# There is no such thing as Clean/Green Energy



## FenrirFox

Solar and wind require oil to be produced and replaced, so it is still poisoning the environment with the unnecessary oil based production process, which includes overseas shipping and lack of biodegradability.

Wind turbines chop up birds. Solar panels fry birds and animals and trick animals into thinking that there is water because of the reflective blue surface.

Nuclear plants produce nuclear waste, litter the environment with concrete and metals, and it may be even more resource limited than oil.

So don't worry about using "clean" energy or not, it's a trap.


----------



## Jackthereaper

Steam is rather clean and renenwable if its wood fired.


----------



## Thewalkindude

In the long run solar and wind are producing clean, virtually unlimited energy, and are eventually going to be able to harvest more joules than coal or oil ever could as technology progresses. 

We certainly should be concerned with where our energy comes from. Oil and coal resources are diminishing at an exponential rate, while co2 emissions are increasing simultaneously as the population increases.

But what do I know, I'm just getting my info from the thousands of scientists who publish peer reviewed articles saying we need to adapt or suffer the numerous consequences.


----------



## FenrirFox

Solar and wind are not producing clean energy. Like I said, they require oil to be made, kill animals, and litter the environment. They also don't produce "unlimited energy."


----------



## FenrirFox

Jackthereaper said:


> Steam is rather clean and renenwable if its wood fired.


That is an interesting energy source. Still won't be "green," but yeah.


----------



## Deleted member 125

FenrirFox said:


> That is an interesting energy source. Still won't be "green," but yeah.



so are you just kinda a wingnut or...?


----------



## Jackthereaper

FenrirFox said:


> That is an interesting energy source. Still won't be "green," but yeah.


You can paint a steam engine green....


----------



## Thewalkindude

FenrirFox said:


> Solar and wind are not producing clean energy. Like I said, they require oil to be made, kill animals, and litter the environment. They also don't produce "unlimited energy."



"Virtually unlimited" key word virtually. As long as the sun shines and the wind blows that will be an energy resource. Sure you need oil to produce turbines, but the whole reason it exists is so we don't have to rely on fossil fuels as heavily which are far less Eco friendly.

You seem to be bent on solar and wind being harmful to animals, despite the fact it's a FAR better alternative than gas or oil for producing energy while also decreasing co2 emissions which are melting polar ice caps and destroying entire ecosystems that exist there.

The impact on the environment is so much less with wind and solar. I'm not sure if you're argument is it doesn't matter what method of energy production we use, or stop producing energy all together. Either way it's dumb and I'm starting to think you're just trolling


----------



## FenrirFox

I don't see how the impact is less when it demands more oil, and has extra harmful effects.

I'm a troll? Never insulted anyone and I've been called a wingnut and a troll for my dissent.


----------



## Deleted member 125

FenrirFox said:


> I don't see how the impact is less when it demands more oil, and has extra harmful effects.
> 
> I'm a troll? Never insulted anyone and I've been called a wingnut and a troll for my dissent.



the device yer posting on required oil to produce. destroy it.


----------



## Jackthereaper

Small scale hydro is clean as can be, so long as the water wheel doesnt kill anything that goes through. 

Large scale hydro power kills some fishes for sure


----------



## Jackthereaper

SlankyLanky said:


> the device yer posting on required oil to produce. destroy it.


My model A ford took oil to produce and has been driven regularly for 90 years, its more about use per ton of oil input imo...


----------



## FenrirFox

SlankyLanky said:


> the device yer posting on required oil to produce. destroy it.


Never said that I was against using oil. Totally irrelevant comment to the point.


----------



## Deleted member 125

FenrirFox said:


> Never said that I was against using oil. Totally irrelevant comment to the point.



are you sure? because oil is kinda ya know...not a renewable energy source and thats what yer original post was about, whether or not "clean" energy was a trap. mind if i ask why you joined stp?



Jackthereaper said:


> My model A ford took oil to produce and has been driven regularly for 90 years, its more about use per ton of oil input imo...



i was being sarcastic.


----------



## Jackthereaper

SlankyLanky said:


> are you sure? because oil is kinda ya know...not a renewable energy source and thats what yer original post was about, whether or not "clean" energy was a trap. mind if i ask why you joined stp?
> 
> 
> 
> i was being sarcastic.


I was more pointing toward op that using stuff that had its carbon emitted in the distant past is far better than using new energy like buying a new car for instance instead of driving an old one etc.


