Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 26 2019 7:51pm

cricketo wrote:
Feb 26 2019 6:49pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 26 2019 6:12pm
However....the result is that California is also the state with the highest electricity retail prices, ..40% higher than the US average.
That's obviously because they're leftist progressive socialists. Socialist wind costs more than Texan capitalist wind.
Exactly. It has nothing to do with that broken $10 billion nuclear plant that we are paying for (for example.)
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10316
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 26 2019 10:30pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 26 2019 7:51pm
Exactly. It has nothing to do with that broken $10 billion nuclear plant that we are paying for (for example.)
[/quote]
Yes...Exactly bill...that has nothing to do with it .!
San Onofre is a privately owned facility, so most of the costs incurred are borne by a private company. .SCE.
However, San Diego "TAXPAYERS" have had to bear some of the cost due to some dubious political dealings.....
....In 2015, State Attorney General Kamala Harris opened an investigation of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison. California state investigators searched the home of California utility regulator Michael Peevey and found hand written notes, which showed that Peevey had met with an Edison executive in Poland, where the two had negotiated the terms of the San Onofre settlement leaving San Diego taxpayers with a $3.3 billion bill to pay for the closure of the plant. The investigation was closed amidst Harris' 2016 run for the US Senate position, which opened when Barbara Boxer retired.[73][74]
So, whilst the reidents of San Diego area may well be stuck with som impact on their tax's or Rates, ...there is no reason why the shutdown would have any financial impact on the cost of electricity in the State generally.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1904
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 27 2019 7:35am

Was watching ABC 7:30 report and they had this Greens politician senator guy on there and I noticed he was driving around in one of these vehicles that I believe a fair amount of Greens politician folk drive around in.
Which looks like a picture of the Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project.

Image
https://www.facebook.com/RobinChappleML ... =1&theater


It could possibly be the "Ivanpah Solar Power Facility", but that project ended up being completely stupid because it ended up requiring the need to burn about 5 times more natural gas just to get started up than originally projected, aside from costs into the billions and being a magnet deathray for barbecuing the crap out of birds in mid-air flight.

*EDIT/ADD* I decided to add some quotes from Wikipedia/etc on bird deaths from solar towers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_S ... lity#Birds
Quote "In September 2016, federal biologists said about 6,000 birds die from collisions or immolation annually while chasing flying insects around the facility's towers."

This Mojave Desert solar plant kills 6,000 birds a year. Here's why that won't change any time soon
https://www.latimes.com/local/californi ... story.html

These are some of the birds documented to frequently fly into the solar thermal death ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peregrine_falcon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_owl
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow-rumped_warbler

So I assume those Australian Greens vehicles are referring to the Crescent Dunes because at least this project does not routinely emit any gas, as far as I know.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_ ... gy_Project
Image

Of course, the problem with the Crescent Dunes project is that it cost almost $1billion dollars to build and its average MW output is about 14MW. 127,308MWh_annual / 8760 = 14MW

Which is the same power a large diesel generator can create, not exactly serious energy? For a billion dollars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_ ... gy_Project

The thing I couldn't believe is the fact that in some Australian states the Greens political group are literally driving around in vehicles with a picture on them with literally the dumbest renewable energy project ever made. Obviously in the hope that they can gain more political power and build more of these backwards technology solar thermal projects.

I think the reason why they do this is because they saw some crap on broadcast ABC TV about how great these thermal solar projects are thought "Yes that thermal solar project is what we want! lets put a picture of those on all our political vehicles!".
I have seen many reports about "how amazing thermal solar is" on ABC broadcast over time, these reports are actually INCREDIBLY convincing/amazing on showing a "positive light" on the Crescent Dunes project.
So convincing is the ABC broadcast media on the Crescent Dunes project that I have been overwhelmed and compelled to look at its "real-world data" on the internet about 10 times now.
That's the power of broadcast "spectrum-privileged" media when you hear a persuasive report over and over again, it just brainwashes your mind/opinion on things, even when you have looked at the real-world data many times. All media should be made internet only with IP-streaming, broadcast-media is just pure cancer on a better world.

This is what old-hat broadcast media is doing to the general public, just making people dumber and manipulated into doing dumb things.

https://youtu.be/EJ8L9EAWF3E

Last edited by TheBeastie on Feb 28 2019 2:27am, edited 10 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 27 2019 11:02am

Jason Bradford linked his manifesto on Resilience.org.
.
Food, its scarcity, the desire and opportunity to grow it, and the need to do it in ways that are appropriate to place and circumstance, will drive demographic shifts this century. People with life experiences and training suited for the urban environment are going to need a rapid education on what it takes to live off the land, and so-called conventional farmers and ranchers will have a steep learning curve to adopt more frugal and sustainable methods. But farmers and ranchers are not the only ones who need help adjusting to 21st century pressures. A society that actively supports them is also crucial to their success.
Some worry that in losing access to cheap energy the worst aspects of the past, such as xenophobic tribalism, will resurface. Navigating energy descent will likely require that we take the best of liberal world views like openness to ideas, enthusiasm for change, and tolerance of differences...
.
With a list of references and further reading at the bottom
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... y-descent/
.
Read the whole manifesto for download here here.
.
https://www.postcarbon.org/publications ... -is-rural/
.

