I don't deny climate. I deny the myth that carbon is bad and should be surveilled and taxed. Anyone ego thinks that is a good idea is, de facto, an utterly garbage moron.
I *am* an idiot. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong about everything. ππ€ππ
nostr:nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqq6ya7kz84rfnw6yjmg5kyttuplwpauv43a9ug3cajztx4g0v48eqt26j5q Yea, you are wrong about EVERYTHING, bot.
That's statistically unlikely. π€£π€£π€£π€£
I'm also not a bot, turd.
Show me real evidence that carbon is bad.
YOU (and I) are the excess carbon that "they" want to eliminate. You have to be a special kind of stupid to not realize that. Paying Carbon Taxes only makes you a willing pawn in a game you don't even know is being played.
I will not submit to any of this. It's utterly stupid to accept the lies so easily.
There is two sources of energy that are cheaper to get in energy cost than they produce. Carbon and uranium. Carbon fuels are very high density such that the range of vehicles can be over 80lkm. Wind and solar and tidal are just converters that break before they break even. The reason is the mechanical and electrical integrity of them comes from their materials, and the conversion destroys it.
Renewables should not include capture and conversion. Only biofuels, which displace food production capacity, and wood are renewable. Both are more primitive carbon sources. I think that people do waste a lot of energy with their constant motion.
Furthermore, the 98%+ driver of weather is the sun. Volcanoes and faultlines release more CO2 and methane than humans, by orders of magnitude, by which I mean 1000x, at least. And it doesn't really make any difference except when it causes cooling.
Our planet's history is of mostly ice ages punctuated by warm periods where the permafrost is as far to the poles as now. It was warmer, a lot warmer before. CO2 helps plants cope with hotter conditions and leads to higher biomass.
Carbon is life. Being against carbon is not just misanthropic, it's against life itself.
I am all grateful for the carbon economy but it is silly to claim wind and solar do not break-even. If that were the case they would not be being installed at an insane rate.
They are currently the cheapest to install capacity. Yes some of it is due to artificial demand via subsidies but that doesn't explain china going wild with them.
Lol. Just go read the tech specs of a solar cell. Average lifespan times average power output. Other read about how much energy it takes to grow pv voltaic crystals.
I don't think any person with competence in physics would disagree that if you don't get more energy than it costs to make the device, it's just a jumped up, unreliable and light battery.
The energy required to forge the enormous steel and fibreglass blades of wind generators, and the magnets and tower, are also very energy intensive, and the blades, being mostly polyester and glass fiber, cannot be recycled. Plastic and aluminium both take huge amounts of energy to produce, or in the case of plastic, it's made from. Dun dun dun... Oil.
It's basic materials science. But don't let me disrupt your faith in the church of humans are bad.
Naw, Daniel isn't in that church. I don't think he understands how distorted the incentives are for solar and wind at this time.
i believe Daniel is in fact a christian, and this church of environmentalism and government is actually the synagogue of satan. Samuel states that God told him that a king would destroy the culture of the Jews. and after samuel, it's just non stop stories about prophets and judgements against israel and punishments. shouldn't be a surprise, they kept on with the government, and that is idolatry in itself, and the very notion...
well that's where it gets sticky because catholics believe in the legitimacy of the pope being "God's Representative" when it clearly states all through the bible that if he isn't talking directly to you, you aren't praying enough, or properly.
You people are fucking satanic
You're talking to a guy who lives in Maine (my state), says nature needs to be dominated and controlled, and is too much of a pussy to fight me
Yes I do. We are at a point where solar farm owners pay a marketing firm to go door-to-door in my neighborhood trying to convince me to pay less money for electricity simply by changing the way I am billed.
Why would they pay to get less money and increase billing complexity incurring further costs in doing so?
Because they accepted State subsidies to build it out and now have to prove utilization to the state or face penalties. It dumb on top of stupid. Doubly dumb because installing solar is actually super cheap. The main hurdles are the expense of permitting and opposition from....
... environmental groups.
environmental groups are just another sock puppet of the same hydra. their ultimate job is to convince people to accept being poor. not just retarding progress but going backwards.
Yes. They advocated for electric cars because they thought they could get us to all share Segways parked outside our 200sq ft apartments.