----------



## Thewalkindude

FenrirFox said:


> I don't see how the impact is less when it demands more oil, and has extra harmful effects.
> 
> I'm a troll? Never insulted anyone and I've been called a wingnut and a troll for my dissent.



The fact that we have solar and wind energy right now decreases our dependency on oil. The demand for oil goes down because of the alternative energy source, after the turbine or solar panel is produced. Therefore being a much cleaner alternative to fossil fuels because it consumes far less in the long run.


----------



## Deleted member 125

Jackthereaper said:


> I was more pointing toward op that using stuff that had its carbon emitted in the distant pass far better than using new energy like buying a new car for instance instead of driving an old one etc.


at this point i think wingnut has been established but if you wanna keep going thats fine by me.


----------



## Jackthereaper

Also you can totally make solar panels using solar energy.


----------



## FenrirFox

I don't see how my original post was about that. There is no such thing as "renewable" energy outside of nature.


----------



## Deleted member 125

FenrirFox said:


> I don't see how my original post was about that. There is no such thing as "renewable" energy outside of nature.



ok so unwilling to understand modern common sense wingnut. i just like to know what kinda folk im possibly going to have to interact with later on. welcome to stp.


----------



## Deleted member 125

please remember keep the discussion civil.


----------



## FenrirFox

What is "modern common sense" supposed to mean? Is it necessarily true/correct?

Keep it civil? You have been calling me a wingnut.


----------



## Dameon

There's no such thing as a 100% perfectly clean way to generate power without affecting anything at all, no. That's completely impossible by the laws of physics. 

That doesn't mean there aren't cleanER ways to generate power. Just because we can't do it perfectly with zero impact doesn't mean that we shouldn't care at all about relative impact. Burning coal is extremely dirty. Some stuff you're flat out wrong about; you can make solar panels without using any fossil fuels at all ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-solar-energy-without-fossil-fuel/ ), and even the ones that use fossil fuels are a one time investment of oil over 10 years or so, and the plastic can be recycled, as well as the rare earth minerals involved in making them. The impact of energy sources isn't black and white. It's not all or none.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying "there's no food that's 100% healthy for you, so you should live off ice cream and candy all the time".


----------



## Odin




----------



## roughdraft

you make some good points (never considered animals being attracted to solar panels thinking it's a pool of water...but i could imagine this being true) 

my opinion is just do not trip...you need to recognize "clean" energy is just a buzzword. no one 'above average intelligence' is really convinced anything artificial is going to be 100% "clean" relative to its impact on nature. what we want is cleanER but most people clap their hands and cheer at buzzwords and not 'boring' detailed breakdowns of shtuff

the truth is more complicated =/= 'clean energy is a trap'

say the cleaner system still requires oil - it's so much significantly less oil that they can call it "clean" and it be _relatively _true

make sense?

also don't take comments from @SlankyLanky personally, (i think) that's just how he shows affection

good luck on your journey whatever way you slice it it's a fullon shitshow

yes humanity is very fucked up but whatever


----------



## Free Jones

still, honestly, if you live in a house it's probly better for everyone if you buy your own solar panels and maybe even build your own smaller turbine


----------



## FenrirFox

_Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh1Q-K-f8vQ&t=10s_​

Video on the special metals needed for "renewables" along with produced toxins and pollutants that are stronger than CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trifluoride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride#Greenhouse_gas (See Greenhouse Gas sections)

CO2 isn't the only pollutant, there are actually more potent ones.

Silicone has to be baked from coal. http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Silicon.html


----------



## Dameon

FenrirFox said:


> Video on the special metals needed for "renewables" along with produced toxins and pollutants that are stronger than CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_trifluoride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur_hexafluoride#Greenhouse_gas (See Greenhouse Gas sections)​
> CO2 isn't the only pollutant, there are actually more potent ones.
> 
> Silicone has to be baked from coal. http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Silicon.html


You're just showing that there's still environmental impact. Only any idiot would argue that we can get 100% free power that doesn't affect anything at all. For your argument to make any sense, you'd have to show that every source of power has exactly the same negative impact that every other one does. Good luck.


----------



## FenrirFox

I never argued that we can get "100% free power that doesn't affect anything at all."

"Renewables" are worse for the environment, still dependent on limited resources and just not worth making policy out of or wasting time worrying about.

