Ships passing in the night..

[330ci]

"It doesn't affect anything, it's either heat absorbed into the earth or reflected. "

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. if it doesn't go into the earth, or into the solar panel, the energy gets trapped into the atmosphere as heat.


"No weather and climate are two admittedly connected but different things. You are conflating the two. ."

Global warming and climate change are synonymous topics. The atmosphere would get hotter from the panels(climate), which would in turn alter the weather... trying to claim they're not directly correlated is a straw mans argument. there's plenty of science to back up too many solar panels is not good no matter how you want to frame it semantically.



"Again as I said 'green' is a new energy development. Same as the oil industry wasted billions of barrels in the early days as it was thought an unending source. Blades were buried traditionally for expediency, cost and a lack of technical ability. But technology has changed and blades are being made from recyclable materials.

"Today, around 85-90% of wind turbines' total mass can be recycled and have established recycling practices in place. But the legacy blades are challenging to recycle due to the composite materials used in their production.""


Blades being made from recycled materials, having the ability to recycle them and recycling them are all COMPLETELY different things. The statistic you cite is about the total components of a turbine, NOT JUST BLADES! this is the copper and metals used to create them which is the primary mass of the structure. virtually nobody is recycling blades, because they're damn near impossible to break down.

FACT:less than 1% of all current decommissioned turbine blades are being recycled

FACT: There are only proof of concept recycling techniques, with no mass scale recycling put into effect.

FACT: despite being 85-90% recyclable, the blades are not unless by a start up trying to prove a way to recycle them.

FACT:If legacy blades weren't allowed to be produced to begin with because of their environmental impact, Scientists and engineers would have had to come up with a better solution before this problem was created.

FACT:There will be 2.2Million Tons of Turbine blades decomissioned by 2050 with no current ability to process them

your statistics cited, don't add up. they either are doing these things, or they aren't. You speak alot about the abilities of the future, but you don't adress any of the present shortcomings with the technologies you seek to promote.


"It's excessive to suggest lithium mining 'is destroying the environment.' without mentioning every other mining process..
Sure there is short term damage but that can be cleaned up. with the right will to do. Most things rarely start at their end game, everything develops as technical develops. Or would you prefer we all drove Model T fords? Its a strawman argument. "

When Henry Ford was Developing the first automobile, he had prototypes made with hemp fueled engines, there were electric car competitors, Stanley made the steamer, we had every different industry fighting for dominance of this amazing new technology. and it isn't some conspiracy why gasoline won out. it was the best to scale. they knew about electricity, how to build motors, wet and dry cell batteries etc. nobody is reinventing the wheel here.

and realistically if Tesla was built the way Ford was built, i'd have alot less negativity towards the situation. America wouldn't exist as it does today without Ford, if Elon didn't exist, my life would hardly have been impacted with the exception of paypal payments.
Ford paid people record wages, revolutionized production, and was crucial to building the American Steel and Oil industry.

and if you go to Greenfield village, which was Fords pet project, you will see the workshops of some of Americas greatest inventors. And they all perfected their inventions before putting them out for production. back then they made stuff so well, they had to at some point come to a conclusion to build in planned obsolescence as things were built too well. If Ford had the production capabilities we do today with the tolerance thresholds we can produce, he probably would've perfected the car from the start. it was really loose tolerances and inadequate lubrication that was the downfall of early autos. Given they were building GT 40's in the 60's with dial calipers and feeler gauges, I can only imagine what they would do with the laser precision technology we have today.

People are still collecting and using original Edison lightbulbs today, because despite not being as bright and using more power. Those thick wicks don't burn out

the craziest thing about life today is if they had the production capabilities we have today, they likely would've solved all of the efficiency issues we presently face. but since nobody knows how to think outside of a computer generated model today, we are limited by the algorithms we've created and are going to soon be surpassed by AI in that aspect.

which when it comes down to letting a bunch of idiot human scientists out think the past 125 years of innovation, I have little faith in their efforts and would rather cope with fossil fuels until AI gets to a point where it can solve the issues humans cannot.




"[I] your whole argument seems based on "lets get to the end game first" Life just doesn't happen like that. Plus to suggest battery tech hasn't progressed is quite incredulous. It has advanced incredibly. "

uhhh.... yeah, that is what makes the most sense. Why am I subsidizing the worlds richest mans passion project? F*** that. Tesla provides 0 value to me. It's almost failed half a dozen times for good reason, and without the e vehicle tax subsidy it would have.

