Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search
Anonymous commenting is allowed
User avatar #64 - proudnerd (03/13/2013) [-]
Solar power at best captures maybe 12% of the energy that catches it, and its REALLY expensive. Hydroelecticity isn't available everywhere, but is used where it is available. Biofuels are made from food, you use them for energy and raise the price of corn, causing prices of everything to go up and even causing food riots in southern america. Geothermal energy is like hydroelectricity, it is used where it is available. People fail to realize how cheap gasoline is, and how much energy there is in a gallon of gasoline. And if these energy sources are so viable, then why don't YOU go out and buy them? It's easy to say what other people should do the save the planet, but until you have solar panels on your roof and are driving a car that runs on biofuels and have a couple wind turbines in you back yard, shut up. Put you money where your mouth is.
User avatar #82 to #64 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/13/2013) [-]
Most people couldn't buy the Albertan oil sands and become oil barons either.

Please don't defend this point.
User avatar #86 to #82 - proudnerd (03/14/2013) [-]
The average person can (and many do) buy a gas powered generator. I'm not saying that anyone can just buy an oil rig, I'm demanding that someone buy the product that is supposed to be such a "viable alternative." If it was so viable, then it wouldn't need government subsidies. The government didn't subsidize the production of the computer chip. They didn't subsidize the production of the automobile. It didn't subside the production of the cellular phone. Good ideas don't need government funding. The research, sure, but the product itself? No. I will defend this point because it's an important one.
#87 to #86 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/14/2013) [-]
So you're saying green power production should cost more than traditional because it's a true test of moral character to spend a loads of money on clean energy?   
   
No, I don't think you are, because that would be stupid. I'll try to understand your point for a minute. Oil, gas, and fossil fuels of many hues are cheap and efficient, while solar, wind, and bio-related power production is not. And... you are telling me this makes them grossly impractical?    
   
I don't see it that way. Economic viability may be an issue for the average joe but not at the government level. Up there, it's all politics on what to spend the money on, and in America the military is top priority. What does the military need and want in high amounts? Fuel. I'm not implying this is all the navy's fault and soldiers should get on their electric golf carts during a tour of the next war-torn, explosive-laced country. I'm saying the issue is cyclical and more complicated than you or I understand. Not that we can't hypothesize on it.   
   
Back to the main point, replacing fossil fuel energy sources (especially coal) with renewable and clean ones isn't just for a clean conscience, if you know what I'm saying. Within a century, humanity will potentially ruin the Earth's ecology for itself. The past 10 years have been the hottest on record. This may not be our fault, but it is our problem.   
   
I think, sir proudnerd, that we shouldn't dwell so much on the expense of progress.
So you're saying green power production should cost more than traditional because it's a true test of moral character to spend a loads of money on clean energy?

No, I don't think you are, because that would be stupid. I'll try to understand your point for a minute. Oil, gas, and fossil fuels of many hues are cheap and efficient, while solar, wind, and bio-related power production is not. And... you are telling me this makes them grossly impractical?

I don't see it that way. Economic viability may be an issue for the average joe but not at the government level. Up there, it's all politics on what to spend the money on, and in America the military is top priority. What does the military need and want in high amounts? Fuel. I'm not implying this is all the navy's fault and soldiers should get on their electric golf carts during a tour of the next war-torn, explosive-laced country. I'm saying the issue is cyclical and more complicated than you or I understand. Not that we can't hypothesize on it.

Back to the main point, replacing fossil fuel energy sources (especially coal) with renewable and clean ones isn't just for a clean conscience, if you know what I'm saying. Within a century, humanity will potentially ruin the Earth's ecology for itself. The past 10 years have been the hottest on record. This may not be our fault, but it is our problem.

I think, sir proudnerd, that we shouldn't dwell so much on the expense of progress.
User avatar #88 to #87 - proudnerd (03/14/2013) [-]
The whole "the earth is warming" argument is invalvid when you take into account that the rest of the solar system is warming, too. Look it up. And yes, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, but the answer is not insisting on the implementation of incomplete technology. The issue with what we are currently doing is that we are spending money on technology that is not yet at the level it needs to be. It can be better, we just haven't developed it well enough yet. I'm not against finding an alternative, I'm simply against the forced use of incomplete technology. We should also keep our minds open to ideas which the renewable energy field refuses to look into. For example, let's not waste our time on using corn. In order to create enough ethanol from corn to fuel the US, we would have to plant 1/4 of it for corn that will only be used for fuel purposes. That's not practical. We could, instead, use boiethanol produced from algea that could be farmed in the oceans, an area of research that my very university is currently looking into.Another idea, Thorium nuclear reaction. Thorium, when used as a fuel for nuclear power, degrades into Uranium, which can then be used again. And why doesn't the green energy field look into nuclear? They don't list it as a viable alternative, but it is the only one that actually is viable. And don't go and ******** me with "it's too dangerous", "look at what happened to Japan". If done right, Nuclear is a wonderful source of energy. I can explain all the problems involved with the process at the Japanese nuclear power plant if you want, I've looked into it considering I'm studying chemical engineering, and that's one of the fields I'd like to go into. I've also looked into the studies on nuclear power waste. If all the electronic energy you used in your entire lifetime was from nuclear, guess how much space that would take up? Drink a can of Mt. Dew and think about it. Well, guess what? It fits in that can you just emptied!
User avatar #89 to #88 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/14/2013) [-]
I think you're picking a scab with this nuclear jive, as I have never said anything about that particular alternative. In my books it's non-green alternative energy, and I agree in that it's extremely practical here and now.