Not that it matters too much since it is a false hope against the inevitable crash of modern society. I just think people waste time focusing on the "renewable and green" energy lies than learning how to live with nature if they are concerned about being ecofriendly (which I am not because I understand my situation.)

The only way to be ecofriendly is to live with nature, and I am making no claims about being ecofriendly myself. I just don't like these lies about making modern society ecofriendly.


----------



## Eng JR Lupo RV323

How is this so hard to wrap your mind around, OP? Are you familiar with the concept of sacrificing a little to save a lot? It doesn't take an ongoing amount of oil to keep solar panels going. The amount that went into the creation and transportation of those is probably extremely small compared to what they're giving back over a long period of time.

Look if you have say a pot farm right.. and one of the 12 plants you have is showing some serious signs of spider mites. You've had bad luck with neem oil and other solutions in the past but you know you can for sure save the other 11 if you remove that one that's infected immediately. It sucks to lose one but to save 11 it makes sense, right?

So yeah, we use a tiny amount of oil to make a fucking grip of solar panels. What's your solution then? To just keep on burning the limited resources that are disappearing at an extreme rate as in like won't be here any longer? We just keep burning that shit because there's no such thing as 100% pure green energy?

Do us a favor, never run for any sort of office.


----------



## FenrirFox

I would never torture myself by being one of those slimy suits in office. I hope you don't trust any of them, blue or red or green or whatever.

I don't believe anything is being saved, these things are not better for the environment than oil, they are worse.

Like I said before, there are worse pollutants than just using oil, and these "green" energies are exactly that while still using oil, even if you made the input of oil ultimately less or even zero.

We actually use tons of coal to make silicone panels, and "renewables" are resource limited still.

Use up our fuel? That is inevitable, and would actually be good for the environment. This is what will and should happen, and is also why I am not concerned.


----------



## Coywolf

Jackthereaper said:


> Small scale hydro is clean as can be, so long as the water wheel doesnt kill anything that goes through.
> 
> Large scale hydro power kills some fishes for sure



Just wanted to say large scale hydro is one of the most destructive forms of energy when it comes to the environment, IF it takes a reservoir to produce. Look at the western watersheds.....

This entire arguement is EXACTLY what Trump wants you to think OP. DONT FALL INTO THE TRAP!

What we really gotta do is use the rest of our oil reserves to improve long distance space travel. Find some other planets with resources, and fuck them up to. What do you think the Space Force is really all about?

@Odin that is brilliant. If only it would work!


----------



## Coywolf

Ooo OOO! Wait, I got a better one...

Rise up, and force the rich to run on energy producing treadmills for 10 hours a day....would that be considered green?


----------



## FenrirFox

I don't think traveling into space would be worth the expenditure.


----------



## FenrirFox

Coywolf said:


> Ooo OOO! Wait, I got a better one...
> 
> Rise up, and force the rich to run on energy producing treadmills for 10 hours a day....would that be considered green?


No, killing them would be though. You can eat them for actually green energy.


----------



## Dameon

FenrirFox said:


> "Renewables" are worse for the environment, still dependent on limited resources and just not worth making policy out of or wasting time worrying about.
> 
> The only way to be ecofriendly is to live with nature, and I am making no claims about being ecofriendly myself. I just don't like these lies about making modern society ecofriendly.


I don't think you've effectively proven that renewable energy is actually worse for the environment than straight-up burning coal. You're completely failing to account for the fact that the resources that go into a turbine or a solar panel are recyclable. A solar panel doesn't create the same pollution per watt it generates as just burning coal.

In your perfect "everybody lives with nature" world, do people have campfires? Because 10 billion people with their own household fires going all the time will cause untold ecological devastation from both the carbon released in the air and fires going out of control. Or do you just expect billions of people to roll over and die so you can have your utopia?


----------



## TheWhiteTrashKing

FenrirFox said:


> I would never torture myself by being one of those slimy suits in office. I hope you don't trust any of them, blue or red or green or whatever.
> 
> I don't believe anything is being saved, these things are not better for the environment than oil, they are worse.
> 
> Like I said before, there are worse pollutants than just using oil, and these "green" energies are exactly that while still using oil, even if you made the input of oil ultimately less or even zero.
> 
> We actually use tons of coal to make silicone panels, and "renewables" are resource limited still.
> 
> Use up our fuel? That is inevitable, and would actually be good for the environment. This is what will and should happen, and is also why I am not concerned.