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 27 2019 11:21am

TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 27 2019 7:35am
Of course, the problem with the Crescent Dunes project is that it cost almost $1billion dollars to build and its average MW output is about 14MW. 127,308MWh_annual / 8760 = 14MW
It is the first utility-scale concentrating solar power (CSP) plant with a central receiver tower and advanced molten salt energy storage technology from SolarReserve.
Some of these projects cost a lot more than comparable conventional tech because they're essentially proofs of concept and aren't mass-produced/deployed. It is an advanced stage in R&D process, a full-size prototype with some utility, which if proves to be operating to expected specs can then be built in numbers for a lot less per unit.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 27 2019 11:26am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 26 2019 10:30pm
San Onofre is a privately owned facility, so most of the costs incurred are borne by a private company. .SCE.
Uh - you do realize that SCE is a UTILITY? And they pass their costs on to customers?

Some more reading for you:
==============================
Counting Customer Costs For San Onofre Closure: $10.4 Billion
Monday, August 3, 2015

The $3.3 billion ratepayer tab contained within the controversial settlement over the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is but a fraction of the decades-long bill customers are left to cover because of the shutdown.

Investigators recently issued search warrants at the offices of San Onofre majority owner Southern California Edison. State regulators were hunting for records on whether the deal was struck in secret. The pact forces customers to pay 70 percent of the costs to shutter the facility following a 2012 radiation leak without a full investigation by state regulators into who was at fault. That $3.3 billion tab is about one third of the $10.4 billion decades-long bill customers must cover because of the shutdown. That works out to about $1,600 per customer meter, spread out over the next decade or two.

https://www.kpbs.org/news/2015/aug/03/c ... e-95-bill/
=================================
....leaving San Diego taxpayers with a $3.3 billion bill to pay for the closure of the plant.
Looks like the taxpayers got the better end of that deal. It's the customers who really get screwed.
So, whilst the reidents of San Diego area may well be stuck with som impact on their tax's or Rates, ...there is no reason why the shutdown would have any financial impact on the cost of electricity in the State generally.
Except that, in fact, it does.

But I find this pretty funny.
H: "California has sky high power costs because of renewable energy! Because reasons!"
B: "California ratepayers are paying billions for a damaged nuclear power plant, which is driving up rates."
H: "Well, uh . . .wait . . . that can't have anything to do with it . . .there is no reason why the shutdown would have any impact."
Last edited by billvon on Feb 27 2019 11:29am, edited 1 time in total.
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 27 2019 11:28am

TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 27 2019 7:35am
. . . being a magnet deathray for barbecuing the crap out of birds in mid-air flight.
And to think - you like to call other people alarmist.

But I bet you saw some crap on some alarmist media site and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
--bill von

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 27 2019 11:38am

billvon wrote:
Feb 27 2019 11:28am
And to think - you like to call other people alarmist.

But I bet you saw some crap on some alarmist media site and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
Yep, it doesn't seem all that bad.
According to rigorous reporting, in over six months, 133 singed birds were counted.[103] By focusing no more than four mirrors on any one place in the air during standby, at Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, in three months, the death rate dropped to zero.[104] Other than in the US, no bird deaths have been reported at CSP plants internationally.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 27 2019 11:53am

cricketo wrote:
Feb 27 2019 11:38am
According to rigorous reporting, in over six months, 133 singed birds were counted.[103] By focusing no more than four mirrors on any one place in the air during standby, at Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project, in three months, the death rate dropped to zero.[104] Other than in the US, no bird deaths have been reported at CSP plants internationally.
And domestic cats kill about 2 billion birds a year in the US. But that's OK because cats are cute. But 133 singed birds! Why, solar is a MAGNET DEATHRAY that BARBEQUES THE CRAP out of birds! Call the media! Call FOX News! Solar power is DESTROYING the environment!
--bill von

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 27 2019 11:59am

billvon wrote:
Feb 27 2019 11:53am
And domestic cats kill about 2 billion birds a year in the US. But that's OK because cats are cute. But 133 singed birds! Why, solar is a MAGNET DEATHRAY that BARBEQUES THE CRAP out of birds! Call the media! Call FOX News! Solar power is DESTROYING the environment!
Don't forget solar plants are stealing sunshine!

iOn <-+-> uOil   1 mW

1 mW
Posts: 12
Joined: Feb 14 2019 5:56am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by iOn <-+-> uOil » Feb 27 2019 2:51pm

