Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What “clean energy” sources do you guys think will win out over the next 50 years or so?

I think fossil fuels will still be in place 50 years from now, but more than likely at least cut in half from today’s usage numbers (just guessing).  And hopefully, they’ll continue to refine their processes for “cleaner” ways to use fossil fuels until they can be mostly replaced someday.

Hoping that electric autos get better and better in time…with smaller batteries and longer miles between charges as the tech improves.  Also…hoping the few lithium battery recycling inventions that are on the cutting edge right now will continue to improve so that nearly 100% of all battery materials are continually reusable.  That will at least make lithium mining somewhat more palatable. 

I like the use of wind and solar…I just wish windmills were not so obtrusive and expensive to manufacture (using fossil fuels)…and that they were made of a material that was recyclable.  Burying them after using seems almost criminal.  Also…keep working on better and better solar panels and figure out more ways to use them.  What if our automobile’s skin was 100% solar-capturing?  Roadways?  

I wish there was a way to 100% make nuclear safe where there could never be an accident.   Nuclear is very efficient.  Just don’t want to live through a Chernobyl.

What say you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The NBA won't say a negative word about China because the NBA owners make a ton of money from the Chinese market and don't want their access to that market to go away. The Chinese government has compl

Although there have been a fair number of nuclear mishaps that deserved public scrutiny, I think the public at large has missed the major negative consequences of coal-fired power plants.  I'm a fan o

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its u

Posted Images

On 6/14/2021 at 7:04 AM, titanhog said:

I wish there was a way to 100% make nuclear safe where there could never be an accident.   Nuclear is very efficient.  Just don’t want to live through a Chernobyl.

What say you?

I'm disappointed by the fact that we haven't seen the dawn of Nuclear Fusion power within our lifetimes.  That would be the holy grail of clean energy because the "waste" material is helium, which is useful at birthday parties.   

Also, I think more people will be motivated (or forced?) to provide power for their own homes in the future and live "off-grid".   Hopefully advances in wind, solar, geothermal, and battery technology will mean the long-term end of things like electrical grids and gas pipelines.  Of course, all of this advancement should happen strictly within the framework of the free market, so I am steadfastly against any government incentives or tax breaks to encourage changes in consumer behavior.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been some news this week on the Fusion front, The Brits, The Chinese, and The Japanese, have all made recent strides, along with the US and a recent compact design.

There are some saying the first reactor could be could be on line in five years.

I do think more auto mfg.  companies  like GM will commit to battery powered vehicles putting more pressure on the big oil companies.  The only problem with battery in the use of lithium which again is a limited resource.

There are ways for auto charging electric vehicles in the works but requires a lot of infrastructure work to be done. I think we will be seeing a lot more zero carbon footprint buildings as time goes on as well, especially from companies that are socially responsible like Amazon, Apple, and others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, smeagolsfree said:

There has been some news this week on the Fusion front, The Brits, The Chinese, and The Japanese, have all made recent strides, along with the US and a recent compact design.

There are some saying the first reactor could be could be on line in five years.

I do think more auto mfg.  companies  like GM will commit to battery powered vehicles putting more pressure on the big oil companies.  The only problem with battery in the use of lithium which again is a limited resource.

There are ways for auto charging electric vehicles in the works but requires a lot of infrastructure work to be done. I think we will be seeing a lot more zero carbon footprint buildings as time goes on as well, especially from companies that are socially responsible like Amazon, Apple, and others.

When it comes to fusion, I'll believe it when I see it.  They have been saying since the early 1990's that we are on the cusp of a Fusion breakthrough, but so far - nothing.  The other thing about Fusion is this:  If someone finally cracks the code that will mark the start of human colonization of the moon...because the best source of tritium is the moon.  So that's another thing that makes the lack of progress on fusion so frustrating.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its up-front costs, which are considerable.

Modern reactors are also far more safe than the types used at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The French have been safely generating 80% of their electricity needs with modern reactors for several decades now.

Edited by Rockatansky
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I’ve always wondered is why we haven’t advanced to a place where there are super cost-efficient solar-shingles invented where it makes sense for every home to be built with these shingles that plug into either the home’s electric system or onto an electric grid.  I’m not sure how much energy would be produced if every single house had solar shingles…but surely it would be better than none at all.  However…these shingles need to actually be “shingles” and not glass-looking panels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Rockatansky said:

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its up-front costs, which are considerable.

Modern reactors are also far more safe than the types used at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. The French have been safely generating 80% of their electricity needs with modern reactors for several decades now.

