2532 pts · January 18, 2025
Sooooo, is it bad or not? Cause this MF is arguing both at the same time.(note: I don't actually expect an ounce of coherent intelligence or rational thought from this walking bag of flaccid dongs).
Oh shit, that's it! Thanks! I was desperately trying to remember where I'd heard it before.
Does anyone know what the music is? I know I've heard it in a film (or show), it's right there on the edge of my memory, but I can't f'n place it...
Agreed.
Yup! Precisely. Hence my wishy-washy take, lol.
Oh, for sure. I 100% agree! But I do think that it's important to point out that, for all we know, the movie dude has been being a self-centered prick, too (albeit in a different way).
There's (sort of) a middle ground here. Blue shirt is acting like a complete and total dickbag. That said, I can also 100% understand the frustration with having to hear motorbikes going back and forth incessantly (which may have been the case here, who knows). It doesn't justify blue shirt's behavior, *at all*, but ffs the noise pollution is incredibly self-centered. (I used to live next to a dude that would ride circles around his house for hours at a time, <50 ft. from my house.)
Can also improve solar panel output: As panels heat up, efficiency goes down. Putting over water can help keep panels cooler and increase output. Similar gains when solar is integrated into agriculture (agrivoltaics).
I mean, this isn't even news (the talking head, that is). It's just some pointless fucking reaction video, desperate for clicks and views, that adds precisely *nothing* to the situation.
"Trump’s Mueller Post Is Crossing a Line"I'd have thought that he crossed a line a long fucking time ago when he raped a E. Jean Carroll, but okay.
Note: this is not a defense of Trump, nor the behavior in general. Just a reminder.
I mean, Clinton was laughing and joking when being interviewed on Libya and the death of Gaddafi.https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/htt">died/">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/hillary-clinton-and-the-brutal-murder-of-qaddafi/
This is not a post in defense of fossil fuels, but a recognition of the reality of our complex system that remains *highly dependent* on cheap, readily available fossil fuels, esp. oil/gas.We should (need to!) 100% move towards electrification, but we're not there yet. Until we find suitable alternatives for the thousands of other uses of oil/gas, we're still going to be mired in a system where price shocks will absolutely impact us, even with widespread EV use.It's basic chemistry stuff.
Ex: sulfur is key ingredient for sulfuric acid. Significant percentage of global sulfur comes from the sour (sulfur-rich) oil in the Persian Gulf, ~50% traded through the strait. Beyond its use in pharmaceutical manufacturing and other industries, it's a central component of copper mining (leaching process). Copper is still a key piece of electrification. Copper mining gets more expensive, so does the manufacturing of: batteries, EVs, transmission, electronics, etc.
You ignore my point, you don't get to pick and choose the chemical components in barrel of oil. Just because you reduce gasoline/diesel demand does not mean that necessarily changes the total # of barrels of oil that are extracted when oil serves as a feedstock of *thousands* of non-energy related products and processes. Case-in-point: ~50% of the world sulfur is traded through the strait, ~30% of fertilizer. Shortages of those materials will lead to price shocks, even if not at the gas pump.
"If every car is an EV then your country is immune from all domestic fuel shocks."lol, no. This is about so much more than gas prices. Our materials and industrial economy remains *heavily* dependent on oil. These price hikes are going to translate to higher food costs, higher manufacturing costs, higher transport costs, and a loss of key ingredients for numerous sectors: fertilizer, feedstocks for pharmaceuticals, sulfur for mining, and thousands of other products and processes.
"Please"?! That cursed carrion consuming cunt has never said please in his entire fucking life.
Why have actual books when you can just have a picture of them covered up by a television?!
So figuring out how to recycle those materials is very important, esp. as silver costs increase while availability is decreasing due to both the increase in demand and declining mining output from other metals that account for ~70% of mined silver (zinc, gold, and copper).
Except that scale is important. Ex: AVG panel has ~20g of Ag, and currently in US ~4million panels are decommissioned annually. That's about 80 metric tons of Ag lost if not recovered. In 2023, US mined ~1000 tons of Ag, so this represents a loss of ~8.8% of annual extraction if unrecovered, and about $70M lost. This number is only slated to increase as solar grows (est. i s doubling by early 2030's).
btw, when I said metals, I did not mean the frame, but the silicon (metaloid) copper, silver, etc. bound up in the panels.
"the panel itself is much more difficult" <- that's kind of the problem! The EROI on recycled glass is relatively low (still worth doing though!) and the aluminum frame is 100% worth doing (high EROI). The panels, however, are where the bulk of the key ingredients are, and they're the hardest to recycle. The EU is certainly moving the right direction with mandated recycling laws, as it will spur the industry (no argument there!) but there are still significant tech challenges to overcome.
