Solar Power

[TheGreenBoy]

Don't worry, guys, nuclear is a future source of clean and safe energy. Fukushima is an outstanding example - nothing can go so wrong one couldn't fix with a duck-tape.

As fare as fotovoltaic goes, there is not much to study about, check how much energy (in KJ) is used to produce 1g of semiconductor grade silicium, check how many grams is used in one pannel and how much of energy would this pannel produce in it's life time.

Unfortenately, it is pritty much the same with the entire "green" energy production industry; a lot of smoke, a lot of public money channeling and no proper results. Belive me, nuclear if the last resort of modern civilization survival.

Imagine your detector equipped with a nuclear battery. A single battery for your entire life time.
The Chinese versions could even omit the rear LED.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kantuckkeean]

Please back up what you have stated then. You come in on your high horse thinking you have a moral high ground, then you dismissively talk down to everyone and do exactly what you are complaining about. you have not provided one shred of evidence for your statements, yet you keep complaining when others don't. The irony of you in general never ceases to amaze me.

Tp,

As far as the high horse... it's not a high horse. I'm a part of the problem. I'm a polluter just like everyone else, but I'm trying to be part of the solution. I've stated that repeatedly and you know that from our previous discussions. In those discussions, you brought up some good points that I acknowledged should be considered. I've never stated that solar is perfect for every situation.

The reason that I get frustrated and come off as... undiplomatic... is because, like I said, we've been through these same tired arguments before. I get frustrated that people ask me questions and I answer them. Or they ask me for evidence and I provide it. However, if I ask a question, it gets ignored. Or, I ask for evidence, and it gets ignored (or in that one case, they actually provided evidence but it backed up what I said... LOL!).

I've asked repeatedly why people are so vested in coal and gas. I've asked if anyone is employed by or has a financial interest in the fossil fuels industry and nobody has ever answered. I've stated that to the best of my knowledge, I am not employed by, nor do I have a financial interest in any fossil fuels companies or renewable companies either.

Furthermore, people like Duckshot misrepresent my statements, accuse me of lying, and accuse me of trying to take what's "theirs." That's also frustrating. The solar panels that we're installing on our roof will have less of an impact on Duckshot than if I continued to just use coal and gas for our energy needs. Yet he thinks it's fine for him to continue burning as much coal and gas as he chooses, even though it affects everyone else on the planet. By his rationale, I should be able to burn as much crap as I want, even up to the point that the carbon monoxide kills everyone on the planet.

Perhaps I should buy the property next to him, slightly upwind, and start accepting worn-out tires for free and run a 24/7 tire fire so that the prevailing winds blow the choking black smoke across his property. Then when he throws a tantrum, I can tell him that it is my lifestyle and, "You go ahead and change your lifestyle if you want, just don't you use my time or my money to change my lifestyle." That quote is from Duckshot and by Duckshot's logic, that would be fine. I find stuff like that frustrating as well.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Al D]

Don't worry, guys, nuclear is a future source of clean and safe energy. Fukushima is an outstanding example - nothing can go so wrong one couldn't fix with a duck-tape.

As fare as fotovoltaic goes, there is not much to study about, check how much energy (in KJ) is used to produce 1g of semiconductor grade silicium, check how many grams is used in one pannel and how much of energy would this pannel produce in it's life time.

Unfortenately, it is pritty much the same with the entire "green" energy production industry; a lot of smoke, a lot of public money channeling and no proper results. Belive me, nuclear if the last resort of modern civilization survival.

Imagine your detector equipped with a nuclear battery. A single battery for your entire life time.
The Chinese versions could even omit the rear LED.

I understand your skepticism, however, Nuclear power is the only real solution to our energy crisis, unless we go back to a pre industrial society. With that being stated, Nuclear power, as it has been presented, has very serious drawbacks.
green energy solutions cannot support an industrial base at the current level.
This is a problem which should have been addressed rather than ignored or avoided.
It will take some serious effort and ingenuity to find a solution.

 

[Phil]

I've asked if anyone is employed by or has a financial interest in the fossil fuels industry and nobody has ever answered. I've stated that to the best of my knowledge, I am not employed by, nor do I have a financial interest in any fossil fuels companies or renewable companies either.

In the 90's environmentalists banned logging and destroyed tens of thousands of jobs. Problem is, everybody still needs homes built with lumber so Canada met demand by clear cutting their forests. Thus, no trees were saved...........All it did was destroy jobs in the US and provide jobs to Canada. And environmentalists celebrated because prohibiting logging was "environmentally friendly".

