There is no such thing as Clean/Green Energy

[TheWhiteTrashKing]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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......

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

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]

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 ...