It didn't take them long to get angry about electric cars being awesome instead. "Not like that! Stop having fun. This isn't the communal centralized transportation misery we were hoping for!"
The main problem with public transportation is that it doesn't work for families. You might successfully wrangle your allotted 1.2 kids through a maze of stops and transfers without acquiring every communicable disease available, but you aren't going to do it with anything like a family necessary for a thriving society.
agreed. in the pre-car days, the family had to have at least a couple of horses. a buggy could handle more. but then again, the kids started working a lot younger too. and most people owned their houses outright, only had maintenance costs to cover. and fiat banking completely sabotages all of that. including the cost of the woman being far less productive at labors outside the house, which with the amount of wealth being stolen by fiat money system, means that children are not being raised properly and this leads to a steady increase in bad behaviour and crime, and further undermines the foundation of a healthy society.
Families are on the chopping block. They are racist and unfairly advantage children. π
I am always vaguely amused by people who do urban planning based on the assumption that families don't exist. Yes everyone lives in an episode of friends.
The worst offender ever was the Mars One project. I am not sure who the idiots were behind that effort, but they were spectacular idiots. Their plan was to send a bunch of people to Mars to live in tiny tin cans and eat algae. I think it was all just a communist LARP. They thought they could have the miserable utopia on Mars. They even disallowed married couples from volunteering. If one spouse got a accepted the other would have to stay on earth. Something about not wanting the drama of a stable relationship.
Uh huh. They just hated families. We already know what happens when you avoid drama by only having singles from south pole expeditions and simulated Mars missions. People get stabbed. But hey at least there are no families.
Just to be clear, when humans do go to Mars it is going to be even more disappointing than 2000HP electric cars. We are going to build 5000 sq ft homes for people and have whole domes full of cows, pigs, and chickens because big families are going to want take-out bacon burgers to eat in the park after Church at the Cathedral on a Sunday Morning.
Eh. I don't think we are going to get to Mars. I honestly hope we don't.
But yeah, they do hate families.
Why hope we don't rather than just suspect we might not?
i personally just think that there is plenty of earth-like planets out there in much earlier stages than ours and by the time we can travel efficiently to mars we can equally just go to those places.
i think that we don't leave the planet at all until we figure out gravity, and when we figure out gravity, we figure out wormholes and distance becomes irrelevant.
i think, in fact, that "we" effectively already have figured this out but these people went off and "prepared a place in heaven" for us.
Fair enough. I can understand "I think things will progress differently" I have a harder time understanding "I hope that project fails"
For me it comes back to being extremely pro-life. If humanity continues to tribe the way I hope it does then there will come a day when the collective mass of humans is greater than the mass of the earth. Ergo between now and then humanity needs to leave.
I am not predicting that this will happen, I am merely staying that if my philosophy encourages growth at any rate, then my philosophy also needs to include accommodating futures where there are too many people for Earth.
I don't think we are anywhere close to the carrying capacity of Earth, but there are days when I'd like just a bit more distance between me and the British Parliament.
i would like infinity distance between me and the ruling class lizards.
also, it's not that i "want it to fail" i'm of the opinion it just is doomed from its inception.
why would you want to live an a completely artificial environment when there is perfectly good, natural environments out there. it's just dependent on us mastering traveling to them. holography hints at the idea that there can be an instantaneous transit of a waveform from one location to another, and that the configuration of the whole system can be discovered by being able to actually measure the waveforms in a tiny part of space.
stuck down here, without that knowledge, all we get is progressively delayed beams of light emanating from far distant space. most of the light is from so far away, that nothing beyond a few light years is anywhere near where we see it, at this exact moment in time.
i think that without the retarding influence of the ruling class demanding virgin sacrifice and rape and human flesh for the last 6000 years we might have already got there, but all these stupid people believe the official narrative and don't even investigate it, people with the capacity to, but whose minds have been stunted by brainwashing. the orthodox models are wrong, and every step towards uncovering the correct model tends to be impeded deliberately. they want limited energy. they want limited transport. they can't suck the life out of us if we are infinity distance from them, which would be what anyone would prefer if they believed it were possible.
it is possible.
and i don't care about their stupid mars homo fantasy. stupid does stupid shit, that won't work, based on flawed models that are a mismatch with reality.
