No, I find it amusing that after 20 years they are back to coal.
Great win by everyone involved. A stellar effort to let science and development in energy technology lead the way towards reducing our carbon emissions.
Extracting energy at this point is going to have an environmental cost in pretty well anyway we do it. Acting like anything is 100% green is false. Just need to make the best choices with the information we have now.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PeteMoss For This Useful Post:
Extracting energy at this point is going to have an environmental cost in pretty well anyway we do it. Acting like anything is 100% green is false. Just need to make the best choices with the information we have now.
What is the environmental cost of extracting oil or natural gas in comparison to solar?
Do you believe even for 1 second that it is being truthfully compared?
Do you believe that governments are making decisions based on factual numbers, as opposed to catering towards a certain political position? As an example making energy decisions in regards to ACTUALLY reducing carbon emissions over a certain period of time, versus just making a decision in order to appease the 'anti oil, anti gas, anti nuclear, anti, etc, etc' group. A group that quite clearly has ZERO interest in knowing the truth about what they support, such as massive ground water contamination, terrible recycling policies, etc.
At this point 'green' energy is turning into a complete farce run by fraudsters manipulating public opinion towards climate change in order to get rich.
And I say that as someone who believes in the potential of solar, wind, etc.
The entire 'green' industry is a complete joke at this point.
But I think that in comparison to natural gas, oil or other so called dirty energy sources, solar has been placed on a pedestal as being indefinitely more green, whereas those other options are looked at as needing to be shut down.
What is the environmental cost of extracting oil or natural gas in comparison to solar?
Do you believe even for 1 second that it is being truthfully compared?
Do you believe that governments are making decisions based on factual numbers, as opposed to catering towards a certain political position? As an example making energy decisions in regards to ACTUALLY reducing carbon emissions over a certain period of time, versus just making a decision in order to appease the 'anti oil, anti gas, anti nuclear, anti, etc, etc' group. A group that quite clearly has ZERO interest in knowing the truth about what they support, such as massive ground water contamination, terrible recycling policies, etc.
At this point 'green' energy is turning into a complete farce run by fraudsters manipulating public opinion towards climate change in order to get rich.
And I say that as someone who believes in the potential of solar, wind, etc.
The entire 'green' industry is a complete joke at this point.
You have mastered a posting style where even when I agree with you, I want to argue with you.
Solar is thought of as more environmentally because it generates about 1/15th to 1/25th the lifecycle emissions that fossil-fuel-produced electricity does:
That's based on a meta-analysis of about 400 studies comparing the lifecycle emissions of various power generation sources.
Yes, there are other environmental costs from producing solar panels (e.g. mining) and if they are improperly disposed of then there are risks of contamination. But the same applies to basically any energy source. Fossil fuel extraction is energy intensive and has negative environmental impacts beyond emissions; nuclear plants require vast amounts of material to construct, and obviously the waste needs to be dealt with extremely carefully; hydro dams also use a lot of material to build and they can have negative impacts on the surrounding environment. But ultimately, climate change is the biggest existential threat we face, so reducing carbon is generally going to be prioritized over other environmental concerns. And of course, as solar panels become more ubiquitous, recycling them will become easier and cheaper (and likely built into the cost of purchasing them like with many other things).
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
And to think they shut down their nuclear plants all while becoming more dependent on Russian gas, and they tell everyone they're making decisions because of climate change. Laughable.
Interesting idea. I wonder if you could increase the efficiency/speed massively by injection pure CO2 and water, rather than harvesting from the air. Combine this with a carbon capture system, even make a closed loop powerplant that burns the gas, and captures the CO2.
The basic system could be handy in remote locations, though it doesn't really say how much equipment would be needed per litre of fuel made per day, or whatever.
Germany's baseload power is currently 10x more expensive than it was in the last decade. Things aren't much better in France, Italy, UK etc. Could be an interesting winter in Europe.
It isn’t just nuclear they’ve bungled. Germany could provide 25 per cent of their natural gas needs domestically, but unfounded fears around fracking led them to shut in their gas fields.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
