel sources.
Same problem as above. These are all secondary sources, except nuclear, nuclear is boss.

But then people squeal about radiation. Can't win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimon (Post 1700652)
Someone should really let the Norwegian government know that it's impossible to adequately use any non-fossil fuel. They've been producing the vast majority of their electricity by hydroelectric power plants for years now.

So the exception proves me wrong?

Logical error there, Nimmy.

Are you going to drive to work in your hydro powered car?

Black Oranje 04-Aug-2012 11:58

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung (Post 1700688)
You don't get it do you. You need fossil fuels to make solar panels. You can't use solar panels to make solar panels. Then you have to store the energy in (what's that?) batteries.

How do you need fossil fuels? Perhaps the manufacturing process requires some oil based products as material, but that's not using them as fuel. All fuel does is provide a source of energy. If it's energy you need, the source doesn't matter.If I'm trying to run a factory, it doesn't matter where the power comes from - as long as there's electricity coming out of the plug.

Quote:

Fossil fuels are the primary source of manufactoring, until you replace this, they will be supreme.
Show me how fossil fuels are a primary source.

Quote:

Same problem as above. These are all secondary sources, except nuclear, nuclear is boss.
Secondary you say?

Quote:

Of the total production in 2007 of 137 TWh, 135 TWh was from hydroelectric plants, 1 536 GWh was from thermal power, and 892 GWh was wind generated.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway
Quote:

Are you going to drive to work in your hydro powered car?
No, but he might take the train, which use electricity (at least around here they do), which can be generated in an environmentally friendly way. Give it another 15 years, and he might be heading to work in an electric car.

Gotterdammerung 05-Aug-2012 05:29

You're all ignoring the elephant in the room.

Fossil fuels are more efficient (besides nuclear) than other alternatives.

No matter what you do you cannot change chemistry.

DHoffryn 05-Aug-2012 10:54

[quote]Okay, so the challenge is set. But really? Are we going to make it?
[/quote
Depends on who this we is that you are talking about. If you mean Europe, North America and high level countries then yes. We would take an economic hit and a slight dip in standard of living but we would quite ok. Now poor people like in Africa, India, rural China and so on? They would be fucked

Quote:

There's an economic crisis which doesn't really help opening up access to funds for research into greener tech.
Green energy? Sure there are fantastic numbers out there for the potential of solar wind and water, but so far noone seems to be too entousiastic about tapping into that potential. Have you noticed how cold fusion is always about 50 years away? (As is a base on mars)
Actually there is a huge amount of research into things like this. The thing is it's simply not profitable to unveil it yet. It works like this. Big oil,energy and so on corporations invest heavily into promising researchers and research projects in exchange for contracts that make a deal with the devil seem liberal. Then they have this research and ones their main line of revenue starts dying they are ready to pull the trigger on the green wave

Same thing is with medicine. Do you have any idea just how profitable it is to sell treatments against cancer or AIDS? Beats a cure any day.

It's capitalism pure and simple

Quote:

No matter what you do you cannot change chemistry.
Sure you can.

Gotterdammerung 10-Aug-2012 04:42

Re: A green future - yeh right
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DHoffryn (Post 1700701)
Sure you can.

Uranium has the most joules per gram, then coal, then down the line a bit comes silicon solar panels.

It's fucking chemistry, mate.

The only advantage of solar/wind/thermal/tidal/hydro is that it is reusable and self-sustainable. But so what? The economic test is efficiency. You can just keep shovelling cheap coal and make so much more power for so much cheaper.

And then when the seas rise you move the plant up the hill and still the whole process is more efficient.


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 16:38.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2005, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.