Proof electric cars DO cause more pollution by AURaptor

Interesting article, Rap. Thanks.

It makes a good point that we need to look at total environmental impact.

Problems also exist with solar panels and wind turbines. More power goes into making them than ever will be recovered in their lifetime. I'm not saying don't use them. Just saying they are not sustainable solutions without new technology that will make them easier to manufacture or make them last longer.

What we really need is a way to make electricity without burning anything--and without threats of genotoxic radiation and meltdowns.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 2:32 AM

America loves a winner!

Wind,solar, hydro, etc... great stuff , where they can be utilized, but no where near as reliable as coal or oil.

I have no problem w/ trying to get more people thinking and acting to become more aware of alternative power answers to suit their needs, but this top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll " fix it ", is a costly fantasy. Costly, naive and pointless.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:38 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Yeah, I saw this story on the BBC. Funnily enough I thought Rappy might post it, and miss the key point of it:

Quote:
In China, 85 per cent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 per cent of that is from coal.
The authors discovered that the power generated in China to operate electric vehicles emitted fine particles at a much higher rate than gasoline vehicles.

So it's not electric cars causing more pollution - it's electric cars specifically powered by coal power stations.

Quote:
It makes a good point that we need to look at total environmental impact.

CTS, Please understand that scientists are fully aware of this.

Quote:
Problems also exist with solar panels and wind turbines. More power goes into making them than ever will be recovered in their lifetime.

Cites?

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:41 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
but this top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll " fix it ", is a costly fantasy.

Climate change will be much more costly.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 3:58 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
but this top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll " fix it ", is a costly fantasy.

Climate change will be much more costly.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Climate change isn't an issue here. There's nothing we can do, at all, to have any measurable impact on the climate of the planet. But putting 'climate change ' aside, I noticed how YOU also over looked some points.

The factories which make the cars, the process of making batteries, and the expense of dealing w/ the used up batteries, all go into play when adding up the 'carbon footprint' of electric cars.

Adding up the cost of manufacturing , including the shipping of materials around the globe to produce and assemble, the fantasy of the 'eco friendly' car simply vanishes.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 4:12 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

What makes you think I, or more importantly the scientific community, overlook these points? Electric cars though relatively eco-friendly are not without their own negative environmental impact. This is well known. Coal is a very dirty way of producing electricity. This is also well known. Put those two together and you can find case studies, like this one in China, where electric cars are actually worse for the environment than petrol-powered cars (although this article says nothing about CO2).

Quote:
Adding up the cost of manufacturing , including the shipping of materials around the globe to produce and assemble, the fantasy of the 'eco friendly' car simply vanishes.

It's not a fantasy - but it's all relative. And you haven't added up anything there that hasn't been added up before. When I studied Engineering at university several years back, this was all part of the course. Why you climate skeptic types assume scientists don't know how to do their job and haven't already thought of clever things that you come up with, is beyond me.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 4:18 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

This part got left out of the cited article:

Quote:
For electric vehicles, combustion emissions occur where electricity is generated rather than where the vehicle is used.
In China, 85 per cent of electricity production is from fossil fuels, about 90 per cent of that is from coal.

I wonder if any comparable studies have been done to show the environmental impact that oil drilling, production, spills, and refining have on the environment, since those are all part of the gas that powers our vehicles.

But yes, the article does point out why we need a more holistic approach to energy, because burning fossil fuels to generate power - whether by gas engines or electric cars - is a losing proposition, environmentally speaking.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 4:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
but this top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll " fix it ", is a costly fantasy.

Climate change will be much more costly.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Climate change isn't an issue here. There's nothing we can do, at all, to have any measurable impact on the climate of the planet. But putting 'climate change ' aside, I noticed how YOU also over looked some points.

Would you consider pollution to have any impact, any at all, on the planet, or of a particular area?

Quote:

The factories which make the cars, the process of making batteries, and the expense of dealing w/ the used up batteries, all go into play when adding up the 'carbon footprint' of electric cars.

Do they also go into the carbon footprint of non-electric cars? Does all of the oil production impact get weighted on that side of the issue? What about the coal that's burned to power the factories building gas-powered cars? Does that count?

Quote:

Adding up the cost of manufacturing , including the shipping of materials around the globe to produce and assemble, the fantasy of the 'eco friendly' car simply vanishes.