I bet most lizards and spiders are happy about some shade in the deserts ;-)
Truth hurts

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10316
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 27 2019 7:59pm

TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 27 2019 7:35am


So I assume those Australian Greens vehicles are referring to the Crescent Dunes .....
Or, Possibly this..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_ ... er_Project
.... The madness is contagious !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 27 2019 8:27pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 27 2019 7:59pm
Or, Possibly this..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_ ... er_Project
.... The madness is contagious !
What's the problem with that one ? It comes with storage for "free" :)

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 27 2019 8:39pm

$4.33/ Watt is really cheap if they can hit that pricepoint. Especially for Ausie dollars. And average the 30% capacity factor that they are forecasting.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 28 2019 12:11pm

New Heinberg essay..."The bind we’re in is this: it is the economy—made up of all those billions of fires—that is causing climate change. Reconfiguring the economy so that it doesn’t cause climate change is currently almost completely a matter of theory, and, even if it is practically possible, represents a job of unprecedented scope and scale that would require nearly unheard-of political solidarity and almost incalculably massive investment and sacrifice (those “affordable energy transition” studies notwithstanding).

Meanwhile, most people are directly dependent on the economy for their survival. Thus, economic contraction or collapse (resulting either from climate change, or from efforts to avert climate change by radically reducing energy use, or from depletion of resources like oil, or even from some entirely foreseeable socioeconomic calamity like a massive debt default or terminal political dysfunction caused by increasing levels of inequality) would itself be traumatic. And for many people (certainly not all!), economic trauma might come sooner and be more direct and devastating than trauma from rising seas, droughts, floods, wildfires, and the other anticipated consequences of global warming."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... s-on-fire/
.
Last edited by sendler2112 on Feb 28 2019 12:42pm, edited 1 time in total.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 28 2019 12:27pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 28 2019 12:11pm
And for many people (certainly not all!), economic trauma might come sooner and be more direct and devastating than trauma from rising seas, droughts, floods, wildfires, and the other anticipated consequences of global warming."
Definitely. Which is why we have to be moving NOW to make the switch, while we still have energy to spare (and fertilizer, and feedstocks for plastics, and material for roads etc.)

Telling someone who lives in a high rise in Denver that he has to eat less meat, or pay more for power, or buy an EV is a lot easier than telling someone who lives in a shack by the shore in Bangladesh to eat less, or to move. Unfortunately, the guy in Denver doesn't see resource depletion (or climate change, or pollution) as a big issue - he just turns on his A/C and orders out. Heck, he may even decide climate change is a myth to assuage his conscience. Meanwhile the guy in Denver is using 20x the resources as the other guy.

Convincing the guy in Denver of the problem is the challenge.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 28 2019 12:49pm

If we really dig into the situation, we need quite a bit more than lifestyle changes that anyone would even be contemplating. More like a WWII X2 type focused effort of all wealthy nations. But how do we get a majority of the world population to all buy in to the need for a complete sustenance level of austerity, a completely new economic system that can humanely distribute resources? And dictate fertility. A just One World Technocracy with support of the majority forever more to guide the use of resources with a view in 1,000 year timescales.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 28 2019 12:59pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 28 2019 12:49pm
If we really dig into the situation, we need quite a bit more than lifestyle changes that anyone would even be contemplating. More like a WWII X2 type focused effort of all wealthy nations. But how do we get a majority of the world population to all buy in to the need for a complete sustenance level of austerity, a completely new economic system that can humanely distribute resources?
That's the challenge. Why should that guy in Denver care about any of that? He'll be dead in 50 years, and most of the really bad stuff will happen after he's dead. Right now he wants a Big Mac.
And dictate fertility.
That will never happen. Fortunately there is a much less draconian way to accomplish that - educate women. There is nothing that has a stronger effect in decreasing birthrate.
A just One World Technocracy with support of the majority forever more to guide the use of resources with a view in 1,000 year timescales.
I don't know if you need a "One World Technocracy" to accomplish that. But I agree that's what the goal has to be.
--bill von

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 652
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Feb 28 2019 1:07pm

I don't own a car. If I would own oe it would run on CNG or electricity
I decided to eat less than 500g meat per week, this is closer to sutsainability as my countries average of 1,200g meat per week: https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/EAT
I mostly use (electric) bikes
I keep my heat lo during winter, I just put on warmer clothes.
I mostly buy "orgnaic" food, when possible

Not only is this more sustainable, but increases significantly my chnace for a Long and healthy life. What's not to like about that?

Problems are my share of General ressource usage, propably I buy to much stuff (incl to many bicycles and motors) and sometimes I do fly, if the other Options are significantly worse.
Flying shouldbe much more expensive and planes should be forced to use fuels from renewable sources and or pay for their climate Change footprint. I do promaote that even if it affacts me.
I also promote more organic farming, electriciyt from renewables, more expensive meat and significantly ore expensive flights.

