Madoc
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 949
Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean it's wrong.Yes. Because population control works SO well in China.
And it's just SO humane! Ask all the girl children!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean it's wrong.Yes. Because population control works SO well in China.
And it's just SO humane! Ask all the girl children!
I have little faith in humanity, so I don't expect this matter to be fixed (not by us, anyway). And even though most 1st world nations have leveled out or even reduced their populations, as you said the 3rd world folks have not. They're now overrunning the developed nations, whose economies and various infrastructures are groaning under the weight.
I'm sure it is *possible* for tech and other advancements to give us time to figure things out and establish some sort of equilibrium that'll carry us into the future (where space travel becomes practicable), but I'm pretty dubious that we'll end up actually obtaining that sort of solution.
One thing to consider which is obvious, the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine but once you insert rods to start a reaction nuclear produces power 24/7.
Your figures are really old. Per kw cost, wind and solar are half the price of natural gas and still falling. Even with batteries they're cheaper
Solar and wind are just too cheap to consider alternatives and that's why they're winning now
"University of California, Irvine; the California Institute of Technology; and the Carnegie Institution for Science (Washington DC)". I think I'd like to see reports from more neutral parties before even starting to debate this topic.
You are spot on about the efficiency of buildings playing a HUGE factor in energy consumption.
My previous house was an 1850sqft split level built in the early 80s.
My current house is 2800sqft two story with 2x6 exterior construction and a hell of a lot of insulation (even has an unfinished basement).
The electric bill for this newer and much bigger house was roughly the same for about the first year, but has gotten slightly cheaper (just simple things like changing burned out CFL bulbs to LED as time passes).
...and that is setting the thermostat for ultimate comfort: 71-72 during the day and 65-66 at night, with the blower always operating in circulation mode. Something we could never have done at the old house or our electric bill would have been 50-60% higher.
That isn't communist...it's common sense.
Okay, not trying to rag on you or anything. And this isn't REALLY directed at you.
But FUCK do I wish people would stop using the term "common sense".
Because, for it to be common, everyone involved needs to have agreed to a certain body of facts and information.
This is pretty much a no-go from the outset.
Second, "sense" is used in lieu of "It agrees with my preconceived biases.
The term is also fairly aggro. As it implies that if you disagree, even in a nuanced and very specific manner, you're not being "sensible" (i.e. irrational).
Okay
</RANT>
Your figures are really old. Per kw cost, wind and solar are half the price of natural gas and still falling. Even with batteries they're cheaper
Solar and wind are just too cheap to consider alternatives and that's why they're winning now
Thank you for articulating that. This is exactly how I feel.Okay, not trying to rag on you or anything. And this isn't REALLY directed at you.
But FUCK do I wish people would stop using the term "common sense".
Because, for it to be common, everyone involved needs to have agreed to a certain body of facts and information.
This is pretty much a no-go from the outset.
Second, "sense" is used in lieu of "It agrees with my preconceived biases.
The term is also fairly aggro. As it implies that if you disagree, even in a nuanced and very specific manner, you're not being "sensible" (i.e. irrational).
Okay
</RANT>
It can be done. We have the technology.
Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
1: That PowerWall2 setup basically means that home has 4 (COUNT 'EM, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR) giant batteries in their system. All of which can be used for power.
2: Also betting that system is still grid-tied. And, depending on the local regulations, a grid tied system gives you NO POWER when you lose the grid. This is a safety measure to insure that a utility worker isn't accidentally killed when working on the grid and doesn't know there might be power flowing on the residential side of the connection.
3: Again, at carrier-grade, face it, there simply is NOT enough battery capacity available. As noted earlier, to back up all renewables (not the entire power grid) in the US (and remember that renewables are a small percentage overall), you're talking about consuming the entire planet's battery construction supply FOR A WHOLE YEAR.
And then having to do it again every 10-20 years.
Again, residential solar with battery backup is less about "green" and more about fixing your energy costs.
Sorry if I'm a buzzkill about it.
If you want to see how much further you could push your savings, do a leak test on the house. If you're really tight, GREAT!
If you've got leaks, a bit of caulk, construction adhesive and spray foam can do wonders (around windows, use the "minimally expanding" stuff, and the "big crack filler" stuff for pretty much everything that's not a window/door.
The whole point of this discussion is a study addressing precisely that point. They think we can reliably provide up to 80% of our energy needs with renewable sources.
Already done...3rd party on behalf of the EPA came out months after our house was built as a "spot check" to audit the claims of the builder, and our house was one of the highest levels they had tested.
A couple points of contention:
That said, I agree that batteries need to get much better. But the best way to make that happen is investment. In this case, the market alone isn't sufficient, because it does not include the true environmental costs of fossil fuels in the price of electricity.