In the 2000's, coal fired power plants were built near coal mines because it saved on transportation costs. Then, environmentalists declared war on coal and made it impossible to profitably mine for coal. Problem is, people still need electricity so all of those coal fired power plants bought coal from South America, where there are ZERO environmental laws. Then, they loaded the coal onto big ocean barges that SPEWED diesel exhaust the entire way up the coast. Then, they unloaded that coal into boxcars and SPEWED even more diesel exhaust the entire way to the power plants. Again, all it did was destroy jobs in the US. And again, environmentalists cheered and celebrated because shutting down the coal mines was "environmentally friendly".

Today, We have the largest oil reserves in the world right here at home where we have the strictest environmental laws. Yet, once again, environmentalists are destroying jobs because drilling for oil is bad for the environment. Problem is, people still need gasoline so we will go back to buying oil from the Middle East where there are ZERO environmental laws. Then, they will load that oil onto big ocean barges that SPEW diesel exhaust the entire way across the Atlantic Ocean until they reached the Eastern seaboard. Then, they will give it to the railroads, so they can SPEW even more diesel exhaust across the entire country. So not only is it WORSE for the environment, countless jobs being lost, and we are going to go back to paying $5 for a gallon of gas again.

So to answer your question, EVERYBODY is invested in the fossil fuel industry in some way because all of the "environmentally friendly" measures do is destroy jobs here in the US, increases the cost of goods and services, and it does NOTHING to save the planet because the planet is still being polluted.............somewhere else.

People are fed up with it.

 

[Tpmetal]

Tp,

As far as the high horse... it's not a high horse. I'm a part of the problem. I'm a polluter just like everyone else, but I'm trying to be part of the solution. I've stated that repeatedly and you know that from our previous discussions. In those discussions, you brought up some good points that I acknowledged should be considered. I've never stated that solar is perfect for every situation.

The reason that I get frustrated and come off as... undiplomatic... is because, like I said, we've been through these same tired arguments before. I get frustrated that people ask me questions and I answer them. Or they ask me for evidence and I provide it. However, if I ask a question, it gets ignored. Or, I ask for evidence, and it gets ignored (or in that one case, they actually provided evidence but it backed up what I said... LOL!).

I've asked repeatedly why people are so vested in coal and gas. I've asked if anyone is employed by or has a financial interest in the fossil fuels industry and nobody has ever answered. I've stated that to the best of my knowledge, I am not employed by, nor do I have a financial interest in any fossil fuels companies or renewable companies either.

Furthermore, people like Duckshot misrepresent my statements, accuse me of lying, and accuse me of trying to take what's "theirs." That's also frustrating. The solar panels that we're installing on our roof will have less of an impact on Duckshot than if I continued to just use coal and gas for our energy needs. Yet he thinks it's fine for him to continue burning as much coal and gas as he chooses, even though it affects everyone else on the planet. By his rationale, I should be able to burn as much crap as I want, even up to the point that the carbon monoxide kills everyone on the planet.

Perhaps I should buy the property next to him, slightly upwind, and start accepting worn-out tires for free and run a 24/7 tire fire so that the prevailing winds blow the choking black smoke across his property. Then when he throws a tantrum, I can tell him that it is my lifestyle and, "You go ahead and change your lifestyle if you want, just don't you use my time or my money to change my lifestyle." That quote is from Duckshot and by Duckshot's logic, that would be fine. I find stuff like that frustrating as well.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

if you do not think solar is the perfect solution, why do you continually oppose anyone who says anything negative about it? You only argue one viewpoint, and do so while stating passive agressive things to morally elevate you over the ones you are talking to. Examples are you accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you on being invested in oil, even when the convo never mentions oil, just the problems with solar. Another often used by you when challenged is something akin to "i am just trying to be part of the solution". Or wildly claiming this thread is so full of hot air it can run a city or something. This is where the high horse remarks come from, not your differing viewpoint. As you know I am down to argue until i am blue in the face if there are actual conversations going on. I do not however tolerate talking to someone who assumes negatives about others or assume they are morally better than others because of their opinions.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

Don't worry, guys, nuclear is a future source of clean and safe energy. Fukushima is an outstanding example - nothing can go so wrong one couldn't fix with a duck-tape.

As fare as fotovoltaic goes, there is not much to study about, check how much energy (in KJ) is used to produce 1g of semiconductor grade silicium, check how many grams is used in one pannel and how much of energy would this pannel produce in it's life time.

Unfortenately, it is pritty much the same with the entire "green" energy production industry; a lot of smoke, a lot of public money channeling and no proper results. Belive me, nuclear if the last resort of modern civilization survival.