"A green grid is viable, only politics is truly in the way." - I largely agree! But it's not *just* politics.
You're not entirely wrong, but you're conflating different things now. Norway and Brazil are largely hydro. France is mostly nuclear (~70%). Finland nuclear, hydro, and biomass (though wind is beginning to gain a strong foothold). Spain is the closest, with ~40% from wind/solar. My point is that your examples are countries that have less variable renewables (hydro/biomass) and/or nuclear, not predominately more variable sources like wind/solar.
"there's so much we can do to reduce how reliant we are on constant new supplies of oil." <- Wholeheartedly agree. It wont be easy (my main gripe with posts like the original meme above, that overly-simplify it), it will require a completely new materials (and energy) system, but it certainly is worth working towards, and much sooner rather than later.
"the glass/metal in them is recyclable."Technically true, but not easily (at all), which is why there are so few companies actually doing it. The processes are improving, but are not there yet to do it at scale. Though we 100% need to push that direction!"Even wind turbine blades can be recycled." <- Again, technically true, but the economics are not there (yet), the process is messy and comes with its own environmental costs.
"Pretty predictable" =/= easily integrated to the pre-existing grid or dispatched. The sheer variation in load is still an ongoing issue that has been alleviated (somewhat) by improvements and deployment of batteries and other energy storage systems (still mostly pumped hydro), but the majority of large-scale renewables are still reliant on nat gas peaker plants. (I'm primarily referring to the US here, btw.)
No, that's not why they were abandoned. They were abandoned due to costs and a lack of economies of scale, given that building larger reactors of 3-4x power output only requires ~2x more materials. They were never "perfected" the SMR's built in the US and abroad in nearly every case were experimental/prototype reactors, many had significant engineering and materials issues. While some did operate for a number of years (ex: La Crosse BWR) it led to 3x electricity costs.
" you can drive a diesel car for 20 years before it releases more CO2 emissions than the production of a single electric car."^This is not even remotely true. On what basis are you making this claim?https://theicct.org/publication/electric-cars-life-cycle-analysis-emissions-europe-jul25/
I never said steel nor cement required diesel, but I apologize for the confusion. They do require fossil fuels (coal mostly). Equipment for mining all the materials needed for renewables does require diesel, there is no suitable alternative (yet?) that has the same energy density.I literally teach in a sustainability program. I'm not an apologist for FF's, I want to highlight how difficult this transition is. The only way out of this mess is not simple substitution, it's through degrowth.
Sooooo, is it bad or not? Cause this MF is arguing both at the same time.
(note: I don't actually expect an ounce of coherent intelligence or rational thought from this walking bag of flaccid dongs).
Oh shit, that's it! Thanks! I was desperately trying to remember where I'd heard it before.
Does anyone know what the music is? I know I've heard it in a film (or show), it's right there on the edge of my memory, but I can't f'n place it...
Agreed.
Yup! Precisely. Hence my wishy-washy take, lol.
Oh, for sure. I 100% agree! But I do think that it's important to point out that, for all we know, the movie dude has been being a self-centered prick, too (albeit in a different way).
There's (sort of) a middle ground here. Blue shirt is acting like a complete and total dickbag. That said, I can also 100% understand the frustration with having to hear motorbikes going back and forth incessantly (which may have been the case here, who knows). It doesn't justify blue shirt's behavior, *at all*, but ffs the noise pollution is incredibly self-centered. (I used to live next to a dude that would ride circles around his house for hours at a time, <50 ft. from my house.)
Can also improve solar panel output: As panels heat up, efficiency goes down. Putting over water can help keep panels cooler and increase output. Similar gains when solar is integrated into agriculture (agrivoltaics).
I mean, this isn't even news (the talking head, that is). It's just some pointless fucking reaction video, desperate for clicks and views, that adds precisely *nothing* to the situation.
"Trump’s Mueller Post Is Crossing a Line"
I'd have thought that he crossed a line a long fucking time ago when he raped a E. Jean Carroll, but okay.
Note: this is not a defense of Trump, nor the behavior in general. Just a reminder.
I mean, Clinton was laughing and joking when being interviewed on Libya and the death of Gaddafi.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/
htt">died/">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-on-qaddafi-we-came-we-saw-he-died/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2016/10/21/hillary-clinton-and-the-brutal-murder-of-qaddafi/
This is not a post in defense of fossil fuels, but a recognition of the reality of our complex system that remains *highly dependent* on cheap, readily available fossil fuels, esp. oil/gas.