They are worse??? You are fucking stupid. Just gonna say it. Ban me, whatever. People like you are part of the problem, not the solution. You actually think producing solar panels is worse for the environment than fracking, catastophic oil spills, and massive carbon emitting machines?!?! Only a wingnut dumb fuck would think that. Someone asked before, but why are you here? Trying to convince us that there is a giant renewable energy conspiracy to enslave the common people? Come on dude...


----------



## FenrirFox

Most people will not survive the crash of civilization, so there will not be the population we have today for very long. So I can have my utopia? I made no claims about utopia. It's an inevitability, no matter what you think about it.

I have shown the pollutants that are worse than CO2 that they produce.


----------



## balaperdida

Can we just skip to the point where we all come to the conclusion that ending humanity is the best solution? Save the planet, kill yourself


----------



## FenrirFox

TheWhiteTrashKing said:


> They are worse??? You are fucking stupid. Just gonna say it. Ban me, whatever. People like you are part of the problem, not the solution. You actually think producing solar panels is worse for the environment than fracking, catastophic oil spills, and massive carbon emitting machines?!?! Only a wingnut dumb fuck would think that. Someone asked before, but why are you here? Trying to convince us that there is a giant renewable energy conspiracy to enslave the common people? Come on dude...


Producing solar panels raises the demand for these things. "Carbon emitting machines" are how solar panels are made. They also release more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

The common people are already enslaved, and green energy is just another fantasy to try and cope with that. If it's purposefully a tool to keep people mentally enslaved is honestly hard to tell, and at this point what is an accidental lie and what is a purposeful lie becomes indistinguishable.


----------



## TheWhiteTrashKing

FenrirFox said:


> Producing solar panels raises the demand for these things. "Carbon emitting machines" are how solar panels are made. They also release more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.
> 
> The common people are already enslaved, and green energy is just another fantasy to try and cope with that. If it's purposefully a tool to keep people mentally enslaved is honestly hard to tell, and at this point what is an accidental lie and what is a purposeful lie becomes indistinguishable.


Hahah alrighty then home slice. Just keep in mind all the resources it takes to make your foil hats. Peace brah


----------



## FenrirFox

balaperdida said:


> Can we just skip to the point where we all come to the conclusion that ending humanity is the best solution? Save the planet, kill yourself


We are part of the planet. Disconnected from nature, but still part of it, with the same drive to survive.


----------



## FenrirFox

TheWhiteTrashKing said:


> Hahah alrighty then home slice. Just keep in mind all the resources it takes to make your foil hats. Peace brah


Yeah, I know one day I will run out of tin foil for my hats. Sadly when that happens I will no longer be able to protect myself from your stupid rays penetrating my skull.


----------



## Dameon

FenrirFox said:


> I have shown the pollutants that are worse than CO2 that they produce.


That's not the same. What you need to show is that OVERALL, they have a higher impact on the environment than burning coal for the same amount of electricity as a solar panel or a windmill can generate over its lifetime.


----------



## FenrirFox

It's more than coal. There are worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 that "green" energy produces.

I don't need to show anything more, (which even if I did it would yet again be ignored,) fossil fuels are simply the most practical and least devastating source of energy.

But yes, they have a higher impact/harm on the environment than just efficiently using fossil fuel.


----------



## balaperdida

FenrirFox said:


> We are part of the planet. Disconnected from nature, but still part of it, with the same drive to survive.


Right, but do you have a solution or you just like to complain that 'progress' isn't occuring how you would like it to? I mean I get what you're saying to some degree, but i get the feeling you would like to see the shut down of all industry and if that's the case, then what would the world look like to you?
if thats not the case then you're gonna have to accept pollution and birds 'diving into solar panels?' and wind turbines. like, shit man there will always be a cost but aren't things better now with 'green n clean' energy? even if the name isn't completely accurate. Do you just want people to call it something else, how bout 'greener and cleaner than before' energy. I think that just rolls of the tongue nicely


----------



## Dameon

FenrirFox said:


> It's more than coal. There are worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 that "green" energy produces.
> 
> I don't need to show anything more, (which even if I did it would yet again be ignored,) fossil fuels are simply the most practical and least devastating source of energy.
> 
> But yes, they have a higher impact/harm on the environment than just efficiently using fossil fuel.