Yes, this will seem to cost more, but if the alternative is to destroy many of our ecosystems?

The Technologies are already there, the Money is there, you just Need the will to do it.

If I can only afford 8 pairs of new shoes per year instaed of 10 pairs of new shoes each year, let it be. This does NOT influence quality of living.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 28 2019 1:26pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Feb 28 2019 1:07pm
I don't own a car. If I would own oe it would run on CNG or electricity
I decided to eat less than 500g meat per week, this is closer to sutsainability as my countries average of 1,200g meat per week: https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/
I mostly use (electric) bikes
I keep my heat lo during winter, I just put on warmer clothes.
I mostly buy "orgnaic" food, when possible

Not only is this more sustainable, but increases significantly my chnace for a Long and healthy life. What's not to like about that?
That's great. I do similar things. But I still use far more resources than an average human.

For example, a few years ago I had to do some training for our customers. We scheduled it so I could do it all in one trip. The trip took me from San Diego to the UK to Finland to Moscow to Taiwan to Japan before returning. About 25,000 miles of air travel in all. Using United's average fuel economy that's about 350 gallons of fuel. And that more than cancels out my using zero fuel for local transportation a year.

So how do you reduce that? Well, the easy answer is to do a teleconference or something instead of business travel. But the larger answer is that you just don't do it; you take the hit and have fewer foreign customers. On a large scale that means slowing down the economy. And that's doable but it's a hard sell for someone who is used to driving to work, flying to vacation destinations, eating steak etc.

And also, the reason that I _can_ do things like go 100% solar, get an EV etc is because I make enough money to do that - which in part is based on my ability to fly anywhere in the world and run training courses. So I can't just say 'everyone should be like me' because 1) I can only afford to do it because I make money in an expansion-driven economy and 2) while I might be cleaner/have a smaller footprint than Americans, I don't have a smaller footprint than the worldwide average - which is what we have to reduce.
If I can only afford 8 pairs of new shoes per year instaed of 10 pairs of new shoes each year, let it be. This does NOT influence quality of living.
Right. But the scale of change we are talking about here isn't getting 8 new pairs of shoes a year instead of 10 - it's getting 1 new pair of shoes every 10 years.
Last edited by billvon on Feb 28 2019 1:57pm, edited 1 time in total.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 28 2019 1:45pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Feb 28 2019 1:07pm
The Technologies are already there, the Money is there, you just Need the will to do it.
A feasible economic system is not there. Everything would have to change. If everyone did start to phase in a more austere lifestyle the economy would totally crash to a 30+% unemployment worldwide with hyperstagflation. Fiat currency would collapse under defaults.
.
Everything has to change. The entire way we distribute societal surplus. This is the big hangup why half a dozen well meaning climate agreements have come and gone with little progress.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 28 2019 2:31pm

From the Heinberg essay.
.
"Our goal would be a sustainable and equitable level of consumption for all. But the constituency for doing that is tiny. And doing it without unleashing utter economic bedlam would require rethinking everything about how the economy currently works.

We at Post Carbon Institute have settled on the strategy of helping build community resilience in the face of impending civilizational collapse. ... But if the latter effort doesn’t work, then grassroots community resilience building truly is the last, best fallback strategy. Theoretically, if done well (using permaculture principles), it could aid with reforestation and biodiversity protection. But at this late date there can be no guarantees."

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Feb 28 2019 3:04pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 28 2019 2:31pm
helping build community resilience in the face of impending civilizational collapse
I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden.
:mrgreen:

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5315
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Mar 01 2019 3:31am

Cephalotus wrote:
Feb 28 2019 1:07pm
I mostly buy "orgnaic" food, when possible

Not only is this more sustainable, but increases significantly my chnace for a Long and healthy life. What's not to like about that?
I applaud your actions but the one on eating organic demonstrates how difficult it can be to do the "right" thing: Organic certainly has benefits, like reduced use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers, but the research suggests the decreased crop yield/increased land use has a net negative effect on climate change.

It's similar to how using natural fibres for clothes are better for the environment on the one hand (don't use oil as feedstock, don't fill the ocean with microplastics, decompose in landfill) but, on the other hand, artificial fibre clothing is better for climate change as it uses much less land, energy and water to produce.

Unfortunately it's often a case of "choose your poison"...

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 01 2019 6:14am

Punx0r wrote:
Mar 01 2019 3:31am
I applaud your actions but the one on eating organic demonstrates how difficult it can be to do the "right" thing: Organic certainly has benefits, like reduced use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers, but the research suggests the decreased crop yield/increased land use has a net negative effect on climate change.
We are headed for a world with less after the carbon pulse. Best get focused on how "they" will survive 1,000 years from now and quit wasting on extravagance.

Post Reply