Imagine your detector equipped with a nuclear battery. A single battery for your entire life time.
The Chinese versions could even omit the rear LED.

The japan nuclear industry is stuck in the past along with the U.S. While nuclear plants typically have self starting diesel generators to provide power to cooling pumps if the grid goes down, if they are underwater (as in the case of the Fukushima reactor being built next to a beach) they do not function well.

The ball reactor technology I spoke of here earlier is completely safe and the only thing holding it back here in the U.S. is a million layers of 1950's DOE regulations and government bureaucracy.

 

[Al D]

The japan nuclear industry is stuck in the past along with the U.S. While nuclear plants typically have self starting diesel generators to provide power to cooling pumps if the grid goes down, if they are underwater (as in the case of the Fukushima reactor being built next to a beach) they do not function well.

The ball reactor technology I spoke of here earlier is completely safe and the only thing holding it back here in the U.S. is a million layers of 1950's DOE regulations and government bureaucracy.

It is nice that someone else is aware of the research France has done with their slow poke reactor, it is a shame that no other country recognizes that acheivment.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

no trees were saved...........All it did was destroy jobs in the US and provide jobs to Canada.

The U.S. can't control what other countries do. Maybe no trees were saved, but OUR trees here in the U.S. were saved. Jobs should never come before the environment. We've only got one planet and if we trash it, we've got nowhere else to go.

 

[Al D]

The U.S. can't control what other countries do. Maybe no trees were saved, but OUR trees here in the U.S. were saved. Jobs should never come before the environment. We've only got one planet and if we trash it, we've got nowhere else to go.

Very true, but that still doesn’t stop the ridiculous actions like rejoining the Paris accord.

 

[Phil]

The U.S. can't control what other countries do. Maybe no trees were saved, but OUR trees here in the U.S. were saved. Jobs should never come before the environment. We've only got one planet and if we trash it, we've got nowhere else to go.

It's "environmentally friendly" for Canada to log their forests because they are on a different planet?

(Forehead slap)

 

[Duckshot]

The U.S. can't control what other countries do. Maybe no trees were saved, but OUR trees here in the U.S. were saved. Jobs should never come before the environment. We've only got one planet and if we trash it, we've got nowhere else to go.

What exactly do you mean by "our" trees?

Whoever owns the land owns the trees on them. It has been illegal to use gas powered chainsaws on National Park land for decades- when they clear dead-falls from roads in Yellowstone or Glacier, foresters are forced to use human powered bucking saws. Either that or they let fires burn, no matter if started by nature or man. Those are "our trees".

Trees on private property are "Their" trees. Not yours.

 

[Al D]

When it comes to the topic of trees and forest, we have all been duped.
over 96% of the redwoods in California have been logged
those forest in Oregon, the home of environmentalist and tree huggers, have been clear cut, those trees you see as you drive through Oregon do not extend but a mile off the highway, then it is all clear cut.
don’t even get me started on the Amazonian rain forest.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

Whoever owns the land owns the trees on them.

Sorry, doesn't work that way. The government tells you what you can and can't do with your land. Try dumping toxic waste on your property and see how fast the government orders you to clean it up. Refuse and they'll condemn the land and take it from you. Just the way it is in this country.

 

[Phil]

When it comes to the topic of trees and forest, we have all been duped.
over 96% of the redwoods in California have been logged
those forest in Oregon, the home of environmentalist and tree huggers, have been clear cut, those trees you see as you drive through Oregon do not extend but a mile off the highway, then it is all clear cut.
don’t even get me started on the Amazonian rain forest.

Go to Google Earth and look at the entire Northwest. See all of that green color? Those are trees...........BILLIONS and BILLIONS of trees.

Or take a flight over the Northwest............Trees for as far as the eye can see.

 

[Duckshot]

I don't know about other states, but in WI the only clear cuts are poplar that replenished past clear cuts. These trees are used for pulp, mostly paper. The polar come back pretty quickly. In some county forests such as Langlade they practice selective logging. In selective logging the largest trees are removed to let the sunlight in for smaller trees to grow. Sometimes they allow the harvest of dead-falls for firewood. Selective logging and cutting dead-falls is part of forest management, the result is a "healthier"(yeah it's subjective) forest.

 

[Singlestack Wonder]

"Trees"......the clean renewable energy...powering human kind for 1000's of years....

 

[Oregon Viking]

"I've asked if anyone is employed by or has a financial interest in the fossil fuels industry and nobody has ever answered. I've stated that to the best of my knowledge, I am not employed by, nor do I have a financial interest in any fossil fuels companies or renewable companies either"

Yep! I have "big oil" stocks.... inherited but still.