So a solar panel produces greenhouse gases over its lifetime, or are you just STILL only talking about the initial cost, and completely ignoring the necessity of understanding the impact per watt generated over the lifetime of a panel? Does that mean anything to you? Does it not make sense? So far, your argument appears to be that because creating solar panels (at our current level of technology, we'll ignore the fact that better and cleaner processes are constantly being created) CAN involve creating "worse" pollutants than CO2 (ignoring the ecological damage mining large amounts of fossil fuels produces), you can burn 10 tons of coal and it's cleaner than a single solar panel. You have a simplistic view that refuses to incorporate a larger view of the cost/benefit analysis.

You need to show something more if you want to convince anybody else other than yourself. The rest of us are kinda sticklers for things like "numbers" and "facts", and not just instantly convinced by a linked Youtube video.


----------



## Jackthereaper

FenrirFox said:


> It's more than coal. There are worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 that "green" energy produces.
> 
> I don't need to show anything more, (which even if I did it would yet again be ignored,) fossil fuels are simply the most practical and least devastating source of energy.
> 
> But yes, they have a higher impact/harm on the environment than just efficiently using fossil fuel.


I take it you absolutely hate domestic cats? They kill billions of birds per year


----------



## Deleted member 125

FenrirFox said:


> I don't need to show anything more, (which even if I did it would yet again be ignored,) fossil fuels are simply the most practical and least devastating source of energy.



you wouldnt be ignored, you might be ridiculed because yer wrong. as other people have tried to explain to you already. but i doubt at this point in the thread that if you provided some kind of proof of yer claims that youd be outright ignored, shit i even sat through that entire 7 minute youtube video hoping maybe it would prove a half valid point to what yer talking about.


----------



## FenrirFox

Jackthereaper said:


> I take it you absolutely hate domestic cats? They kill billions of birds per year


Yes. Feral cats should be killed.

Slanky, I'm going to ignore your points because you are just wrong and pointless. See how that works? Neither do I.


----------



## Deleted member 125

FenrirFox said:


> Yes. Feral cats should be killed.
> 
> Slanky, I'm going to ignore your points because you are just wrong and pointless. See how that works? Neither do I.



not really sure how asking to provide a shred of proof of yer claims is pointless or wrong, but fair enough.


----------



## Coywolf

FenrirFox said:


> We are part of the planet. Disconnected from nature, but still part of it, with the same drive to survive.



You think we should kill all feral cats, but not half of the human race (The most destructive species on the planet)...?
How contradictory......



FenrirFox said:


> It's more than coal. There are worse greenhouse gasses than CO2 that "green" energy produces.
> 
> I don't need to show anything more, (which even if I did it would yet again be ignored,) fossil fuels are simply the most practical and least devastating source of energy.
> 
> But yes, they have a higher impact/harm on the environment than just efficiently using fossil fuel.



You voted for Trump....didn't you?

Well you sure as hell arent going to convince anyone here to MAGA.

We smarter than that, yo!


----------



## roughdraft

this is too wild bro

here - CONSIDER that you MAY be misguided


----------



## CaptainCassius

idk guyzz I think OP is onto something here about saying bollocks to alternative energy:
-shoot the rich, steal their guzzoline
-man lives out mad max/postman-esque fantasy
-world burns
-woman and feral cats inherit the earth.


----------



## roughdraft

miau


----------



## Coywolf

I need a beer after reading this thread....

Fuck it.....make it a Four Loko!


----------



## TheWhiteTrashKing

Bout to


Coywolf said:


> I need a beer after reading this thread....
> 
> Fuck it.....make it a Four Loko!


 Bout to crack my second 12 percent loco.


----------



## All Who Wander

Solar uses rare earth mineral resources for pannel production (as do the batteries of your cell phone and every hybrid car) those are running out at an alarming rate. Steam or even wood-gas dumps lots of carbon, if we all changed to that we'd blot out the sun and enjoy daily acid rain. Nuclear is about as clean as it gets especially with Gates's new process that runs off other reactor's spent fuel rods (he's building 3 in china)


----------



## Dameon

All Who Wander said:


> Solar uses rare earth mineral resources for pannel production (as do the batteries of your cell phone and every hybrid car) those are running out at an alarming rate. Steam or even wood-gas dumps lots of carbon, if we all changed to that we'd blot out the sun and enjoy daily acid rain. Nuclear is about as clean as it gets especially with Gates's new process that runs off other reactor's spent fuel rods (he's building 3 in china)


Rare earth minerals aren't actually "rare" as in there's not many of them (https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/01/renewable-energy-made-available-resources/), it's an archaic term that dates back centuries. The resources used in a solar panel and batteries are also recyclable. Nuclear, on the other hand, relies on a non-recyclable, actually rare resource. And requires a centralized power grid that gives control over your power to a large monopolistic corporation that has no responsibility to treat you like a customer and will inevitably fail in the smallest emergency. Plus, you're ignoring the wide variety of alternative energy sources like wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and the fact that solar panel technology is rapidly changing and improving, with development on panels that don't require rare earths.