Finland agrees with you: https://youtu.be/kYpiK3W-g_0

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, titanhog said:

One thing I’ve always wondered is why we haven’t advanced to a place where there are super cost-efficient solar-shingles invented where it makes sense for every home to be built with these shingles that plug into either the home’s electric system or onto an electric grid.  I’m not sure how much energy would be produced if every single house had solar shingles…but surely it would be better than none at all.  However…these shingles need to actually be “shingles” and not glass-looking panels.

Apologies if you were already aware of this but there is a Tesla "Solar Roof" product along those lines https://www.tesla.com/solarroof 

 

They are having some trouble on the affordability front though https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/business/energy-environment/tesla-solar-shingles.html 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, GregH said:

Apologies if you were already aware of this but there is a Tesla "Solar Roof" product along those lines https://www.tesla.com/solarroof 

 

They are having some trouble on the affordability front though https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/business/energy-environment/tesla-solar-shingles.html 

Glad to see that someone is working towards that.  And yes…I can imagine it will take a while to figure out how to make something like that affordable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, titanhog said:

Glad to see that someone is working towards that.  And yes…I can imagine it will take a while to figure out how to make something like that affordable.

Of course, we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that Tesla has been a major recipient of government subsidies:  https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

This is not the kind of clean energy revolution we need... this is another misguided government project.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Armacing said:

Of course, we would be remiss if we didn't acknowledge that Tesla has been a major recipient of government subsidies:  https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

This is not the kind of clean energy revolution we need... this is another misguided government project.

I agree on Tesla and their government grants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 3:08 PM, Rockatansky said:

I'm a strong proponent of building many new fission reactors. Nuclear is less carbon emitting than any other electricity generation method and safer than any fossil fuel. Its biggest downside is its up-front costs, which are considerable.

Although there have been a fair number of nuclear mishaps that deserved public scrutiny, I think the public at large has missed the major negative consequences of coal-fired power plants.  I'm a fan of coal when pollution is minimized, but when pollution is not minimized, coal introduces a lot of toxic chemicals into the environment.  Over time, those add up to a disaster that is on par with a nuclear incident.

I'm amazed that people who are in favor of clean energy don't give more attention to the fact that 50% of the coal burned in the world is burned in China.  Where's the global outcry over the pollution emitted by China?  Here, I will say it for everyone:  China is the worst air polluter in the world.  We could be 100% "clean energy" in the US and Europe and global air quality would continue to decline due to China's pollution.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 8/25/2021 at 4:10 PM, nashvylle said:

Notice how they mention that 8% figure for global emissions related to steel production, but they fail to call out which countries are responsible for that.  I'd be willing to bet that Swedish mill was one of the cleanest mills before they switched away from coal.  The media takes every opportunity to say that every aberrant weather phenomenon is caused by global warming, but they consistently fail to call out China's disproportional share of global emissions.  Why??

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Armacing said:

Notice how they mention that 8% figure for global emissions related to steel production, but they fail to call out which countries are responsible for that.  I'd be willing to bet that Swedish mill was one of the cleanest mills before they switched away from coal.  The media takes every opportunity to say that every aberrant weather phenomenon is caused by global warming, but they consistently fail to call out China's disproportional share of global emissions.  Why??

Bc a lot of the media is probably funded in some why but China. Look at the NBA. They won’t say a word against the human Rights violations in China. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, nashvylle said:

Bc a lot of the media is probably funded in some why but China. Look at the NBA. They won’t say a word against the human Rights violations in China. 

You're probably right about that.  So it's up to us to spread the message if the media won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, nashvylle said:

Bc a lot of the media is probably funded in some why but China. Look at the NBA. They won’t say a word against the human Rights violations in China. 

The NBA won't say a negative word about China because the NBA owners make a ton of money from the Chinese market and don't want their access to that market to go away. The Chinese government has complete control over Chinese media of course (including whether NBA games are televised), but it's a really big leap to assume they have similar or even substantial influence in the American media market. 

I don't know much about the Guardian's ownership group, but there are only a very small number of media conglomerates that own the vast majority of media outlets in the US at this point, and I think all of them are either old family operations or publicly traded companies with publicly available information about their ownership structures. I have no doubt that the Chinese government has plenty of money invested with various entities that own pieces of US media, but it would take another giant leap to believe that those kinds of passive/piecemeal investments would enable any kind of activist investor influence, let alone editorial control over the media content. 