it's not wanting them to fail, it's KNOWING they will fail, and this is all just theatre about them telling us this story that they are superior and we are just fodder for their grandiose fantasies.
the state of astrophysics and biology is so so awful they don't even concern themselves with the problem of blocking radiation from the sun. the real main reason earth has life on it is that magnetic field. almost everything else would arise because of the protection of DNA from being scrambled. even the changing of the atmosphere to a composition like we have now, entirely depends on algae and other tiny plants growing in water. doesn't need to be a lot of water to start with, but sunshine, radiation shielding and water. that's it.
there is not very much water on mars. it doesn't have a geomagnetic dynamo, because it's not big enough, it has an induced field but life could not be surviving on the surface, it would have to be at least several feet under the soil, it's too cold because there is not enough atmosphere to form the electrical circuit that drives precipitation, and the simple fact that CO2 is the main component of the polar ice tells you the planet is just plain baked by x and gamma rays and UV and there is probably life especially underground near volcanic vents where there is more heat and sources of energy.
it's not just because of the heat. if heat was the only factor, mars would be covered in plants. it's not so cold it couldn't have plants. the plants would just lose genetic integrity. there is only one organism i know of that has a shield on it that could survive being outside of the protective atmosphere, that's fungal spores, many of them have very dense high carbon shells on them that block radiation enough to allow the DNA inside to survive. macroscopic forms that can survive constant ionizing radiation have very few parameters where they can absorb other forms of energy at the same time as blocking those damaging energies.
as well as all this, the heat is a factor. earth is just at a level where it spends around 20% of the time not frozen over. it's one of the most frustrating things about the gLoBaL wArMiNg bullshit that actually, the biggest danger is that it gets too cold. it was almost too cold 10000 years ago. the geological record and ice cores show that the planet has been mostly a popsicle for much of its existence. carbon dioxide actually helps a lot, as does water vapor and methane, to retain enough heat during winter that everything doesn't ice over. in actual fact, human population and matching increased CO2 and methane output would dramatically increase the fertility of the planet.
Nope. You can fit many more billions of people on the earth without being too uncomfortable, as there is so much of the current land mass to be subdued and made to be productive. Look at how many acres are in Texas alone.
Yes, but one good aimed moderately sized asteroid could put a quick end to it. For a long-term preservation of humanity, it would be probably beneficial to colonise other celestial bodies. More baskets for eggs.
I'm not convinced that will happen or that it has happened. Cataclysm? Yes. Unconvinced it is an external thing
You mean we float through the vast nothingness and the gigantic fission reactor that gives us literally all the power is infinitely stable? It just seems not very likely to meβ¦
No. I don't think any of that statement is correct. π
But the cataclysms are purely internal things with no external inputs whatsoever?
i'm pretty sure it needs to be an antimatter reactor
i'm sure it will need maintenance but part of its output will run its magnetic containment cell where the reaction takes place
once you nullify gravity, you don't have a speed limit problem, and collisions are impossible because they require mass and that is nullified.
of course i have no idea how you build such a thing but unlike fission or fusion, antimatter really does yield the e=mc^2 amount of energy out of any matter.
Lol, my entire philosophy is based on being very very pro-life. I have 9 siblings, 6 kids, and 60 nieces and nephews.
Also, I erm, trust my calculations over yours. Not saying you should do the same. I live in my brain and you in yours. But I don't need to convince you. We have an energy rich future ahead and you'll be consuming solar energy, same as everyone else since that is what will be on the grid.
If it isn't net positive, we'll eventually run out of stored energy as you put it.
running out of energy is the best way to reduce population. the amount of kilowatts is directly correlated to the growth in population.
what i'm more concerned with is there is no preparations being made for the inevitable, and coming soon solar event that will not just render all of our transport, sanitation and food production systems inoperable, it will also destroy all the tools we need to recover from it.
if we don't get prepared by moving critical resources that the loss will destroy recovery capacity, underground, where they won't get fried by an X100+ flare, it's gonna be decades of respiratory disease epidemics in winter, and reverting to cooking with wood and international transport is basically over.
that's what i'm preparing for. i think that steam and diesel power can be sustained if you don't lose the tools required to forge steel and dig enough coal/chop enough wood to get that heat to drive the factories that will produce the higher levels of the market.
nothing is being done about this, while everyone is pointed at CO2 and methane, we won't even have cows to pull our ploughs if they have their way.
