Why we need to look closer at alternative energies

[Tejas]

That was heavy sarcasm. Warren not Jimmy.

Went right over my head, . Must be getting old.

 

[rhpierce]

I agree...look closer.

Look at the tonnage of raw materials and environmental damage to produce one battery for an EV. That's ok though because it isn't in America...it's "opportunity"...as long as we don't have to see it, it didn't really happen that way, especially if it's in a "developing" nation.

Look at the energy inputs and requirements for one wind turbine that will never produce enough output to justify it. Can't run with no wind...can't run with too much wind...

Look at how both have technology that cannot be recycled. Thousands of 80-foot long blades being buried because there is nothing else to do with them. Not to mention the wildlife damage, particularly to raptors. I guess dead eagles only matter if it is lead or DDT...chopped up or crippled and dying suffering doesn't mean anything because "green". And those turbines still use petroleum...something like a 55-gallon drum of it. I believe there is also a noise factor from the blades. And they have to be de-iced in winter.

Anything on what solar farms do to surrounding temps, while we whine about global warming/climate change? A big, sterile field with the potential for hazardous chemicals to leak out...what could possibly go wrong?

I know, I know...we have to do all of this damage so the technology can advance...we have to be dependent on China and Africa for the rare earth metals, rather than the Saudis...because that makes MUCH more sense. And we have to encourage EV use when our current capacity is inadequate.

We should definitely look much closer at "alternative" energies.

 

[WidgeonmanGH]

Look at the tonnage of raw materials and environmental damage to produce one battery for an EV. That's ok though because it isn't in America...it's "opportunity"...as long as we don't have to see it, it didn't really happen that way, especially if it's in a "developing" nation.

Is that true of just EV's or does the selective outrage also hold true for the other uses of the materials? What I find interesting is that suddenly conservative pundits are so excited about the environmental damage done by mining in third world countries. Maybe a consensus should be arrived at, that products from environmentally damaging sources will not be used in any products used or sold in the US? For instance, copper used in EVs and ICE vehicles could only be sourced in copper mines that comply with the environmental standards present in the US. Having seen the sheer outrage at the damage we are doing to third world countries and child labor etc. that EVs could potentially cause, I am sure the same people would be against using those products for other things?

What do you think the chances are of conservatives getting behind such a move? In fact, what an opportunity for conservatives to lead! Why are they not sponsoring such legislation? (cue equivocating and excuses)

The fact is all uses of raw materials have an environmental cost. Oil is not exactly environmentally friendly. I do think it is fair to judge EV and all renewable sources on their merits and on the destruction of the environment. But judged against what? If we judge them agains the straw man of no environmental impact then suddenly they all look terrible. If we judge them against societies insane reliance on a singular energy source, which should it stop being practical would represent a significant step back in civilization, then maybe we need to continue to pursue them.

If current technical issues and obtaining the resources is destructive, then lets change some of those things rather than abandon the effort and just say the status quo is better. I watched Stossles video and you have to wonder why he is using people in Poland lined up to get coal to burn in their houses as an example. Surely he understands that this is not because of EVs but there is this little thing called a war in ukraine and no Russian natural gas?

Hyperbole by both sides only serves to confuse the issue not make the path forward any clearer.

To be clear on my position, I do not think electrification should be pursued because of carbon emissions. I just don't think man is contributing to climate change. Climate changed before it will change again. However, I think transitioning to renewables is a worthy goal that should be pursued to end the reliance of our civilization on a singular limited resource and limit the wars constantly fought to control oil. I also like the national security and personal independence of being able to provide for my own individual energy needs (as much as is possible) and our country being free of the necessity of other countries shipping us vast quantities of the stuff.

 

[Wareagle1011]

I concur and Japan is apparently of like mind and is actively working on technology to produce cheap hydrogen. Right now it's too expensive to produce. It seems that a country that has a dense population and doesn't have oil are more interested in hydrogen for some reason.



In the US hydrogen is only available at retail stations in Southern California. The Toyota Mirai is available for about $50k

You ever hear the sound that their hydrogen track car makes? Man.

 

[rhpierce]

Is that true of just EV's or does the selective outrage also hold true for the other uses of the materials? What I find interesting is that suddenly conservative pundits are so excited about the environmental damage done by mining in third world countries. Maybe a consensus should be arrived at, that products from environmentally damaging sources will not be used in any products used or sold in the US? For instance, copper used in EVs and ICE vehicles could only be sourced in copper mines that comply with the environmental standards present in the US. Having seen the sheer outrage at the damage we are doing to third world countries and child labor etc. that EVs could potentially cause, I am sure the same people would be against using those products for other things?

What do you think the chances are of conservatives getting behind such a move? In fact, what an opportunity for conservatives to lead! Why are they not sponsoring such legislation? (cue equivocating and excuses)

The fact is all uses of raw materials have an environmental cost. Oil is not exactly environmentally friendly. I do think it is fair to judge EV and all renewable sources on their merits and on the destruction of the environment. But judged against what? If we judge them agains the straw man of no environmental impact then suddenly they all look terrible. If we judge them against societies insane reliance on a singular energy source, which should it stop being practical would represent a significant step back in civilization, then maybe we need to continue to pursue them.