 

[Oregon Viking]

When it comes to the topic of trees and forest, we have all been duped.
over 96% of the redwoods in California have been logged
those forest in Oregon, the home of environmentalist and tree huggers, have been clear cut, those trees you see as you drive through Oregon do not extend but a mile off the highway, then it is all clear cut.
don’t even get me started on the Amazonian rain forest.

Really? I have been in Oregon since 1969 (4 years old) and can factually state... BS! Literally in my backyard is this. 957,590 acres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Rivers_National_Forest

And...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmiopsis_Wilderness. Sure we are missing trees, they burned up because of forestry miss management!

The many hikers, mushroom pickers and hunters that get lost around here know differently.
We have so damn many trees....

 

[Al D]

Really? I have been in Oregon since 1969 (4 years old) and can factually state... BS! Literally in my backyard is this. 957,590 acres. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Rivers_National_Forest

And...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmiopsis_Wilderness. Sure we are missing trees, they burned up because of forestry miss management!

The many hikers, mushroom pickers and hunters that get lost around here know differently.
We have so damn many trees....

Must be a big state cover up, I was there for about six months, longer than I could stand, there are trees, if you go wayback, but the point I was making was the damn hypocrisy, leaving trees for tourist to see, but clear cutting just beyond that and then acting all righteous about saving the planet. LOL

 

[Kantuckkeean]

if you do not think solar is the perfect solution, why do you continually oppose anyone who says anything negative about it? You only argue one viewpoint, and do so while stating passive agressive things to morally elevate you over the ones you are talking to. Examples are you accusing anyone who doesn't agree with you on being invested in oil, even when the convo never mentions oil, just the problems with solar. Another often used by you when challenged is something akin to "i am just trying to be part of the solution". Or wildly claiming this thread is so full of hot air it can run a city or something. This is where the high horse remarks come from, not your differing viewpoint. As you know I am down to argue until i am blue in the face if there are actual conversations going on. I do not however tolerate talking to someone who assumes negatives about others or assume they are morally better than others because of their opinions.

I don't oppose anyone who says anything negative about it. I've agreed with you and others in previous discussions and the current discussion. I've even said in this thread that I've never been a fan of solar-thermal operations. Solar has its drawbacks (e.g. uses mined materials, heat-island effects, needs storage, not viable for all latitudes or situations, expensive, etc.).

My argument is that in many cases, a PV solar array beat the alternative, which is the status quo... coal and NG generating facilities.

I also disagree with the statement that it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than the panel will produce in its lifespan. I agreed that it was true once, but no longer is, and that payback time will continue to lessen with increased efficiency of the panels and economies of scale.

I didn't accuse anyone of being invested in oil or coal. That's another misrepresentation. I was simply asking to see if they had an agenda... asking, not accusing and not judging. I've worked with plenty of coal miners and if you get to know them, many of them are as big of environmentalists as I am (even if they don't acknowledge it). They're just working to provide a good living for their families. And I never said that I'm morally superior to anyone. I know that I have an ecological footprint as well, and one that's larger than the majority of people on the planet, if you don't include my offsets... and even then...

I don't start threads that are simply to bash the shortcomings and environmental degradation that arise from the fossil fuels industries. However, some people on here like to bash solar panels for whatever agenda and often focus on one negative aspect, such as by saying that they require subsidies and such, but they entirely dismiss the other side, which is the subsidies and tax breaks that the fossil fuels industries receive. They like to take the true cost of solar panels or wind into account, but fail to compare it to the true cost of fossil fuels. That's why I bring coal, oil, and gas into the conversation... because if you eliminate alternative sources, what are we left with? The status quo, which is primarily fossil fuels. By simply bashing solar panels and not offering an alternative, then the assumption is, let's stick with fossil fuels. And my view is that fossil fuels are pretty dang dirty.

It's easy to point out shortcomings and failures. It's often much more difficult to find solutions. I'm arguing that we need to be working towards alternatives, because what we're doing now isn't working very well. Others seem to argue that the status quo is fine and they're sticking with it, no matter what, even if it is much more polluting to the air and water that we all breathe and use. Yeah, fossil fuels provide reliable energy (to an extent), but if the scientists are correct and if we continue down our current path (and I believe that the scientists are right), many habitable places of the planet will be uninhabitable in a few short decades due to temperature, drought, sea level rise, etc. I've already seen the places made uninhabitable for many types of wildlife by coal mining, fracking, and drilling.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck