This is hilarious to me because I've been saying for years. Wind and Solar are total bullshit and will never replace "fossil fuels."
I expect this thread will die soon because the movie is 1hour 40minutes long, but I just wanted to give you all a heads up.
up.
Anyway, it is amazing. Makes you wish Covid-19 was more deadly.
Biomass = burning down forests.
Is this a good thing? Is this green?
No. Burning forests is inefficient. It also reduces the number of plant life that harvests CO2 from the air.
I could give a spiel if you want.
the future was always going to be nuclear
>jeff gibbs
funny name for a communist
>disabled the dislike/like
fat faggot.
The only renewable energy sources that are worth a damn are:
>Nuclear
>Hydro
based kike
Forests don't have much of an affect on co2 levels. Algae is what converts most co2 into o2. Which is amazing considering how little of the planets surface it covers.
Nuclear is necessary, but solar and wind are viable/worthwhile options too
Just remembered, if you want to remove base load plants you need gravitational potential energy storage like this
heindl-energy.com
but it's not around quite yet
See also:
youtube.com
>This civilization cannot survive without fossil and nuclear energy.
Also
>The sun is an electric phenomenon.
No they aren't they are trash.
>destroys Green New Deal
That fat ass propagandist has for once actually done something based in his miserable life?
wind/solar is only good for off-grid purposes
Every house should be equipped with solar panels.
>How little of the planets surface it covers
Have you ever heard of the fucking ocean son?
Marine algae, its a thing and was here making the planet habitable billions of years before we were here..
Solar is a fucking shit meme.
Mining the minerals (cadmium and tellurium) needed ends up strip mining and creating a similar amount of environmental destruction as the oil sands
Processing and Manufacturing the panels creates tons of toxic chemicals
Then you have maintenance required costs which requires potentially more of the above
And you have to replace them every now and then (10-15 yrs) because believe it or not, having panels in areas with wind/particles in the atmosphere etc. damages them
Which means go through the first two again
Its expensive as fuck
Nevermind
>it takes up a ton of space - more than coal/oil/natural gas/hydroelectric/nuclear
>its not efficient enough to meet current needs
>batteries aren't sufficiently enough advanced
>solar mirrors require heat engines/generators in order to convert thermodynamic energy to mechanical to electrical
>all of which cost significant amounts of money, have varying efficiency, require cooling, and maintenance frequently
God forbid they use Gallium Arsenide which is used for high efficiency cells. The name alone should tell you what is wrong with it.
On top of that, you need the infrastructure to redirect all of the energy they are producing into city centers, rural areas, etc. You would also need to produce a large amount of lithium to contain the energy that they would not be able to produce during dusk. Lithium is a toxic product, and its production creates toxic by-products. In the end of solar power you basically have to dustbowl huge swaths of land to cover the area to produce enough energy for the growing population.
Also, examples of great solar usage? All lies. Germany is one that always pops up. But only 7% of their electricity is produced by solar. The vast majority is brown coal at 25%, hard coal at 18%, and nuke at 15%.
Wind runs into similar issues.
Since I forgot to put an example with this one here's the efficiency of Solar:.
Burning trash via an incinerator. You get a ton of energy out of burning refuse. 280k tons (308k US tons) nets you around 170k mwh on a 5 acre plot. If you got more trash you can easily make more than that.
To put this in comparison - the Sarnia photovoltaic power plant in Ontario - produces 200k mwh. This is on a 1.1k acre plot.
Hence, you could build 220 incinerators producing electricity in the same place as a single solar plant with an output comparable to Sarnia.
>pic related 1100 acres
And before you mention Hydro...
>Fucks up aquatic ecosystems
>reservoirs are stagnant compared to rivers and have larger sediment deposits
This means you get excess algae/weeds and have to either harvest or introduce new aquatic species to control it otherwise native species are displaced
>reservoirs evaporate faster
>downstream evaporate faster
Which means plant and animal life get harmed so you have to have operators monitoring send adjusting frequently to prevent it
>reservoirs water is low in dissolved oxygen and temp which Fucks up animal life
Now you need an aerating turbine to fix this issue
>emits around 0.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per kwh due to decomposition of vegetation and soil
Natural gas in a decent plant emits 0.6, so it's really not that much greener. A shitty plant will run 2.0 but you get more closer to 0.6/0.8 for natural gas.
>Fucks up fish migration
>takes up significant portion of land
>terraforms the land around it which Fucks up animal/plant biomes
>may require flooding which destroys habitats/agricultural land
>may require displacement of local population
>fuck ups result in huge floods that kills fuck tons of people
>can result in shit like methylmercury poisoning
>is very location oriented in efficiency - can range from 0.25 acres per mwh to 2000 acres per mwh
Basically it's sold as being green, but really isn't and divests future generations from the beauty of the natural environment while Fucking every animal around it. Plus sometimes you have to deal with delta p, and that fucking sucks dick.
He did a show in the 90s called TV nation that was pretty cool. Then again I ws young and stupid and thought the dems werent evil. But he does go after big corps.
not economical, photovoltaic panel manufacturing produces a lot of toxic waste, and you still need fossil/nuclear/etc. as a backup
Lets talk a bit about wind:
>requires a fuckton of space
>mechanically quite useless - doesn't provide a ton of energy
>alter the qualities of wind currents - winds that pass through a turbine are slower and drier that winds that don't
>the change in quality of winds affects agriculture etc.
>winds can stay still for periods of a time
>can't really store the energy well
If you want an example of how retardedly useless wind is, look at some shit from the 2016 election.
nbcnews.com
>Sanders wants to shut down a nuclear power plant that provides 25 per cent of New York City's power in favor of renewables.
In order to replace that one plant with wind turbines you would need to build 140% more turbines than New York has built in the last 20 years. If you wanted to replace nuclear in New York entirely, it shoots up to 550% more turbines than New York has built in the last 20 years. The sheer footprint of that is completely ridiculous, never mind the wasted resources, maintenance costs, lower efficiency etc.
Not 500%. 550% more than the past 20 years. There are currently 542. To meet the demand they would need to build another 2981. Bringing the new total up to 3523 turbines. There is already roughly 58,000 acres taken up by the current 542. The construction would take up another 321,000 more acres giving you a grand total of 378,000 acres wasted by this shit.
Keep in mind those are approximate numbers as many wind farms don't list their acreage in publicly available format.
nuclear is dangerous
oil is renewable (look it up) and cheep and co2 greens the earth
In that case the only solution is to have a global population below 500 million people. Clearly we have a resource issue, and we're fucking up the planet in an attempt to meet the demands of a growing population that is pushing 8 billion humans. Its not sustainable.
By comparison nuclear, including decommissioned plants has taken up 2921 acres exactly. Hell, had Shoreham gone as intended it would have prevented 3 million tons of CO2 emissions per year. And it's half the size of two of the plants included in that nuclear acreage.
>much land usage to get uranium
Crow Butte is a good example. It's only 3,300 acres on the lease and in situ leach takes up only 1,100 of the lease. Uranium isn't like the fucking Alberta tar sands. It's quite small scale.
And this is all conveniently ignoring thorium.
Nuclear is not as dangerous as people make it out to be. People are largely illiterate on the subject.
But if you want to go meet halfway, just take Thorium.
I wonder if Corona was unleashed to cut down on the human population because of muh climate change. I've been thinking about that lately.