But, remember what I said about politics? Nuclear power was, from the beginning, weaponized. Especially after the Cold War, fission as a concept is considered unstable thanks to our historical relationship with it and, as a result, is regulated and feared more than it should be. The Chernobyl disaster was preventable and entirely human error, and the recent event in Japan harmed no-one. Sodium-cooled Fast Reactors could dig us out of the energy crisis overnight, but nobody wants to build them for political reasons even though it's the safest and most efficient non-green fuel source.

As far as biofuels (and hydrogen, it's in the same ballpark) go, I really don't appreciate that either. Ethanol is renewable but not green and extremely expensive, and Algae is kind of a niche science that I don't expect will pick up any time soon. It has potential, but too much realistic doubt.

Now we come to green sources, like wind and solar. How are they 'incomplete"? A better term would be underdeveloped, and I think we agree on that description. Personal solar, like photovoltaic plating, is 'too expensive' because it's such a complex system, but some of the larger solar plants are more than cost-effective. Hell, current photovoltaic panels can get up to 40% power capture (currently in prototyping), so don't tell me it's not 'at the level it should be'. It was at the level it 'should have been' 20 years ago and still is today, we're just not capitalizing on it.

Oh, and don't forget, Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Hydro... it's all pollution-free, low upkeep, and low maintenance. Unlike every other power source.
User avatar #90 to #89 - proudnerd (03/15/2013) [-]
I'm calling ******** on your "40% power capture", my mom works at Pilkington (now owned by NSG), a glass company, and she has relayed how she is sad that solar isn't effective and isnt a realistic alternative (as of now). Wind turbines not only do not provide reliable energy, but they don't produce nearly enough for what we need. The amount of turbines necessary to power the US would cost around $681 trillion. This does not include erection and maintenance. The idea of using wind as a main power source is simply ridiculous. Also, turbines have issues with the main shaft burning out before the turbine can produce enough energy to pay off the turbine. Like I said in my first post, if you believed in solar or wind energy, you would have a wind turbine in your yard and solar panels on your roof. I mean, why wouldn't you? I thought that they were the future, I would get a couple turbines, put some solar panels on my roof, and tell Toledo Edison (the power company where I live) to disconnect me. Now I can't get a nuclear reactor for safety reasons (I can't secure it safely), but I would If I could.
User avatar #91 to #90 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/15/2013) [-]
Look it up, the numbers are there. But I said those types of cells are in prototyping, you can only get 20-30% out of a modern and commercially available solar plate, and the price is only going down from here.

As for solar or wind being used for 'what we need', that's kind of stupid. Of course we can't replace every coal plant and oil refinery with a solar heliostat array or wind farm right now. The volume gap is impassable. But renewable energy is the future, and clean energy is available and cost effective right now.

Now I have to ask you, do you have turbines or solar panels? I can understand why you wouldn't or couldn't get a reactor in your yard (the reason being that's a ******* stupid idea) but if you have regular access to air and light, what's your reason for not having a couple turbines and solar panels?
User avatar #92 to #91 - proudnerd (03/16/2013) [-]
Because it's too damn expensive and it's not effective. It's exactly the point I'm making. I don't think that these energy sources are an efficient use of money, I don't think they will pay for themselves due to maintenance, and I simply don't want an unfinished product. It's not cost-effective, so I'm not going near it.
User avatar #93 to #92 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/16/2013) [-]
You haven't answered the question from #87, first line. I'm not taking that solar system ******** unless you can confirm it with a source.
User avatar #94 to #93 - proudnerd (03/16/2013) [-]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
and what was the question i have failed to answer?
User avatar #95 to #94 - pseudobob **User deleted account** (03/16/2013) [-]
You've just given me an article covering the controversy of one scientist's theory, one that I'd be hard pressed to agree with (given the overwhelming and contrary evidence in that very same article) unless I was already against global warming, which I am not. So I can only assume you are, and unfounded in your claims.

The question you haven't answered is if, and why, you think there's some kind of moral involvement with energy responsibility. I don't think you see the extent of the choice between clean and efficient power.
 Friends (0)