If current technical issues and obtaining the resources is destructive, then lets change some of those things rather than abandon the effort and just say the status quo is better. I watched Stossles video and you have to wonder why he is using people in Poland lined up to get coal to burn in their houses as an example. Surely he understands that this is not because of EVs but there is this little thing called a war in ukraine and no Russian natural gas?

Hyperbole by both sides only serves to confuse the issue not make the path forward any clearer.

To be clear on my position, I do not think electrification should be pursued because of carbon emissions. I just don't think man is contributing to climate change. Climate changed before it will change again. However, I think transitioning to renewables is a worthy goal that should be pursued to end the reliance of our civilization on a singular limited resource and limit the wars constantly fought to control oil. I also like the national security and personal independence of being able to provide for my own individual energy needs (as much as is possible) and our country being free of the necessity of other countries shipping us vast quantities of the stuff.

End the reliance on a singular limited resource for....reliance on multiple, much more limited resources controlled by countries that are even less friendly? And, even if we use those resources, we still have to use the singular limited resource...

That makes a lot of sense when you are talking about limiting wars in the same breath.

Hyperbole? No. The truth is that the EV movement is built on how "green" it is, and how much many in that circle who drive/use them believe that they are living with zero environmental consequence while they talk about the oil industry. There is NOTHING that comes without consequence, and to my mind, the conversation of what carries a greater environmental impact is legitimate, especially when you talk about the financial and other impacts to the average consumer.

When you tally everything up on alternative energy in my opinion it's like the people who argue that the police are corrupt, cannot be trusted and should be defunded, but then argue in the next breath that the police and military are the only ones who should have guns.

 

[WidgeonmanGH]

End the reliance on a singular limited resource for....reliance on multiple, much more limited resources controlled by countries that are even less friendly? And, even if we use those resources, we still have to use the singular limited resource...

I am not sure which resource you refer. China has done well trying to corner the market on certain things, but the reality is that we have access to most of the things in our country. It has just not been cost effective to pursue them because of the size of the market. Now that it is changing who provides that will also be changing.

Once again I see selective environmental outrage and other than EVs see absolutely no concern for 3rd world countries and the pollution we export to them especially by conservatives. Where is the outrage at the pollution caused by our tires, lead acid batteries, plastic, etc. That we export because the environmental regulations here make recycling these materials "unprofitable"? It is no where.

That we may always need oil in the mix somewhere is not a bad thing since we have a bit of it in our country. But the over reliance on it for personal transportation and freedom, and the entire economy is the negative.

That EVs are sold only on the basis of the "green" argument is unfortunate. I think a better argument is personal freedom. Most home owners could produce enough electricity on the roof of their house to provide for 95% of their families transportation. However, I currently can not provide for any of my families transportation if I rely on gasoline. That is also true of most of my other electric needs in my house. Moving that direction is where I am headed. Forcing people to is not a good thing. But using straw man environmental outrage as the reason not to is disingenuous.

 

[grahler]

Most home owners could produce enough electricity on the roof of their house to provide for 95% of their families transportation

Unless it gets cloudy in which case the batteries will die and it’s back to square one depending on load.
Or as long as the inverter doesn’t fail.
Or the batteries go bad.
Nothing wrong with Solar though. Solar is great it’s just not like oil or nuclear or natural gas.
Thing is real fuels energy density is high.

 

[The_Duck_Master]

Unless it gets cloudy in which case the batteries will die and it’s back to square one depending on load.
Or as long as the inverter doesn’t fail.
Or the batteries go bad.
Nothing wrong with Solar though. Solar is great it’s just not like oil or nuclear or natural gas.
Thing is real fuels energy density is high.

I have 13 large oak trees surrounding and providing shade for my house that would need to be removed for solar to be viable for us. I am curious how many of those trees I am allowed to cut down before I lose my carbon warrior status for installing solar? Also... How many of my neighbor's firs can I force him to cut down? If I force him to cut them down does it count against his carbon footprint or mine?

 

[pintail2222]

I have 13 large oak trees surrounding and providing shade for my house that would need to be removed for solar to be viable for us. I am curious how many of those trees I am allowed to cut down before I lose my carbon warrior status for installing solar? Also... How many of my neighbor's firs can I force him to cut down? If I force him to cut them down does it count against his carbon footprint or mine?

But doesn't the shade that those 13 large oak trees surrounding you house provide, help you save on your energy bill in the summer?

 

[The_Duck_Master]

But doesn't the shade that those 13 large oak trees surrounding you house provide, help you save on your energy bill in the summer?

It saves me from having air conditioning so I'd say so.

ETA. They also keep me buried in leaves for months in the fall and feed the sqwirls and deer. This one left smudges on the picture window. Damn window lickers.