161–170 of 194 posts
With solar energy prices plummeting, it may make sense during peak production hours to use it to do desalination and/or extract water from the air, depending on where you are.
Meanwhile Nestle is pumping thousands of gallons per minute out of aquifers to put into plastic bottles.
Does whether the tap water I drink comes from a plastic bottle or a reusable container affect aquifers?
Also, according to these people - https://foodprint.org/blog/plastic-water-bottle/ - it takes over 5 liters of water to make one bottle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could have drank it for free or for minimal tax investment but now they have to give money to Nestle to do so while also polluting the planet with plastic bottles
What argument are we having? If people would drink the water out of the tap, or drink it out of a Nestle bottle, they're drinking the same amount of water. Bottled water may be inefficient of other resources, may cause pollution, but it doesn't waste water .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah so they're not back into aquifers, but so what. Where is it going if we aren't reusing it? Into the ocean? That is the only reasonable explanation. Unless it's physically leaving Earth which I doubt but also it could be true, who knows. So remove them. Stop crying about cows or the medium, they aren't related to it. It's purely a regulated movement problem. You are talking about who is eating the meat. It is tot…
The main point they are trying to make is the people eating most of the beef are dying off. If the trend holds and younger generations don't drastically increase beef consumption, there just won't be anyone to eat the same amount of beef they are producing currently. Therefore, they will have to reduce beef production which may reduce water used when growing food to feed the cattle as fewer cattle eat less food. So t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah so they're not back into aquifers, but so what. Where is it going if we aren't reusing it? Into the ocean? That is the only reasonable explanation. Unless it's physically leaving Earth which I doubt but also it could be true, who knows. So remove them. Stop crying about cows or the medium, they aren't related to it. It's purely a regulated movement problem. You are talking about who is eating the meat. It is tot…
You seem to be simultaneously unable to read or comprehend and quite upset at something. I will not waste me time trying to explain it a third time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the point my solar panel is installed all the death is built in. At the point my coal plant explodes, all the death is built in (no more outgassing, health increases going forward in fact). The problem with the death toll of nuclear is that it's deferred.... So no one can agree what the impact of Chernobyl is. For instance, the UN cites a report and claims 4000 dead post accident. The report itself says 9000. Gree…
As a pro solar pragmatic engineer response: > At the point my solar panel is installed all the death is built in. No. The toxic waste ponds left after creating your solar panels remain with all the carcinogenic after effects. The large volume of low level radiactive waste from lithium processing for batery banks remains in ponds (again, see Lynas, Malaysia) awaiting possible pond leakages. > no one can agree what the…
Several hundred, most of them in the days and months immediately following the incident.
The remainder are based on the UNSCEAR estimates over the fullness of time including people who commited suicide because they fear they're somehow contaminated. The majority of the deaths are derived the statistical projections of death. They estimate the impact of the fallout using the linear no threshold dose-response model (itself, contested for being too conservative).
Suffice it to say Greenpeace is out to lunch with their projections.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
O&G won because the energy density is so extremely high.
Gasoline may be a lot more energy dense, but ICE are about 20% to 40% efficiency while electric motors are about 60% - 80% efficient. So the differences aren't as great as you might think. If we hadn't just jumped at gasoline and money hadn't flowed so readily towards that tech, there's no telling how far battery tech would be today. A lot further than it is now, I have no doubt. The fact is that big oil has killed o…
Of our electricity production, 60% is fossil fuels (coal, gas, or petroleum).
We have zero clue how to replace our total energy consumption (100 qBTU) with our renewable production (15 qBTU).
This is all using official EIA numbers:
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
Also, gasoline is 13 MJ/kg; normal batteries are https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density_Extended_Refe...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are downvoting this, but from Tesla earnings today "Solar deployments declined on a sequential and YoY basis to 41 MW. Downward pressure on solar demand continued into Q4 as interest rates have remained high." This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. You could also compare the cost of capital between 3% and 10% and derive a cost per kwh.
The failures of a tiny player like Tesla Solar are totally unrelated to US solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity. From 2021 to 2022 solar PV went from ~161,499 GWh to ~202,080 GWh of net generation (~25.1% increase) [1]. Utility scale went from 112,335 GWh to 140,798 GWh (~25.3% increase) [2] and personal/small scale solar PV went from ~49,164 GWh to ~61,282 GWh (~24.6% increase). New solar PV accounts for 11,058 MW of th…
Money is not free. Solar is now expensive:
[1] https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/high-interest...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2023-11-03/invest...
[3] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/solar-stocks-get-hit-as-risin...
[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/climate/renewable-energy-...
[5] https://www.woodmac.com/news/opinion/high-interest-rates-imp...
[6] https://www.ft.com/content/07443afb-b935-492d-8711-8c47e4353...
[7] https://time.com/6281021/renewable-energy-interest-rates/
[8] https://www.fool.com/investing/2024/01/13/why-solar-energy-s...
[9] https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2024/01/high-interest-...
[10] https://www.newsweek.com/high-interest-rates-impact-solar-en...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a pro solar pragmatic engineer response: > At the point my solar panel is installed all the death is built in. No. The toxic waste ponds left after creating your solar panels remain with all the carcinogenic after effects. The large volume of low level radiactive waste from lithium processing for batery banks remains in ponds (again, see Lynas, Malaysia) awaiting possible pond leakages. > no one can agree what the…
> So .. how many actual body bags definitive linked then? Several hundred, most of them in the days and months immediately following the incident. The remainder are based on the UNSCEAR estimates over the fullness of time including people who commited suicide because they fear they're somehow contaminated. The majority of the deaths are derived the statistical projections of death. They estimate the impact of the fal…
Okay, for Part Two .. is that a high number or a low number when compared to a dam burst or a Bhopal type chemical plant accident?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Point being, are we globally casual about all manner of destructive events and relatively over sensitive to OMG! nuclear!! accidents?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So .. how many actual body bags definitive linked then? Several hundred, most of them in the days and months immediately following the incident. The remainder are based on the UNSCEAR estimates over the fullness of time including people who commited suicide because they fear they're somehow contaminated. The majority of the deaths are derived the statistical projections of death. They estimate the impact of the fal…
> Several hundred. Okay, for Part Two .. is that a high number or a low number when compared to a dam burst or a Bhopal type chemical plant accident? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Point being, are we globally casual about all manner of destructive events and relatively over sensitive to OMG! nuclear!! accidents?