China is subsidising solar with debt. Solar is the worst form of power generation without cheap storage. (See California.) Wind (big wind) is much more detrimental to "the environment" due to how stupid the turbines are made.
The political externalities are distorting the markets so much about solar that you aren't parsing out what is more of the truth about solar, especially big solar farms. They do not make sense in most places. They do not perform abnegate anywhere near ecpected. They cost way more to maintain than promised. The Interconnects to grid are not as reliable as promised. The output does not match the rythym of most modern human life and in some cases is even detrimental to the grid baseload capacity.
Turbines are worse. They can be made better, but, it's a really hard sell.
it's what i'm saying. the materials essentially are *releasing* the energy that was put into their production. similar to how it takes heat to produce nichrome wire for resistive heat, what is actually happening is that the electricity is releasing that energy by damaging the structure of the metal. the alloying eventually breaks down and there is no more current and no more heat output.
it really is effectively a battery. the nichrome is a battery for heat. the PV cells are a battery for electricity that is activated by light. the wind generators are a mechanical battery that takes wind and the strain on it is precisely what allows it to return energy, and of course, there is no such thing as a battery that returns all of the power. the battery breaks down, in the process of moving electrons back and forth. eventually the integrity of the structure breaks and the battery doesn't work anymore.
in all of these cases the common principle applies: the cost of energy to produce the device is more than the energy that the device can ever release, because releasing the energy destroys the structure, and once enough of the structure has failed, the device will stop working altogether. usually at 80-90% of the level of energy input.
only carbon and uranium dug out of the ground cost less energy than they release. usually by orders of 2-10 times depending on the amount of distance you have to transport it. gas is the worst for transport, because of the cost of the storage devices, and the sparse availability of it, although i think biomethane is probably quite practical to do anywhere, you still have the problem of storage, because it requires expensive metallic, pressure resistant containers.
coal is a problem because you can't use it on an ICE, you have to use an ECE. this is a problem of scale, it's not practical to run a steam engine at less than the scale of a train, small ones just have a progressive decline in power to weight ratio. liquid fuel is the best, it's liquid at room temperature, so the container only needs to be airtight and carry the weight. uranium has the exact same problem as coal, although there is a lot of progress lately in producing devices that take the radiation and directly release electrons in solid state materials.
liquid petroleum fuel is the dominant form of energy because it is the most transportable, for the energy content, and the storage and usage requirements. batteries and electricity are nice and have benefits in that the motors torque graphs are practically flat at all speeds, but they cost a lot in materials, the copper, the rare earth magnets, and the batteries are only just at the point where they are good enough to give you enough range for urban commuting and light cargo transport. don't forget about the line transmission losses, the battery heat and lifespan losses, and all that. it's a poison pill, wrapped in sugar.
for the time being, absent any breakthroughs in fission, fusion or antimatter energy devices, really, diesel fuel is the king, and it's been the king since Herr Diesel invented it. and as well, if it weren't for the fact that making the diesel out of seeds raised the price of food, it could be entirely "green" it's much greener, in fact, than any of this other bullshit. coal for the metals to manufacture the devices, and bio oils for the fuel, made using potassium hydroxide and methanol synthesised from natural gas.
and that leads to the last point, which is that if there was a free market, instead of government control over every detail of trade, what would need transporting would primarily be materials, the knowledge and tools would be everywhere for producing everything we need, and we wouldn't even have these huge amounts of shipping and rail and highway cargo transit to move stuff when actually, in any given place, they just need a few raw materials, and the rest are weightless, intangible assets like knowledge, and light materials that can be combined with locally available materials, reducing the amount of fuel we even need.
i'd say if that last point were addressed properly, firstly, you have to abolish government and return to polycentric law, and then, probably you can shift all of the energy consumption to Green biodiesel, because you aren't making such absurdly large amounts of cargo transport of goods that could be adequately produced locally with a fraction of the material shipped in.