But does it make the "normal" car any MORE eco-friendly than an electric car, when you add up all those costs?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 5:43 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

That's kind of the point, isn't it? Even if everything else were equal, the question of whether gas-powered cars are MORE polluting than electric ones would, I'm betting, come down on the side of electric cars. Aside from that, I doubt anyone but a hard-core, ignorant environmentalist would claim that we've found all the solutions yet, or are likely to for a long time to come. That doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying to find alternative energy sources, and utilize them in order to lessen what we can and encourage further research. All things evolve; to say we shouldn't do anything until we've perfected it is blind stupidity.

Aside from which, this thread was only put up as a

by Rap anyway..."Oooo, goodie, I found something that says alternative-energy isn't as perfect as people say, let's stick THAT in their pipe..."

That's all it is.

Which is not to say it doesn't make an excellent subject for discussion, just a reminder of the intention.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I have no problem w/ trying to get more people thinking and acting to become more aware of alternative power answers to suit their needs, but this top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll " fix it ", is a costly fantasy. Costly, naive and pointless.

Can you give me some examples of the "top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll 'fix it'"?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:02 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I, too, was curious about solar panels and wind turbines, so I looked around. Found this:

Quote:
In a finding that could help ease concerns about the potential environmental impact of manufacturing solar cells, scientists report that the manufacture of solar cells produces far fewer air pollutants than conventional fossil fuel technologies. Their report is the first comprehensive study on the pollutants produced during the manufacture of solar cells.

Solar energy has been touted for years as a safer, cleaner alternative to burning fossil fuels to meet rising energy demands. However, environmentalists and others are increasingly concerned about the potential negative impact of solar cell (photovoltaic) technology.

Manufacture of photovoltaic cells requires potentially toxic metals such as lead, mercury and cadmium and produces carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming.

In the new study, Vasilis M. Fthenakis and colleagues gathered air pollution emissions data from 13 solar cell manufacturers in Europe and the United States from 2004-2006. The solar cells include four major commercial types: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon, and thin-film cadmium telluride.

The researchers found that producing electricity from solar cells reduces air pollutants by about 90 percent in comparison to using conventional fossil fuel technologies. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225090826.htm

So again, yeah, it's not perfect, but if they reduce air pollutants by 90%, and their manufacture produces far fewer air pollutants, isn't that, again, a step forward from fossil fuels?

As to wind turbines, a quick search of the first two pages of Google results brought nothing on the environmental impacts of the production of wind turbines, and I'm not willing to put more time into it. Unquestionably production of ANYTHING, the way we currently do, adds to the problems of pollution, but it looks like they are finding ways to mitigate it when producing solar panels, and most likely will find ways to mitigate it further as research continues. And the big argument is that, when compared to current methods of energy production, unless they produce significantly more pollution, alternative energy is something to pursue, IMHO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:03 AM

PEACEKEEPER

Keeping order in every verse

Rappy, do me a favour, STOP reading The Daily Mail.Over here, it is considered nothing more than a sensationalist rag.Stick to The Times or Guardian.Much more well researched journalism.

With the grace of age, commander, we learn to accept.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:17 AM

BYTEMITE

Hey, Niki. That looks like a statement that could cause this thread to downward spiral. I try not to assign sinister agendas to other people's motivations.

In any case, since I'm very pro-solar power, especially for my area which gets a lot of sun, I'd like to comment on some widespread misperceptions about solar power. No one has said any of these yet, but I'd like to clear the table.

First of all, solar panels do come from silicon, and silicon is a mineral. However, the source of the material for silicon is very common, found readily on the surface, and is associated with poor vegetation growth - it's sand.

Silicon is the single most abundant element in the earth's crust, but it's also only rarely ever found pure "in the wild" so to speak because it's a four valence element. Instead, all silicon crystals have to be grown in a lab. Sand is melted down and poured into a wafer. There aren't environmental impacts associated with the manufacture that I can think of. Rather the issue with solar panels is the cost of producing the silicon - but that cost has been falling.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:19 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo: Why you climate skeptic types assume scientists don't know how to do their job and haven't already thought of clever things that you come up with, is beyond me.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Why ? Because others who know how to do their job as well don't agree with them, for one thing. And it's been shown, whether by intent or not, errors in how the data are collected and interpreted have been and continue to be made.

We can be pragmatic, efficient and smart in how we use our resources, and it doesn't mean we have to buy into the boogy man that is 'human caused climate change '. Boo!

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:21 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Rappy, do me a favour, STOP reading The Daily Mail.Over here, it is considered nothing more than a sensationalist rag.

I know, but American conservatives LOVE it. Make of that what you will.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:23 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I have no problem w/ trying to get more people thinking and acting to become more aware of alternative power answers to suit their needs, but this top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll " fix it ", is a costly fantasy. Costly, naive and pointless.