In any case, I'm not sure that the media blackout on china's pollution is quite as severe as y'all seem to think. I just googled "China coal pollution" on the news tab and there are relevant articles from CNN, Bloomberg, BBC, LA Times, the Hill, Financial times, and many more just from the last few weeks.  Here are some sub headlines to give a little context:

China’s significance as the world’s greatest emitter of pollution and Chinese policymakers’ own view of climate change negotiations will render any cooperative strategy ineffective - The Hill

China puts growth ahead of climate with surge in coal ... - financial times

What China’s dangerous coal relapse means for the rest of the world - la times

I'm sure there are more than a few PR puff pieces out there too, praising China and minimizing their negative environmental impacts, but I don't think it's accurate to say that the media is really burying any messages here. It should also be noted that US media doesn't have a historically great track record covering climate change issues in the first place (for a lot of reasons unrelated to China) that are probably worth considering before jumping to the Chinese puppet master conclusion - the incongruity of addressing longterm problems within a 24 hour news cycle, for one. 

image.jpeg

image.png

Edited by ruraljuror
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

I don't think it's accurate to say that the media is really burying any messages here. 

I doubt there is an organize effort to hide China's impact.  I think it has more to do with editorial narrative where if the story is about a coal plant in Illinois (hypothetically speaking), the journalist decides to not bring up China because that would detract from the focus on the given coal plant in the story, and in fact lessen the significance of the coal plant in the mind of the reader.  If a journalist is trying to tell a compelling story about a coal plant, after all, they need to hype up the importance of that coal plant to keep the reader engaged. 

But when the journalist brings up CO2 emissions and global warming, then, in my opinion, they enter a realm of intellectual dishonesty - deception by omission in this case - by not bringing up China at that point.  Because if one discusses the issue of global CO2 and its affect on the climate, one must disclose whether the Illinois coal plant in question is insignificant with regards to the issue of global climate change.  The reader should be made aware of the relative significance of any given environment-related story so their understanding of the global issue is properly calibrated.  And it seems to me it would be in the interest of environmentally-conscious journalists to focus the most attention on the issue that has the biggest impact on the environment, which for basically all environmental issues is the pollution pumped out by China.

In conclusion, it's hard for me to see an environmentally-focused news article that does not relate to China as anything but a waste of time and a counter-productive distraction.  If one endeavors to credibly discuss environmental protection in any capacity, one must start the discussion with China and then later mention all other polluters as problems of lesser concern.  Such is the scale of China's pollution in comparison to all other nations around the world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Armacing said:

I doubt there is an organize effort to hide China's impact.  I think it has more to do with editorial narrative where if the story is about a coal plant in Illinois (hypothetically speaking), the journalist decides to not bring up China because that would detract from the focus on the given coal plant in the story, and in fact lessen the significance of the coal plant in the mind of the reader.  If a journalist is trying to tell a compelling story about a coal plant, after all, they need to hype up the importance of that coal plant to keep the reader engaged. 

But when the journalist brings up CO2 emissions and global warming, then, in my opinion, they enter a realm of intellectual dishonesty - deception by omission in this case - by not bringing up China at that point.  Because if one discusses the issue of global CO2 and its affect on the climate, one must disclose whether the Illinois coal plant in question is insignificant with regards to the issue of global climate change.  The reader should be made aware of the relative significance of any given environment-related story so their understanding of the global issue is properly calibrated.  And it seems to me it would be in the interest of environmentally-conscious journalists to focus the most attention on the issue that has the biggest impact on the environment, which for basically all environmental issues is the pollution pumped out by China.

In conclusion, it's hard for me to see an environmentally-focused news article that does not relate to China as anything but a waste of time and a counter-productive distraction.  If one endeavors to credibly discuss environmental protection in any capacity, one must start the discussion with China and then later mention all other polluters as problems of lesser concern.  Such is the scale of China's pollution in comparison to all other nations around the world.

Considering that China is busy manufacturing most of the world's consumer products, it's a bit unfair to point the finger at China and say that any discussion of global CO2 emissions that doesn't begin there is a counter-productive distraction

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/30/2021 at 6:14 PM, Nashvillain said:

Considering that China is busy manufacturing most of the world's consumer products, it's a bit unfair to point the finger at China and say that any discussion of global CO2 emissions that doesn't begin there is a counter-productive distraction

It really doesn't matter what they are doing in China to create all that pollution.  Pollution is pollution and the environment is negatively effected regardless of pro- or anti- globalization political talking points.  Take a look at harmful pollution in any category and China is at the top of the list.  

Environmentalists expect US-based and Europe-based manufacturers to build the products we need with minimal environmental impact.  So what's the difference with China?  Not only is it fair to point the finger at China, it is essential to point the finger at China and keep the focus there if the goal is to clean up the environment to any meaningful degree in the near term.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Armacing said:

It really doesn't matter what they are doing in China to create all that pollution.  Pollution is pollution and the environment is negatively effected regardless of pro- or anti- globalization political talking points.  Take a look at harmful pollution in any category and China is at the top of the list.  

Environmentalists expect US-based and Europe-based manufacturers to build the products we need with minimal environmental impact.  So what's the difference with China?  Not only is it fair to point the finger at China, it is essential to point the finger at China and keep the focus there if the goal is to clean up the environment to any meaningful degree in the near term.