- Such a system would probably be grid-tied for legal reasons (which is kinda crazy).
- Wouldn't it be trivial to ensure that losing the grid didn't require de-energizing the local system? That sounds more like an excuse than a real reason.
Okay, a little more reading and it appears that with battery backup and special inverters, you CAN continue using power during a grid dropout.
Most of the systems I'd seen prior to this were essentially a THIRD bank of batteries (much smaller, think "GIANT UPS*) with some intelligent equipment to handle the cut-over. Last I'd checked on that, it's NOT a DIY thing and not cheap.
I consider myself corrected.
Thank you.
Hats off to you, good sir. Not many people on the Internet are willing to admit any amount of fallibility (though of course we're all fallible).
...and for the record, I didn't know that, either. I merely suspected it was the case. Thank you for confirming.
So could farts, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.the California Institute of Technology; and the Carnegie Institution for Science, solar and wind power could reliably meet 80% of the elecricity demand in the US
Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Sure, if we cover the rest of the unoccupied land with solar and wind farms. That will be great for the environment .
I don't know about you, but this looks pretty dystopian to me.
View attachment 55993
On re-reading, I will disagree about one thing.
Investment "speeding up" development.
There are times when simply throwing money at something will not get you results.
Battery capacitance mediums are one of those.
I mean, yes, there's lots of things you can do to raise the efficiency of a battery in the lab (carbon nanotubes, various coatings on the anode, etc). But most of those fall into the purview of "Expensive As Fuck And Impractical".
Some of these dedicated batteries for battery banks are $1-2000 a pop. Increasing the price by a factor of 15, even if the result is 25% better, REALLY doesn't help.
Why is it that all the people so adamant about population control refuse to take that first step themselves?
Not that it really matters from the point-of-view of argument validity, but: You know this...how? Perhaps that posted has chosen to not have children? Or are you suggesting time travel to prevent oneself form being born?
I already don't have any kids. Or are you suggesting that I murder myself? Personally, I'm not a fan of murdering anyone.Why is it that all the people so adamant about population control refuse to take that first step themselves?
Umm, there is a more immediate "corrective" action one could take if one truly believes that extra people are the problem. Of course, like all socialist dreams, perhaps they believe it is the OTHER people who are the problem.
Just because you don't like the answer, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
Your figures are really old. Per kw cost, wind and solar are half the price of natural gas and still falling. Even with batteries they're cheaper
Solar and wind are just too cheap to consider alternatives and that's why they're winning now
What? Why does wind power need huge subsidies if it's cheaper? Tax payers pay 5 dollars subsidies for every 1 dollar that wind power earns from the electricity trade market. Actually the wind farmers earn the most money when there's no wind.
No it's not. It's about maximizing the short term profitability of current resources. It's only "best" for whoever gets paid in the here and now. The future impacts aren't necessarily calculated and the environmental impact is usually left out of the picture entirely. If I have 100 acres of forest with an active ecosystem in it, that doesn't make me any money. If I cut all that down, I can not only sell all the lumber, I can then use it as grazeland for cattle or get paid by a company who wants to mine it for mineral use. Nevermind if that forest may have been having a positive effect on the air quality, or contain plants used for medicinal purposes, game for people to hunt, all kinds of subtle benefits. I cut that shit down and got paid and now my standard of living is better, even though that marginalizes the ecosystem slightly for future descendants. Repeat that millions of time and it starts threatening global sustainability. Some capitalists operate sustainably, a whole hell of a lot don't. The ones that don't have a bigger long term impact than the ones that do.As I said before, a complete lack of faith in capitalism.
Capitalism is NOT borrowing from the future, it's about making the best use of current resources.
Why bring up socialism? Socialism can be just as bad. The point is where the priorities of a system lie. Capitalism at its core is monetize everything to the point of exhaustion. Socialism at is core is to let the government make decisions for the good of the people and keep its fingers crossed it doesn't get corrupted, which seems to happen in everything these days.Socialism is about a small number of people making those decisions for us.
And where did I say otherwise? I'm saying out of all the things to criticize wind and solar on the "sightliness" is a joke compared to something like coal.What you're apparently missing is that you simply cannot build the necessary capacity in to run wind as a baseline power replacement.
And, even if you could build enough turbines to cover peak demand in this country, you're never going to see that kind of capacity out of them, as Wind is (and always will be) an intermittent source.
And before you start talking about battery backup. Remember that we simply cannot BUILD that kind of battery capacity without taking over world battery production every 10-20 years.