Ford has borrowed government money once and paid it back. which technically wasn't a loan, it was for electric vehicle development that they failed to fulfill and had to pay it back as a result.




"Again we won't 'destroy the enviorment by going green'. That's an over reaction. "


That isn't an overreaction, not only are we destroying the environment, we're enslaving children to do so which you joked about in your first post.




"Pipelines sending down fossel fuel doesn't 'solve ' the problem. It may reduce shipping but setting light to oil based fuels isn't totally smart."

well. it isn't as moronic as developing mining production across the country for a technological material that is only a stepping stone on the way to truly renewable energy whilst the vast majority of the planet still operates on fossil fuels in the meantime.



"texas for example is committed in installing more solar than the whole of the rest of the USA. they know life is changing. No one solution solves all problems but to dismiss solar because it can't is extremely short sighted and fails to see the potential."

Texas has a grid issue, if they were so smart they wouldn't need solar panels in the first place. but they aren't and peak pricing during outages has bankrupted many in the state.


[I]Every major auto maker is in dire trouble because they failed to comprehend how far Tesla have and will move the game forward. legacy automakers have had their heads in the sand for too long. Poor development, lack of forward planning. Just same-o-same-o stuff. Tesla (and the Chinese) revolusionised design and production of cars. Mega casting is just one tech that Tesla shocked the others with. Their ability to 'think outside the box' has left Legacy nearing banckrupcy.
The Germans are totally Fooked.Closing plants and laying off staff. GM & Ford will follow. Toyota Honda etc are again all fooked . The reason they are trying to stop Ev's is because they missed the boat are are trying to hold back the sea King Canute style..






Me:All of these technologies are too inferior to scale at this point.

"No it just isn't, it's just in it's infancy and the future is far beyond our comprehension."


that means that they are too inferior to scale. the exact definition. d

The future is not beyond anyones comprehension. In fact, it's so full of problems I'm telling you them point blank what they are and your blanket response is we'll figure it out in the future.

The present is full of problems because people like you who want to blatantly ignore the growing pains of an inferior technology. The future Fooked as a result of it.






"And it's not just the FAA that's moving slowly. The Velis Electro is apparently still the only electric aircraft with EASA certification. A lot has been going on in the world in the last 4 years and continues to occur. Yet still technology moves much faster than regulations and as both continue to advance there will likely be more electric aircraft being certified. Not as soon as many would like, but with time the industry will grow." Jan 2024.

will be absolutely hilarious watching firefighters trying to put out the first plane that spontaneously combusts. hopefully doesn't happen mid-air



"As I have said , solar isn't a one shop stop solution BUT it will play a massive role in power generation. IMHO: For example, all outside car parks should be forced by law to be covered with solar. A simple idea and easy to impliment
In America this would mean a massive uplift in solar without destroying the enviroment. Plus is puts power straight where it needs it, not in some field or offshore..
"
and statistically speaking that would alter the weather/climate.

"Blades made now are 95% recyclable. Hydrogen costs more energy that it produces (unless the tech finds a solution) "

shit, blades recyclability has gone up 10% since the beginning of this post. Technology is amazing. (which you're citing false statistics anyways, the blades are more or less unrecyclable, the rest of the turbines are.)

Electricity has more energy waste than fuel at this point, so by your logic we should hold off on electricity until it becomes more efficient as well

[BraveBold]

Originally Posted by Calatrava r

Another sobering thought I have read repeatedly is that before mankind began deforesting the planet for habitat and farming, carbon concentrations in the atmosphere were estimated to be 2400 parts per million almost six times more than they are now. Look, I don't have strong position on any of this, but there is a lot of facts the public just doesn't seem to know and there is not much hard science stated on the actual cause and effect of anything. Charting historical temps and carbon levels is not proof of a causal relationship of anything.

Another example where data in isolation is not helpful. Yes, in the Mesozoic era the carbon concentration was at those levels. But apples and oranges to what is relevant today - different geological configuration, different plant and animal species and a different time frame over which change is measured.

The big issue “today” is not so much a level issue than a rate of change issue. The rate of change is what makes adaptation so problematic and where the negatives outweigh the positives. Never mind all the consequences not yet foreseen… sure, some will be positive but it is harder to adapt to take advantage of positive outcomes AND adapt to mitigate the negative outcomes.So net outcome for human society is will likely be negative.

Overall yet more evidence that lay person interpretation of this stuff is so dangerous. Superficial interpretation or regurgitation of headlines is what many critics are doing (and inherent bias towards an answer they want). Again, happens within expert (scientific) groups too but more will rely on sound scientific methods and is a reason why the scientific community has a general consensus view here.