Can you give me some examples of the "top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll 'fix it'"?

You're kidding, right ? Solyndra ring a bell? 90 billion $'s to 'green energy', where Obama has picked losers at an astounding rate ? Arbitrary demands by govt on CAFE standards for auto manufacturers ? Please.

" I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

I have no problem w/ trying to get more people thinking and acting to become more aware of alternative power answers to suit their needs, but this top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll " fix it ", is a costly fantasy. Costly, naive and pointless.

Can you give me some examples of the "top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll 'fix it'"?

You're kidding, right ? Solyndra ring a bell? 90 billion $'s to 'green energy', where Obama has picked losers at an astounding rate ? Arbitrary demands by govt on CAFE standards for auto manufacturers ? Please.

So you're saying the government SHOULD NOT be subsidizing things, ever, period. Is that what you're saying? Is ALL government subsidy a "top down" effort to "just throw tax dollars at the problem"?

Iraq?

Afghanistan?

TARP?

Farm subsidies?

Military contractors?

Cutting capital gains tax rates?

Oil & Gas industry subsidies?

So-called "clean coal" subsidies?

Those are all clear-cut examples of the "top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll 'fix it'", right?

You do realize that when you whinge about "90 billion $'s to 'green energy'", you're goring Mitt's pet ox, too, right? About $23 billion of that 90 went to "clean coal", something that Mitt says he strongly supports.

So why do you like it when Republicans use that "top down mindset that we can just throw billions of tax dollars at the problem and hope that'll 'fix it'"?

It's a conundrum...

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
CTS: It makes a good point that we need to look at total environmental impact.

CTS, Please understand that scientists are fully aware of this.

Um, yeah. Where do you think I got it from? Scientists. Duh.

This article makes a good point to the PUBLIC which is not so aware of this.

Quote:
Quote:
CTS: Problems also exist with solar panels and wind turbines. More power goes into making them than ever will be recovered in their lifetime.

Cites?

OK,yeah, I'll dig it up. But for now...here are some of the cost effectiveness and efficiency issues *scientists* are concerned about.

Photovoltaics
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph162/l6a.html

The problem with photovoltaics is that the pure silicon used in the cells is extremely expensive to produce. The average panel lasts 7-15 years or so, while it might take around 40 years to recoup the cost of production (theoretically). It's a good idea, but until we have new technology to replace silicon, or use solar energy to power its own production, it isn't very cost effective.

Wind turbines
The cite is harder to come by. Wind turbines are designed to last 20-25 years, but most scholarly literature say 15 years--this is based on modeling. The payback is great if they actually last that long. In real life, blades, rotor hubs, and gearboxes last about 3 to 5 -- which is not cost effective. Energy scientists all know this, but they can't say it publicly for political reasons.

I did find this site which explains the mechanics of wind turbines, which says their lifespan is closer to 5 years.

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Wind-Turbine.html

This is a figure from a case study of wind turbines in Turkey.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032106000499

You can see that these turbines are dead at 20K to 25K hours. Wind turbines work about 8K hours per year. So...comes to around 3 to 4 years.

If wind turbines can indeed last as long as they are designed to last in models, 20 years or so, they would be cost effective and competitive with other energy systems. They are constantly working on making them last longer, so that is achievable in the future. We just don't have that technology now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo: Why you climate skeptic types assume scientists don't know how to do their job and haven't already thought of clever things that you come up with, is beyond me.

It's not personal. It's just war.

Why ? Because others who know how to do their job as well don't agree with them, for one thing. And it's been shown, whether by intent or not, errors in how the data are collected and interpreted have been and continue to be made.

Cites? Y'know, since you claim that you do indeed provide evidence for all your wild-ASSumptions and claims.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 6, 2012 7:27 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, if you're going to dabble in science, make sure that you understand what it says, and try to keep up with changing technology.

Rappy... as usual, you took one snippet of something and expanded it to fill the horizon. The study doesn't say that ALL electric cars cause more pollution. In fact, what is says is that electric cars in China, when powered by coal, cause more fine particle pollution. So, what about electric cars powered by gas-fired turbines? What about oxides of nitrogen.... another form of pollution besides fine particles? Not the same thing, is it?

CTS... the link that you provide is waaaay out of date. PV cells are no longer made from single-cell crystals, and they don't get 10% efficiency, they get near 20%. In reality...

Quote:
It takes power to make power—even with a solar grand plan. From the mining of quartz sand to the coating with ethylene-vinyl acetate, manufacturing a photovoltaic (PV) solar cell requires energy—most often derived from the burning of fossil fuels. But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

Environmental engineer Vasilis Fthenakis, a senior scientist at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, N.Y., and his colleagues examined the four most common types of PV cells: multicrystalline silicon, monocrystalline silicon, ribbon silicon and thin-film. (Other contenders, such as amorphous silicon or superefficient multijunction cells were excluded for lack of data or lack of widespread application to date.) Even taking into account the low efficiency of thin-film solar cells or the energy needed to purify silicon for the other types of PV, all proved to entail significantly fewer emissions in their entire life cycle than the fossil fuels needed to produce an equivalent amount of electricity.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cle
aner-way-to-produce-power

In fact hubby and I are looking into PV energy to help reduce our electric bills.

ETA: Hey Kwicko, when do you suppose rappy will provide those cites? When hell freezes over? I got a six-pack of beer that says he won't. But I don't think anyone will bet against me!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 2:33 AM

Quote:
Posted by SignyM:

PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.

I know that's not your words, but I wanted to touch on that for a moment. It's a bit of a fantasy figure in and of itself, the idea that we can "replace" fossil fuels. We can't, not completely, not in the foreseeable future. But we CAN - and SHOULD - be working towards making sure we're using fossil fuels where they're best used: transportation, lubrication, some manufacturing (smelting, for instance). So say we only replace HALF of our fossil fuel usage; is it worth it? I'd say yes, it's worth the investment.

Others will say, and have said, that no price is too high to pay when you're talking about stamping out voter fraud (which is virtually non-existent in any form that voter ID would address), that no price is too high when it comes to "spreading democracy" to Iraq or Afghanistan (regardless whether or not those countries have any interest in BEING democratized or not), that no price is too high when it comes to making sure our too-big-to-fail banks stay too big to fail - and actually grow, if we give them enough tax-free money!

But those same people will say that a national investment in cleaner energy, in alternative energy sources... THAT is too high a price to pay.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 2:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Interestingly, I think we're going to see a lot more PV in the near future here in CA. Not sure how things work elsewhere, but in CA electricity is expensive, and its tiered... the more you use, the higher you pay. The rate more than doubles... from $0.13 per KWh at the lowest tier to $0.32 per KWh in the highest tier (5). The solar PV companies have developed a system where you pay them a flat rate for 10-20 years and they put up the PV array and sell your energy to the power company. By sizing your system such that you knock off the top three tiers from your normal use, you get to save $$$ with no money upfront. They make money, we save money. I can't imagine why anyone would NOT go solar in SO CAL.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 5:54 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Yeah, Byte, I know, but given all the bullshit tossed out here about "the left", etc., I figure why not?

Just for the edification of those who CARE about facts, the Solyndra thing, which I'm sure has been played up magnificently by FauxNews, as been extrapolated FALSELY to say "most" of Obama's green-energy investments have failed. Here are a few facts to clarify that:

Quote:
Green energy loans

Romney: “I think about half of [the green energy projects the federal government has] invested in, have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who are contributors to your campaigns.”

Not quite half. Not even close. Of the 26 winners of Department of Energy loan guarantees under the stimulus, a total of three have gone belly up: Solyndra, Abound Solar and Beacon Power.

Several of the others, in fact, have thrived, including the maker of a Kansas cellulosic ethanol plant and one of the world’s largest wind projects in Oregon. About a dozen of the companies just got their awards in the fall of 2011, so the projects are still getting off the ground.

It's in the "Fact Checking the Debate" thread I put up.

I fully realize some here would die rather than actually READ any of the fact checking, of Obama as well as of Romney, but I want to put the facts out there, anyway, for those who actually read and don't just buy into the right-wing rhetoric hook, line and sinker.

As an aside, when it comes to solar, I'd LOVE to go that way. We had a company rep come around our neighborhood who was offering some really good specials, and I wanted to meet with them. Jim nixed it, saying given our age and the state of the house, if/when we sell out, it'll probably be razed and the lot built on again, so why bother? I've got our PG&E costs down to $160 a month as it is, which is pretty good compared to others around here, so he also feels it wouldn't be worth the investment, again because of our age. I wish we could, tho', if for no other reason than I want to support the industry.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 12:24 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Okay, imma just skip over mocking the "Daily Heil", cause I could so blow an hour just mocking them and godwin the thread besides...

