3 ms·

You are of course right shaming is not going to help. > completely green electricity generation The problem with green electricity is that there is no such th

by tasuki 4y ago

You are of course right shaming is not going to help. > completely green electricity generation The problem with green electricity is that there is no such thing as green electricity. The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan? The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
baal80spam 4y ago
Highly recommend this enlightening book on the subject (among others): https://www.amazon.com/How-World-Really-Works-Science/dp/0593297067 https://www.amazon.com/How-World-Really-Works-Science/dp/059...
mrshadowgoose 4y ago
In this context, "green" means carbon-neutral, which (the lack of neutrality) is generally accepted as the dominating "bad" factor with how humanity harnesses energy today. Anything else is goalpost moving. But I'll entertain the goalpost moving nonetheless. > The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan? These are all things that can be recycled given the correct application of energy. Not profitably as a standalone enterprise of course, but energetically positive in comparison to what a given installation produces in its lifetime. Therefore the added cost can be baked into the final cost of the energy produced. > The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with. Most of us don't care for your extreme version of "green", so I'll point back to my original comment. You're not going to be able to convince people to willingly give up comfort, so focus on reducing the impacts of people deciding to live that way. "Much better" is worse than "perfect", but "much better" is still better than what we're doing today. You're not going to get "perfect" unless humanity is wiped out completely.
- tasuki 4y ago
  Sure, agreed!
PaulRobinson 4y ago
One time build and destruction costs are also present in fossil fuel power generation. Thing is with wind and solar, that’s the total harm done. When averaged out over the MWh they produce, you realise that in comparison to coal, oil or gas based power their CO2 impact is utterly negligible. Is there more that can be done to reduce it further? Sure. But saying because there is some lifecycle CO2 in their usage means they should be considered harmful is like saying cycling to work is harmful just like taking a helicopter, because rubber tyres aren’t entirely environmentally friendly. It’s honestly that absurd a comparison.
- tasuki 4y ago
  I think you're strawmanning a little. I'm in no way advocating for burning coal/oil/gas. I'm advocating for reduction. If we were looking for an alternative, how is total (incl build/destruction) CO2 impact of wind/solar/etc compared to nuclear energy?

by tasuki 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

baal80spam 4y ago

Highly recommend this enlightening book on the subject (among others): https://www.amazon.com/How-World-Really-Works-Science/dp/0593297067 https://www.amazon.com/How-World-Really-Works-Science/dp/059...

mrshadowgoose 4y ago

In this context, "green" means carbon-neutral, which (the lack of neutrality) is generally accepted as the dominating "bad" factor with how humanity harnesses energy today. Anything else is goalpost moving. But I'll entertain the goalpost moving nonetheless. > The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan? These are all things that can be recycled given the correct application of energy. Not profitably as a standalone enterprise of course, but energetically positive in comparison to what a given installation produces in its lifetime. Therefore the added cost can be baked into the final cost of the energy produced. > The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with. Most of us don't care for your extreme version of "green", so I'll point back to my original comment. You're not going to be able to convince people to willingly give up comfort, so focus on reducing the impacts of people deciding to live that way. "Much better" is worse than "perfect", but "much better" is still better than what we're doing today. You're not going to get "perfect" unless humanity is wiped out completely.

tasuki 4y ago
Sure, agreed!

PaulRobinson 4y ago

One time build and destruction costs are also present in fossil fuel power generation. Thing is with wind and solar, that’s the total harm done. When averaged out over the MWh they produce, you realise that in comparison to coal, oil or gas based power their CO2 impact is utterly negligible. Is there more that can be done to reduce it further? Sure. But saying because there is some lifecycle CO2 in their usage means they should be considered harmful is like saying cycling to work is harmful just like taking a helicopter, because rubber tyres aren’t entirely environmentally friendly. It’s honestly that absurd a comparison.

tasuki 4y ago
I think you're strawmanning a little. I'm in no way advocating for burning coal/oil/gas. I'm advocating for reduction. If we were looking for an alternative, how is total (incl build/destruction) CO2 impact of wind/solar/etc compared to nuclear energy?