Completely agreed. China is too blame. We are too blame as well. So let’s fix the problem. The market is clearly not fixing it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2021 at 10:13 PM, samsonh said:

Completely agreed. China is too blame. We are too blame as well. So let’s fix the problem. The market is clearly not fixing it.

The reason the problem is not getting fixed is not the market - it's the government.  We need to end the concept of Limited Liability for shareholders entirely.  The very idea that someone could be part-owner in a corporation and not be fully liable for the actions of that corporation is contrary to the idea of capitalism and free market.  If every shareholder is personally responsible for the actions of a corporation up to the full extent of their personal assets, then you will see a lot more risk-avoidance by corporations when it comes to environmental damage.  But as things stand now - there is "crony capitalism" that is a the unholy partnership between big companies and big government to shield the shareholders from liability in a court of law.  That's not free market - that fascism/socialism.  Why is this done?   To prop up Wall Street and get everyone to invest their money in the stock market.  Would Joe Q. Public invest in stocks if he knew he would be personally liable for the environmental damage done by the company he invested in?  Maybe or maybe not... but at the very least he would pay a lot more attention to the types of risks taken by the company.

Keep in mind the best solution to environmental disputes is in the court room.   If someone is putting toxic chemicals into the air, then that person will be subject to legal action by others who don't want their air polluted.  Same for water or any other issue where the actions of one party cross the property line and affect another party.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Armacing said:

Keep in mind the best solution to environmental disputes is in the court room. 

Where did you get this idea from? Seems to me that the opposite is actually true because of the way courts look at causation, specifically proximate causation. Similar to the impossibility of "proving" that any given hurricane, flood, or other adverse weather event was "caused" by CO2/climate change, it's very difficult to prove that any given environmental impact (or health impact experienced by someone occupying that environment) was directly caused by any given defendant. For example, let's say a chemical plant is dumping waste into a river, and a bunch of people in the town downstream get a rare type of cancer. How do you prove that those chemicals are what caused the cancer? If those chemicals are in fact to blame, then how come not everyone in town has the same kind of cancer - are they not drinking and bathing in the same water? Arguing statistics and correlations in court has historically been a very tough sell in a judicial system that has higher standards of proof than statistics are able to meet. 

As for the rest of your comment, if you're not familiar with the concept of piercing the corporate veil, that might be worth checking out. The liability limitations on limited liability entities is not as unlimited as you may think, though thankfully they do extend to passive shareholders who have no ability to impact corporate governance. 

Edited by ruraljuror
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

 For example, let's say a chemical plant is dumping waste into a river, and a bunch of people in the town downstream get a rare type of cancer.

See, that's where you go wrong.  As a plaintiff in a free market, I don't have to wait to get cancer and prove your chemicals caused it.  All I have to do is prove you put chemicals into my section of the river (because - remember - in a free market environment the property line extends out into the river) without my permission.  That means if I detect chemicals in my section of the river and they came from you, then you owe me damages because you polluted my water.  And every single person downstream will be part of that class action lawsuit, adding up to millions in damages.   In the rare cases where the river is owned by the government, then it is incumbent upon the government to bring suit against the polluter on behalf of the citizenry and seek damages.

The key point here is that in a free market we are not discussing a regulatory environment that controls a limited amount of pollution and prescribes penalties for violations.  In a free market we are talking about the right of all injured parties to seek damages for any pollution that is conveyed onto their property via any means (air, surface water, ground water, contaminated wildlife, electromagnetic radiation, etc.) and without any safe harbor regulation for the company to hide behind.  In that type of scenario the company has to decide whether to pollute and battle it out in court in front of a local jury with unlimited potential for monetary damages being awarded to the plaintiffs, or come up with some kind of pollution mitigation mechanism to lower the risk to the company.

7 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

As for the rest of your comment, if you're not familiar with the concept of piercing the corporate veil, that might be worth checking out. The liability limitations on limited liability entities is not as unlimited as you may think, though thankfully they do extend to passive shareholders who have no ability to impact corporate governance. 

Piercing the corporate veil has only been done in closely held (relatively small) corporations and that's not what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about all shareholders including what you call "passive shareholders", even though there is no such thing as a "passive shareholder".  Yes, I know in rare cases there are class B shares with no voting rights, but I also think they should be liable for damages caused by the corporation because, hey - if you're dumb enough to invest in a company where you have no say in how much they pollute, then you deserve to loose your house if the company screws up the environment.

I would be curious to know why you think any shareholder should be shielded from liability in any instance because the choice to invest is completely voluntary.  It's not like they don't know what they're getting into when they buy the shares.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.