EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3338
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43205 Posts
On October 16 2021 09:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote: If only that was true, but you happily beleive and argue for that a house cannot possibly be built both be insulated for warmth and yet at the same time have windows that can open. Apparently you are too intelligent to believe in the existence of openable windows. You post about stuff that you know nothing about it all the time. It's just that nobody wants to call you out on it because you are a mod. A unique sort of echo chamber you created for yourself. You don’t need to open windows to run a swamp cooler and it would be an issue if you did, my indoor cat would escape. You didn’t know what a swamp cooler was before you chose to pick an argument with me about them so this isn’t a great line of attack for you. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States837 Posts
On October 14 2021 22:44 Silvanel wrote: There is no problem with wind turbines generating enough energy to pay for themselve (if they are properly placed): Source (it even discuss the source of this missconception) https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ There is however different enviromental issue associated with wind trubines. They require rare earth metals and rare earth mining is extremly polluting, supply is low, demand high, China is main supplier etc. Its a price we have to pay for wind energy i guess. Discussed for example here: https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC122671/jrc122671_the_role_of_rare_earth_elements_in_wind_energy_and_electric_mobility_2.pdf Finally got around to reading the first one, and only skimmed the second (since its a full blown paper, and I'm already on the righteous KwarK side of things now. It's strange, but I feel young again. When you are on the correct side of... well everything, I frankly can't even bother to flirt with the idea of recalling older memories since that person was* so deceived. I'm glad I am apart of a higher order now.) The false graphic for the wind turbine isn't the exact one I saw or heard from, but its pretty much the gist. In my head, (I work in the transportation industry,) it does make sense why I thought turbines were a waste of money. In all honesty I didn't even know that people had calculated the lifetime resource cycles for specific items in industry like Wind Turbines. (And even now my skeptical self is doubting someone actually fully vetted each individual company and parts, and the energy, and the transportation to get their numbers, but because I can't prove they aren't I wont claim otherwise.) I generally thought left leaning folks put a pie in the sky for green energy and the right chose to hide how actual shit coal and oil is. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4733 Posts
You might be interested in fact that same argument was/is true in regards to solar panels made using some old technologies. There was a time when panels were made using the same technology that is used to purify silicon for purpose of creating processors. Which is EXTREMELY energy consuming. The panels of old were less efficient and more costly to made, so it was true for them. Fortunately, huge advancement were made since then and new panels are much better. Both for wind turbines and solar panels the placement and alignment is really important. You can't just put them anywhere. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26006 Posts
Aside from that nonsense, I remember reading years ago about EU proposals to fund a large solar farm somewhere in Spain and direct output around member states. Bar costs it seemed quite a sensible idea, especially with the friction with Russia and the natural gas pipelines coming through into Europe kicking off every so often. Energy independence seems an obvious plus point of various green tech, one that isn’t always emphasised enough IMO. But I can’t recall much since, or indeed haven’t encountered other proposals for real large scale solar farms since, has there been much expansion in the sector that I’m just not aware of? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Although, if “energy independence” is the goal, I recommend coal and fracking ahead of renewables. More consistent and less import of rare earth metals from China. It’s not awfully energy independent to have to beg for scraps of coal and gas when wind fails to deliver, after all, and “more wind” isn’t a great answer to that particular problem. | ||
|
Husyelt
United States837 Posts
On October 16 2021 17:38 Silvanel wrote: You were correct in Your initial assumption that it is impossible to calculate and take into account EVERYTHING in regards to energy costs of wind turbines. Fortunately, taking into account major steps usually gets us pretty close. You might be interested in fact that same argument was/is true in regards to solar panels made using some old technologies. There was a time when panels were made using the same technology that is used to purify silicon for purpose of creating processors. Which is EXTREMELY energy consuming. The panels of old were less efficient and more costly to made, so it was true for them. Fortunately, huge advancement were made since then and new panels are much better. Both for wind turbines and solar panels the placement and alignment is really important. You can't just put them anywhere. Interesting, good to know. Is there any article / book that covered that transition and the players involved? I just finished The Mission - David W Brown, which follows the decades long time it took to get the Europa Clipper ready to launch. And in it there was a constant question of using solar panels or RTG nuclear. I imagine the improvements in solar processors and other areas was a factor in NASA’s eventual choice to go with solar power. (They had many budget restraints.) | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States43205 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On October 17 2021 00:08 KwarK wrote: I’ve been wondering why the recycling program in my city doesn’t take glass. That makes sense. In England we had a recycling drop off with bins for different kinds of material and four glass ones for clear, brown, green, other. Here we have mixed recycling collection which would make glass a lot less efficient for the reasons you said. I am curious, does US generally have recycling for plastic and if yes, do you separate them depending on which plastic it is? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On October 17 2021 00:57 JimmiC wrote: Here we take mixed plastic but not "film" plastic which is shopping bags, saran wrap and so on. Those super thin stretchey plastics gum up the machines that sort and tear into tiny pieces ending up in the wrong sections "contaminating" them. Which is also why there is such a push to do things like charge for plastic bags at stores. It is not that they are not useful it is that too many of them are a problem. a 5 cent charge has shown to reduce use by over 90%. Now some places are doing bans but that has its own host of issues. The stretchy plastic bags normally have recycling containers in front of major grocery stores everywhere I have lived. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35161 Posts
On October 17 2021 00:15 raynpelikoneet wrote: I am curious, does US generally have recycling for plastic and if yes, do you separate them depending on which plastic it is? The way it's always worked in the area where I worked was you were made aware of which plastics were recyclable based on number to keep it easy to remember. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Gahlo
United States35161 Posts
On October 17 2021 03:32 JimmiC wrote: Like you were a sorter at a MRF? The one our city put in has both manual sorters and some optic and air sorters as well. The peoples main job is to grab the higher value plastics. Meant lived. No idea why I wrote worked. Must have been thinking about something else. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On October 17 2021 03:25 Gahlo wrote: The way it's always worked in the area where I worked was you were made aware of which plastics were recyclable based on number to keep it easy to remember. Why do you nee a number? Everything except for PVC is recyclable or can be converted to energy (which is nowadays better still). | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On October 17 2021 05:50 JimmiC wrote: Its more valuable to be recycled (and cleaner) then burnt for energy and each type is quite different. The prices work like other commodities go up and down but some are consistently higher or lower witgin ranges. Its better for the business of recycling (keeping it cheaper for consumers/tax payers depending on the funding source) if it is seperated either at drop off or at the "MRF" material recycyling facility. https://www.qualitylogoproducts.com/promo-university/different-types-of-plastic.htm I disagree. I dont think the link you gave shows anything. Recycling is still about costs. What i was arguing is that everything aside from PVC is better burned to energy. EDIT: i mean you showed that other plastics can be recycled, well i already know that. Or if it can be re-used, but that's for someone else than than high-end distributors. | ||
| ||