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by 330ci

"It doesn't affect anything, it's either heat absorbed into the earth or reflected. "

Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. if it doesn't go into the earth, or into the solar panel, the energy gets trapped into the atmosphere as heat.


"No weather and climate are two admittedly connected but different things. You are conflating the two. ."

Global warming and climate change are synonymous topics. The atmosphere would get hotter from the panels(climate), which would in turn alter the weather... trying to claim they're not directly correlated is a straw mans argument.



"Again as I said 'green' is a new energy development. Same as the oil industry wasted billions of barrels in the early days as it was thought an unending source. Blades were buried traditionally for expediency, cost and a lack of technical ability. But technology has changed and blades are being made from recyclable materials.

"Today, around 85-90% of wind turbines' total mass can be recycled and have established recycling practices in place. But the legacy blades are challenging to recycle due to the composite materials used in their production.""


Blades being made from recycled materials, having the ability to recycle them and recycling them are all COMPLETELY different things. The statistic you cite is about the total components of a turbine, NOT JUST BLADES! this is the copper and metals used to create them which is the primary mass of the structure. virtually nobody is recycling blades, because they're damn near impossible to break down.

FACT:less than 1% of all current decommissioned turbine blades are being recycled

FACT: There are only proof of concept recycling techniques, with no mass scale recycling put into effect.

FACT: despite being 85-90% recyclable, the blades are not unless by a start up trying to prove a way to recycle them.

FACT:If legacy blades weren't allowed to be produced to begin with because of their environmental impact, Scientists and engineers would have had to come up with a better solution before this problem was created.

FACT:There will be 2.2Million Tons of Turbine blades decomissioned by 2050 with no current ability to process them

your statistics cited, don't add up. they either are doing these things, or they aren't. You speak alot about the abilities of the future, but you don't adress any of the present shortcomings with the technologies you seek to promote.


"It's excessive to suggest lithium mining 'is destroying the environment.' without mentioning every other mining process..
Sure there is short term damage but that can be cleaned up. with the right will to do. Most things rarely start at their end game, everything develops as technical develops. Or would you prefer we all drove Model T fords? Its a strawman argument. "

When Henry Ford was Developing the first automobile, he had prototypes made with hemp fueled engines, there were electric car competitors, Stanley made the steamer, we had every different industry fighting for dominance of this amazing new technology. and it isn't some conspiracy why gasoline won out. it was the best to scale. they knew about electricity, how to build motors, wet and dry cell batteries etc. nobody is reinventing the wheel here.

and realistically if Tesla was built the way Ford was built, i'd have alot less negativity towards the situation. America wouldn't exist as it does today without Ford, if Elon didn't exist, my life would hardly have been impacted with the exception of paypal payments.
Ford paid people record wages, revolutionized production, and was crucial to building the American Steel and Oil industry.

and if you go to Greenfield village, which was Fords pet project, you will see the workshops of some of Americas greatest inventors. And they all perfected their inventions before putting them out for production. back then they made stuff so well, they had to at some point come to a conclusion to build in planned obsolescence as things were built too well. If Ford had the production capabilities we do today with the tolerance thresholds we can produce, he probably would've perfected the car from the start. it was really loose tolerances and inadequate lubrication that was the downfall of early autos. Given they were building GT 40's in the 60's with dial calipers and feeler gauges, I can only imagine what they would do with the laser precision technology we have today.

People are still collecting and using original Edison lightbulbs today, because despite not being as bright and using more power. Those thick wicks don't burn out

the craziest thing about life today is if they had the production capabilities we have today, they likely would've solved all of the efficiency issues we presently face. but since nobody knows how to think outside of a computer generated model today, we are limited by the algorithms we've created and are going to soon be surpassed by AI in that aspect.

which when it comes down to letting a bunch of idiot human scientists out think the past 125 years of innovation, I have little faith in their efforts and would rather cope with fossil fuels until AI gets to a point where it can solve the issues humans cannot.




"[I] your whole argument seems based on "lets get to the end game first" Life just doesn't happen like that. Plus to suggest battery tech hasn't progressed is quite incredulous. It has advanced incredibly. "

uhhh.... yeah, that is what makes the most sense. Why am I subsidizing the worlds richest mans passion project? F*** that. Tesla provides 0 value to me. It's almost failed half a dozen times for good reason, and without the e vehicle tax subsidy it would have.

Ford has borrowed government money once and paid it back. which technically wasn't a loan, it was for electric vehicle development that they failed to fulfill and had to pay it back as a result.