Yeah, charging your electric car via coal fired plant is just moving the pollution up the line and distancing yourself from that responsibility, sure - but the problem don't reside with the electric car but rather the coal fired plant, does it not ?
And we really DO need to refine our alt-energy tech, but the only way to DO that is to try shit and risk underwhelming performances and occasional failures - right now our solar cell production is terrible, far too resource intensive and producing too much waste, a good bit of which is toxic mercury, hell if imma dodge unpleasant facts about it.
But we CAN do better, and we WILL, the only way we're going to though, is if we try, instead of making excuses to keep sucking the petrol cock.
(and that's what it is, cause the middle east sure is fucking us with it!)

I think the best way to go around the alt-energy production is a systematic von-neuman equivalent.
Build the (even if low efficiency) alt-energy plant, and then use the energy FROM that plant to build more wind turbines, solar cells, etc - that way no one can whine and whinge about their precious fekkin petrol being involved, right ?
Do that enough, while refining the tech, one should achieve a tipover point a lot sooner than otherwise, where excess energy is being produced over and above the manufacture and from there on we're golden.
So it's not concepts we need to work it, it's logistics.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 4:28 PM

^ Exactly, Frem.

Try other things, too - solar covered-parking areas in parking lots, used to power charging stations for electric or plug-in hybrid cars - charge your car while you're at work, for instance.

The argument against alternative energy seems to be that of a petulant child: If you can't do everything all at once, why bother doing anything at all?

If SOME electric cars in SOME areas contribute more of SOME pollutants, that's not a reason to get rid of electric cars, is it? Isn't it a reason to work on making them, their manufacture, and the way we generate the electricity to power them more efficient and cleaner? And when electric cars are cleaner than gas-powered cars at every measurable point, that's not a reason to do away with gas-powered cars completely, either; it's a reason to make THEM more efficient and cleaner.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 7, 2012 6:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The argument against alternative energy seems to be that of a petulant child: If you can't do everything all at once, why bother doing anything at all?

I think you are missing the points of both this article and my own arguments. No one is arguing AGAINST alt energy.

Arguments about energy payback time (how long it would take to recoup energy costs) and carbon/pollution payback time (how long it would take to offset the carbon/pollution emitted in production of the system) are about two things, neither of which is against alt energy:

1. Awareness of the dire need to make technological improvements a priority.
2. Not to delude ourselves into thinking we're morally absolved just because we use the popular green fad of the day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 3:43 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTS

Here's what 'scientists' say, from 2004

News from PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Office of Communications
22 Chambers St.
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Telephone 609-258-3601; Fax 609-258-1301

For immediate release: Aug. 12, 2004
Media contact: Steven Schultz, (609) 258-5729, sschultz@princeton.edu; Roberta Hotinski, (609) 258-7523, hotinski@princeton.edu

Editors: Photos, graphics and a background document are available at: http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/04/q3/0812-carbon/

Technology already exists to stabilize global warming
Analysis shows how to control carbon emissions for 50 years

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 4:43 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Problems also exist with solar panels and wind turbines. More power goes into making them than ever will be recovered in their lifetime. I'm not saying don't use them. Just saying they are not sustainable solutions without new technology that will make them easier to manufacture or make them last longer.

This is exactly why we need to keep persuing those technologies - to refine them. All new advances are inefficient to start, it is through constant development that they become usefull.

Note to anyone - Please pity the poor, poor wittle Rappyboy. He's feeling put upon lately, what with all those facts disagreeing with what he believes.

"We will never have the elite, smart people on our side." -- Rick "Frothy" Santorum

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 5:32 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
a good bit of which is toxic mercury,

I had not heard of this. I'll research it. Admittedly, what I threw up there about solar panels was the extent of my knowledge of how they're produced.

I'm seeing some cadmium telluride, silicon tetrachloride... Maybe mercury is used in the circuitry in the solar panels, I can't see it in the silicon production end.

This webpage seems to have a good analysis of the number of waste products to be concerned about during production and the end-of life.

http://www.txses.org/solar/content/solar-photovoltaic-end-life

Of course, a lot of the problems with solar power could be fixed if we switched from photovoltaics to photosynthesis - plant cells do everything photovoltaic cells can do, with a lot more efficiency.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Of course, a lot of the problems with solar power could be fixed if we switched from photovoltaics to photosynthesis - plant cells do everything photovoltaic cells can do, with a lot more efficiency.

I love this. Any ideas on how it might work?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
This is exactly why we need to keep persuing those technologies - to refine them. All new advances are inefficient to start, it is through constant development that they become usefull.

Of course. That's what I'm saying. No argument there.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 6:56 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... far too resource intensive and producing too much waste, a good bit of which is toxic mercury ..."

Would that be more or less mercury per unit energy produced than the burning of coal?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, October 8, 2012 7:22 AM