4 ms·
The problem with this line of reasoning is that no energy is green by these standards. The solar panel supply chain is not green, solar and wind farms kill bird
by AmericanChopper 7y ago
The problem with this line of reasoning is that no energy is green by these standards. The solar panel supply chain is not green, solar and wind farms kill birds, dams destroy habitat, nuclear produces waste... if you think any of those things are trivial, just google them and you’ll find plenty of people lobbying against them.
If you accept that human are a part of the environment, and that we are going to have some level of impact on it, then as you said, you can look at the RoI/impact of decisions and their alternatives, and come a conclusion that reduces impact. But if your standard is green/not green, then you’re never going to be able to solve any problems.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lkschubert8 7y agoThey are doing exactly what you are saying though. The point is that the ratio of damage to power for a dam that produces so little power is too high.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoAbsolutely, I think this instance is perfectly reasonable. But then you also have people demanding that something be done about birds dying over solar farms (the only thing that could be done about that is to shut down the plant). That’s why I think the “it’s not green” assessment is never productive. “It’s more green than other things” is reasonable and productive, but “it’s not green enough” is an endless rabbit hole.
- lkschubert8 7y agoI mean isn't the logical route to evaluate everything in terms of measurable ecological and climate damage to power produced and try to minimize?
- AmericanChopper 7y agoIt would be. But the issue is so emotive and political, that in my opinion, I don’t think that actually happens very much.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- AdamJacobMuller 7y ago> no energy is green This is precisely my point of view. You must consider the full lifecycle ROI. I'm a particularly big fan of nuclear for that reason.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoWe’re in complete agreement on this then. I wish energy policy was subjected to a reasonable RoI analysis more often.
- AdamJacobMuller 7y agoYep, I think so. My point is more that supposably "green" solutions are not, and that you have to consider the total lifecycle of things. Personally, I favor things where the spoilage is contained. Say, nuclear over coal/nat gas because its far far easier to contain the waste byproducts of nuclear than a coal/nat gas plant. Want to flood an effectively dead desert in the rockies to make gigawatts of power? sounds worth it. Want to flood a vibrant ecosystem in the PNW or Northeast to make a few megawatts? please don't
- chessturk 7y agoHow does the nuclear waste being dangerous for between 200 and 15.7 million years[1] factor into the ROI? Not snark, I just can't fathom how to reliably keep something sealed for 15.7 million years, much less the knowledge of what it is or how to handle it if it becomes unsealed. Otherwise, sign me up for atom smashing/fusing. Does that factor in to your thinking? [1] http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/sherman2/ http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2015/ph240/sherman2/
- barry-cotter 7y agoYou’re referencing an undergraduate memo. I’m sure you could find something more authoritative if you want to try and convince people nuclear waste is an insoluble problem. Nuclear waste is a political problem not a technical one. It’s either still hot and could be used for fuel or not and relatively safe. The hot stuff can be burned in reactors; we don’t because that requires plutonium cycle with the obvious weapons uses. Cold waste can be allowed to decay for a few decades, vitrified by mixing with molten glass so it’s chemically inert and stored in a geologically inactive area, anywhere far from continental plate boundaries deep in the ground[1]. It could also be dumped in deep marine trenches at subduction boundaries where it would eventually be returned to the earth’s core. If you want to get it off Earth altogether I’m sure we could get it to the moon if we really wanted. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
- persistent 7y agoModern wind has basically no impact on birds. It is several orders of magnitude less bird-hungry than are American domesticated cats.