"Again we won't 'destroy the enviorment by going green'. That's an over reaction. "


That isn't an overreaction, not only are we destroying the environment, we're enslaving children to do so which you joked about in your first post.




"Pipelines sending down fossel fuel doesn't 'solve ' the problem. It may reduce shipping but setting light to oil based fuels isn't totally smart."

well. it isn't as moronic as developing mining production across the country for a technological material that is only a stepping stone on the way to truly renewable energy whilst the vast majority of the planet still operates on fossil fuels in the meantime.



"texas for example is committed in installing more solar than the whole of the rest of the USA. they know life is changing. No one solution solves all problems but to dismiss solar because it can't is extremely short sighted and fails to see the potential."

Texas has a grid issue, if they were so smart they wouldn't need solar panels in the first place. but they aren't and peak pricing during outages has bankrupted many in the state.


[I]Every major auto maker is in dire trouble because they failed to comprehend how far Tesla have and will move the game forward. legacy automakers have had their heads in the sand for too long. Poor development, lack of forward planning. Just same-o-same-o stuff. Tesla (and the Chinese) revolusionised design and production of cars. Mega casting is just one tech that Tesla shocked the others with. Their ability to 'think outside the box' has left Legacy nearing banckrupcy.
The Germans are totally Fooked.Closing plants and laying off staff. GM & Ford will follow. Toyota Honda etc are again all fooked . The reason they are trying to stop Ev's is because they missed the boat are are trying to hold back the sea King Canute style..






Me:All of these technologies are too inferior to scale at this point.

"No it just isn't, it's just in it's infancy and the future is far beyond our comprehension."


that means that they are too inferior to scale. the exact definition. d

The future is not beyond anyones comprehension. In fact, it's so full of problems I'm telling you them point blank what they are and your blanket response is we'll figure it out in the future.

The present is full of problems because people like you who want to blatantly ignore the growing pains of an inferior technology. The future Fooked as a result of it.






"And it's not just the FAA that's moving slowly. The Velis Electro is apparently still the only electric aircraft with EASA certification. A lot has been going on in the world in the last 4 years and continues to occur. Yet still technology moves much faster than regulations and as both continue to advance there will likely be more electric aircraft being certified. Not as soon as many would like, but with time the industry will grow." Jan 2024.

will be absolutely hilarious watching firefighters trying to put out the first plane that spontaneously combusts. hopefully doesn't happen mid-air



"As I have said , solar isn't a one shop stop solution BUT it will play a massive role in power generation. IMHO: For example, all outside car parks should be forced by law to be covered with solar. A simple idea and easy to impliment
In America this would mean a massive uplift in solar without destroying the enviroment. Plus is puts power straight where it needs it, not in some field or offshore..
"
and statistically speaking that would alter the weather/climate.

"Blades made now are 95% recyclable. Hydrogen costs more energy that it produces (unless the tech finds a solution) "

shit, blades recyclability has gone up 10% since the beginning of this post. Technology is amazing. (which you're citing false statistics anyways, the blades are more or less unrecyclable, the rest of the turbines are.)

Electricity has more energy waste than fuel at this point, so by your logic we should hold off on electricity until it becomes more efficient as well

"Global warming and climate change are synonymous topics."

Actually, there is one critical difference. Global warming, as was global cooling of the seventies and the Ozone layer of the nineties were all quantifiable. One can look at a chart and measure any changes in cooling, warming or the ozone layer over time and to what extent. But "climate change" is amorphous and cannot be measured. Thus, whatever weather events happen, it can be asserted, support the current theory.

[Calatrava r]

Originally Posted by BraveBold

Another example where data in isolation is not helpful. Yes, in the Mesozoic era the carbon concentration was at those levels. But apples and oranges to what is relevant today - different geological configuration, different plant and animal species and a different time frame over which change is measured.

The big issue “today” is not so much a level issue than a rate of change issue. The rate of change is what makes adaptation so problematic and where the negatives outweigh the positives. Never mind all the consequences not yet foreseen… sure, some will be positive but it is harder to adapt to take advantage of positive outcomes AND adapt to mitigate the negative outcomes.So net outcome for human society is will likely be negative.

Overall yet more evidence that lay person interpretation of this stuff is so dangerous. Superficial interpretation or regurgitation of headlines is what many critics are doing (and inherent bias towards an answer they want). Again, happens within expert (scientific) groups too but more will rely on sound scientific methods and is a reason why the scientific community has a general consensus view here.

Thank you for an interesting discussion. It is what we need, I think.