The ideal, safe nuclear may be clean, but unfortunately we aren't ever going to get that. Managers cut corners, people make mistakes, unpredictable accidents happen, and when it breaks we all have to pay the cost. We can't just assume that the people designing, operating, and maintaining all these nuclear plants won't make any mistakes, and that there won't ever be any successful deliberate sabotage (like the way we used a computer virus to sabotage Iran's development of a nuclear plant), and that every possibility of failure is covered and protected against. Not when the stakes are so high.


----------



## WhereeverIMayRoam

Wow what a thread to come back here to ...


----------



## CaptainCassius

Dameon said:


> Rare earth minerals aren't actually "rare" as in there's not many of them (https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/01/renewable-energy-made-available-resources/), it's an archaic term that dates back centuries. The resources used in a solar panel and batteries are also recyclable. Nuclear, on the other hand, relies on a non-recyclable, actually rare resource. And requires a centralized power grid that gives control over your power to a large monopolistic corporation that has no responsibility to treat you like a customer and will inevitably fail in the smallest emergency. Plus, you're ignoring the wide variety of alternative energy sources like wind, geothermal, tidal, hydro, and the fact that solar panel technology is rapidly changing and improving, with development on panels that don't require rare earths.
> 
> The ideal, safe nuclear may be clean, but unfortunately we aren't ever going to get that. Managers cut corners, people make mistakes, unpredictable accidents happen, and when it breaks we all have to pay the cost. We can't just assume that the people designing, operating, and maintaining all these nuclear plants won't make any mistakes, and that there won't ever be any successful deliberate sabotage (like the way we used a computer virus to sabotage Iran's development of a nuclear plant), and that every possibility of failure is covered and protected against. Not when the stakes are so high.



I like what you've said here, I've always thought of nuclear power as one of those 'with great power comes great responsibility' types of situations, yes it can be extremely dangerous but on the other hand it is a huge achievement in the progress of energy production, technology, science, and engineering. Im glad that other forms of 'green' energy production are rapidly advancing and becoming more available, but I really think we lost out on advancements in nuclear energy because it's been dismissed as too dangerous- say what you will about the social, economic and political repercussions of that but with this many people on the planet pilfering resources and polluting we may need more than just 'green' energy to get off this rock to be able to continue and sustain this amount of growth and consumption. Or we fall prey to a massive J- curve in the population with some semblance of a near or total extinction event to return to natural balance.


----------



## FenrirFox

SlankyLanky said:


> not really sure how asking to provide a shred of proof of yer claims is pointless or wrong, but fair enough.


You took me out of context.


----------



## FenrirFox

Coywolf said:


> You think we should kill all feral cats, but not half of the human race (The most destructive species on the planet)...?
> How contradictory......
> 
> 
> 
> You voted for Trump....didn't you?
> 
> Well you sure as hell arent going to convince anyone here to MAGA.
> 
> We smarter than that, yo!


Nothing contradictory, I am a human not a cat. I support Palestine, not Trump or any MAGAt.


----------



## Jackthereaper

I know this is an old thread, but a friend is currently looking to put low head hydro on his land. He is talking to this belgian company called turbulent along with several others. He’s looking at a 5 kw install. While its not cheap it should pay for itself in 10 years according to his calculations. 

I think the turbulent units are awesome, hopefully i can one day settle onto some land with an appropriate river to install one.

https://www.turbulent.be
I am excited to see where these low impact dispersed energy generation techniques lead the world.