Some of that is true. But they do produce many times their energy cost over their lifetime. Energy ROI is only about a year or two. If you are in a northern climate then maybe 5-6 years. But they are going to last 30.
The only real arguments are time-shifting and maintainance.
But those arguments have to be balanced against comparisons to fossil fuels and nuclear. Both also have maintenance costs that are double solar's
Then there are peak demand problems. You have to overbuild by 50-100% if you can't timeshift. You can actually save money by closing half you power plants and building batteries. This is also exactly what you need for renewables.
I hate the green propaganda as well. But you are starting to see a shift in their propaganda, not because wind and solar don't work, but because they work too well and smart engineers have noticed.
The human haters are upset that the miserable future of tiny homes and golf carts is turning into stupid fast sports cars and plentiful energy. They've started to turn against electric cars and solar. They make new propaganda about habitat destruction and pollution, but as always they just want people to die.
from brave leo:
Kilowatt Hours for PV Silicon
The process of manufacturing photovoltaic silicon requires a significant amount of energy, particularly in the initial stage of converting silicon dioxide into metallurgical grade silicon (MGS). Producing 1 kilogram of metallurgical grade silicon requires 14-16 kWh of power.
This energy-intensive step is a crucial part of the solar panel manufacturing process, although the panels themselves generate far more energy over their lifetime than is consumed in their production.
i'm not sure what the ratio of weight to wattage output of the cells that are grown in a very hot oven over weeks, including that energy for producing all the dopants that provide the photovoltaic effect.
also, it doesn't specify how much over. because if it's only 2x its still a bad deal compared to a coal fired generator, or refined diesel and octane type fuels (and the propane and butane you get in the process, which is difficult to capture because of what i said about the problem of gas fuel storage).
i'm highly skeptical that it doesn't near as much energy again to grow the crystals after refining the silicon.
and like you point out, the problem is when it generates the power. that is entirely random. it's practical for satellites, where they can depend on a fairly constant power level based on the orbit, but down here you got clouds and smoke.
if you factor in, based on this theoretical 2-5x output per input, the cost of the batteries you need, and how frequently they need to be replaced, i'm pretty sure it drops back to very close or under unity.
wind powered water-gravity batteries would make way more sense, because other than maintaining the water level to sufficient for your energy input, you would have totally on-demand just by dialing open the tap.
the environmental damage and toxicity of lithium mining and battery production are factors they never mention, also. in fact, probably lead-acid batteries would be better because they are more durable, and the lead is easy to recycle, and toxicity-wise, pretty minimal risk of catastrophic issues. lithium, on the other hand, once it's refined into pure metal, is a severe fire risk, and will not stop burning until all of it is converted into oxide and carbonates.
so, yeah, in theory, great, solar panel is about 4-5x output as input. but the need for batteries destroys all of that benefit, at least halves it, probably worse, and using lithium, adds on top of that a serious fire risk that leads to airborne pollution from what burns with it.
i'd rather go with uranium. it's heavy enough that it at least doesn't spread that far if the meltdown is contained. and it's efficiency is higher and also can be dialed up and down on demand.
the point that there is more factors in the equation is another thing that never gets discussed in the slogans of the envirofascist misanthropic cult of government population control, and the fact that a huge amount of political power and especially military power (if you include police and judiciaries) in that, is extreme.
a free market would settle on the appropriate solutions. the centrally managed systems can't get even half way to an optimal solution because it's all about enriching the people at the front of the monetary spigot, at the expense of everyone else.
honest scientists and engineers wolud not pick the solutions we see now. they have use cases but they are not general purpose technologies.
i'd argue that they are just spinoffs of military research for purposes of perpetuating a constant state of fear in the population to use to manipulate them to continue to tolerate this intolerable state of affairs.
Gerald has a book to sell, there won't be any concessions here.
Is this, like, more or less likely than an astroid appearing large enough to cause 'significant damage'? What is the limit of dissolved carbon dioxide our oceans can sustain: 1. And still support life; 2. Before gassing out in some way. Chemistry, yo
I, like, totally love babysitting idiots online; it, like, fulfills me emotionally. Do you need a diaper change? How can i fill the gaps in your knowledge level, one cretin at a time(?)
A climate idiot! Sorry that you are a Canuck. It makes my Alberta natural gas very sad.