No it's not. It's about maximizing the short term profitability of current resources. It's only "best" for whoever gets paid in the here and now. The future impacts aren't necessarily calculated and the environmental impact is usually left out of the picture entirely. If I have 100 acres of forest with an active ecosystem in it, that doesn't make me any money. If I cut all that down, I can not only sell all the lumber, I can then use it as grazeland for cattle or get paid by a company who wants to mine it for mineral use. Nevermind if that forest may have been having a positive effect on the air quality, or contain plants used for medicinal purposes, game for people to hunt, all kinds of subtle benefits. I cut that shit down and got paid and now my standard of living is better, even though that marginalizes the ecosystem slightly for future descendants. Repeat that millions of time and it starts threatening global sustainability. Some capitalists operate sustainably, a whole hell of a lot don't. The ones that don't have a bigger long term impact than the ones that do.
Why bring up socialism? Socialism can be just as bad. The point is where the priorities of a system lie. Capitalism at its core is monetize everything to the point of exhaustion. Socialism at is core is to let the government make decisions for the good of the people and keep its fingers crossed it doesn't get corrupted, which seems to happen in everything these days.
And where did I say otherwise? I'm saying out of all the things to criticize wind and solar on the "sightliness" is a joke compared to something like coal.
Well you're certainly making the case that this is a FAITH based system. Everything you're saying can have the word "sometimes" tacked onto it. Companies polluting are only punished in the marketplace so long as they're caught AND their customers are concerned about the results. If you buy a spatula that was made from steel in China which polluted the air all to hell with smelting it in and contributed to millions of their deaths, is that something you would even think about? Probably not, you'd be too many times disconnected from the origin and you're not even presented with the information to begin with. It might not even be assembled in China, and have a "made in USA" stamp instead using imported steel. Companies pollute all the time in a way that is very profitable to them, it all depends on how stringent the laws are and if they're even detected. Right now DuPont is under investigation for releasing cancer-causing chemicals into the Ohio river for over 50 years. That's almost a lifetime of pollution that they've profited from. They're hardly the outlier.Companies that only consider short term profitability, usually fail in the end. Now days forests (owned by companies) are harvested and replanted, just like any other crop.
Any company engaging in dumping pollutants will be punished by the market place.
You're pretty much proving my point that it's not taking into account environmental considerations or the needs of future descendants. Some systems try to factor in how their decisions will affect the next seven generations. Capitalism is not one of them.nutzo said:If someone owns the land and it's zoned for grazing then it's their right to cut down trees. Why should they have to leave their property undeveloped so other people can use it?
Are you honestly arguing that it's better to clearcut all forest just in case they may contain a toxic plant that could be used as a weapon? That logic is beyond what I thought anyone would bring to the table, got me there.nutzo said:As for the eco system, it's just as possible that instead of some magical medicinal plant, researchers could find some toxic plant to turn into a chemical weapon.
1. That requires people with money. 2. Even if I did, that will work just fine until I'm dead, then it goes back to being unprotected. Even the state is no guarantee, we're currently opening up previously protected land to be sold off.nutzo said:If you want land to remain a forest, then buy it. Consider it an investment in your active ecosystem.
In other words, it's a non-solution, since it requires people with money to make a significant impact, and the people with the most money often benefit from resource exploitation which leads to them being threatened in the first place. It's a perfect circle.nutzo said:That's a much better solution that have the state forcibly take the property from the owner.
Why bring up socialism? Socialism can be just as bad. The point is where the priorities of a system lie. Capitalism at its core is monetize everything to the point of exhaustion. Socialism at is core is to let the government make decisions for the good of the people and keep its fingers crossed it doesn't get corrupted, which seems to happen in everything these days.
What? Why does wind power need huge subsidies if it's cheaper? Tax payers pay 5 dollars subsidies for every 1 dollar that wind power earns from the electricity trade market. Actually the wind farmers earn the most money when there's no wind.
You solar/wind advocates are living in a fantasy land and being fed false numbers. The green sites never give costs based on actual efficiency (<20% for solar and ~30% for wind) or lifespan. But most people are either too lazy or too afraid of reality to do the math themselves.
I have done the cost breakdown on solar/wind and nuclear wins by 3-6x. Even after redoing the numbers based on newer major solar/wind plants the costs are surprisingly even WORSE than they were before.
It's simply lies saying solar/wind are cheaper. Just look at Germany for example. They are stupidly phasing out their nuclear power plants, while energy costs are soaring and they are having to subsidize the solar/wind industry with "renewable" energy fees.
https://www.reuters.com/article/ger...r-prices-at-record-high-verivox-idUSL8N1MZ30X
The US needs more cost effective nuclear power plants, if we want to get away from coal/oil.