----------



## blankityblank

This is kind of an old thread but I think it's an interesting conversation. Nothing is ever going to be totally clean. There is always going to be some negative externality associated with any sort if energy production. I think solar is probably our best bet, maybe nuclear too but I honestly dont know much about it and dont trust the gov/corporations to not totally fuck everything up. My house is entirely run off of solar. Its bootleg as fuck but we can have a light in each room and have a way to charge a phone. I think that our set up is objectively better for the environment than us running off the grid. However, I think it can be kind of a kick in the face to some people to say it is a totally "green" energy source. There still are precious medals involved in the production of batteries and panels. Ever seen what a lithium mine looks like? Green energy still exists under capitalism. There is still brute violence, pollution, and colonization that goes into making these products on a mass scale. But that kind of goes hand in hand with most anything mass produced that you can buy I guess. Oil and gas is a pretty fucking low bar though so it's probably gotta be better


----------



## obey no one

it's hard to really tell if solar or wind are really any better or more environmentally friendly than oil. In order to even find the answer to that question would probably take years of research to figure out. They both sound like they would be better, but there is alot oil natural resources that go into producing them.

the obvious questions would be where are they made, how are materials needed to make them acquired (mining) how is that process done. how far are they shipped, etc. chasing down every little piece of the puzzle would be exhausting. 

also since both solar and wind are not 100% reliable you need to have back up generators, which are often lesss efficeint to turn on and off, meaning they require more natural resources to start up and are less efficient, then larger always on generators.

the problem with them both is storing energy for off peak hours. then you just have another input with manufactureing the batteries and trying to figure out what their environmental cost is, even if the tech was there to make it work, which it is not, but it is getting better.

there are lots of possible alternatives, but like some one mentioned it's not about if they work but the amount of work required to get a unit of energy. and then trying to figure out if it is more environmentally friendly.

probably the answer would have alot to do with where you are, what resources are available in your area. as an example is it better to have a solar panel made in a third world country with poor environmental protections and shipped across the world. or is it better to use natural gas that is produced in the same state you are already in, or sugar ethanol, or tidal currents if you live on the coast or geothermal if you live in iceland.

the answer likely varies for everyone. and keeping an older gas car running is almost certainly better than buying a new hybrid with parts made all over the world.

the poster is somewhat right that traditional thinking about "green" energy is all wrong. there is no one easy answer. when the tech for a new system reaches the point that it is better & more effiecient it will take over naturally, no need for pointless laws (ethanol, nuclear).

and also the real problem is not what we are using, but how many of us are using it. everything is sustainable if there are alot less people on the planet, nothing is sustainable if our population, and our desire for stuff continues at the rate it is.

as for climate change that is part of how our world works, that is supposably how we got here as a species. climate changed and forced us to evolve. every species is tied to its environment, if it overpopulates then the things it needs to survive become more scarce, and its population crashes. we are no different. and there will be not stopping it, because the human race is evolved enough to face a problem of this time scale and size. lots of poor people all over the world want what we have, and they will not live in poverty so that we can live good.

climate change will happen no matter what, even if we werent here it would happen. some species will go extinct, some will evolve. as for our species. some of use will be fine, maybe even better off, many will not, all depends on where you are.

do the best you can, but i wouldn't worry too much about it. everything is in a constant state of change, birth, decline, death, rebirth. that is the way the world and the universe works. there is no changing it.


----------



## Deleted member 13433

It is an important topic, as I now realized that I have re-written this comment like 3x, because while it's important, this is the wrong forum for such discussions.

In Connecticut, they look for any excuse to clear cut an area, or remove entire hilltops, entire hills for that matter....

It's like they get off on destroying anything that is natural.

Right across the river from me, there is/was an active quarry run by either the Dept of Interior or maybe the Army Corps Of Engineers... anyhow, they would blast, and our homes would shake.

They only stopped after their blasting sent rocks through a pre-schools windows while children were in class.......

Everywhere I look there are more solar panels being installed and more trees being cut down, and that cannot be good on any level.

People here constantly have their faces in their i-phones and buds in their ears to seal them from the world that they live in, and god forbid if you interrupt them !!

It is beyond depressing.....

But what is even worse is the amount of time I have spent agonizing over this comment, how I should write it, should I even write it, while my poor dog downstairs just gave me this look like "Really, that laptop is more important than me ??"

No, there is nothing more important than spending time with my dog......

PS: the comment directly above mine really really nail it - well done @obey no one !!


----------



## MFB

I enjoyed reading the previous three posts. Thanks doods!

I kinda said this in @OTTERWOLF's other thread about this topic. 

To me the solution isnt in finding a better way to meet energy demands,
But in finding a sustainable lifestyle that will drastically cut energy demands.

But of course we all know that will never happen. There's a large faction of Mennonites living the good life in the jungle hills of Belize, maybe it would be nice to learn more from them.


----------