We should (need to!) 100% move towards electrification, but we're not there yet. Until we find suitable alternatives for the thousands of other uses of oil/gas, we're still going to be mired in a system where price shocks will absolutely impact us, even with widespread EV use.
It's basic chemistry stuff.
Ex: sulfur is key ingredient for sulfuric acid. Significant percentage of global sulfur comes from the sour (sulfur-rich) oil in the Persian Gulf, ~50% traded through the strait. Beyond its use in pharmaceutical manufacturing and other industries, it's a central component of copper mining (leaching process). Copper is still a key piece of electrification. Copper mining gets more expensive, so does the manufacturing of: batteries, EVs, transmission, electronics, etc.
You ignore my point, you don't get to pick and choose the chemical components in barrel of oil. Just because you reduce gasoline/diesel demand does not mean that necessarily changes the total # of barrels of oil that are extracted when oil serves as a feedstock of *thousands* of non-energy related products and processes. Case-in-point: ~50% of the world sulfur is traded through the strait, ~30% of fertilizer. Shortages of those materials will lead to price shocks, even if not at the gas pump.
"If every car is an EV then your country is immune from all domestic fuel shocks."
lol, no. This is about so much more than gas prices. Our materials and industrial economy remains *heavily* dependent on oil. These price hikes are going to translate to higher food costs, higher manufacturing costs, higher transport costs, and a loss of key ingredients for numerous sectors: fertilizer, feedstocks for pharmaceuticals, sulfur for mining, and thousands of other products and processes.
"Please"?!
That cursed carrion consuming cunt has never said please in his entire fucking life.
Why have actual books when you can just have a picture of them covered up by a television?!
So figuring out how to recycle those materials is very important, esp. as silver costs increase while availability is decreasing due to both the increase in demand and declining mining output from other metals that account for ~70% of mined silver (zinc, gold, and copper).
Except that scale is important. Ex: AVG panel has ~20g of Ag, and currently in US ~4million panels are decommissioned annually. That's about 80 metric tons of Ag lost if not recovered. In 2023, US mined ~1000 tons of Ag, so this represents a loss of ~8.8% of annual extraction if unrecovered, and about $70M lost. This number is only slated to increase as solar grows (est. i s doubling by early 2030's).
btw, when I said metals, I did not mean the frame, but the silicon (metaloid) copper, silver, etc. bound up in the panels.
"the panel itself is much more difficult" <- that's kind of the problem!
The EROI on recycled glass is relatively low (still worth doing though!) and the aluminum frame is 100% worth doing (high EROI). The panels, however, are where the bulk of the key ingredients are, and they're the hardest to recycle. The EU is certainly moving the right direction with mandated recycling laws, as it will spur the industry (no argument there!) but there are still significant tech challenges to overcome.
"A green grid is viable, only politics is truly in the way." - I largely agree! But it's not *just* politics.
You're not entirely wrong, but you're conflating different things now. Norway and Brazil are largely hydro. France is mostly nuclear (~70%). Finland nuclear, hydro, and biomass (though wind is beginning to gain a strong foothold). Spain is the closest, with ~40% from wind/solar. My point is that your examples are countries that have less variable renewables (hydro/biomass) and/or nuclear, not predominately more variable sources like wind/solar.
"there's so much we can do to reduce how reliant we are on constant new supplies of oil." <- Wholeheartedly agree. It wont be easy (my main gripe with posts like the original meme above, that overly-simplify it), it will require a completely new materials (and energy) system, but it certainly is worth working towards, and much sooner rather than later.
"the glass/metal in them is recyclable."
Technically true, but not easily (at all), which is why there are so few companies actually doing it. The processes are improving, but are not there yet to do it at scale. Though we 100% need to push that direction!
"Even wind turbine blades can be recycled." <- Again, technically true, but the economics are not there (yet), the process is messy and comes with its own environmental costs.
"Pretty predictable" =/= easily integrated to the pre-existing grid or dispatched. The sheer variation in load is still an ongoing issue that has been alleviated (somewhat) by improvements and deployment of batteries and other energy storage systems (still mostly pumped hydro), but the majority of large-scale renewables are still reliant on nat gas peaker plants. (I'm primarily referring to the US here, btw.)
No, that's not why they were abandoned. They were abandoned due to costs and a lack of economies of scale, given that building larger reactors of 3-4x power output only requires ~2x more materials. They were never "perfected" the SMR's built in the US and abroad in nearly every case were experimental/prototype reactors, many had significant engineering and materials issues. While some did operate for a number of years (ex: La Crosse BWR) it led to 3x electricity costs.
" you can drive a diesel car for 20 years before it releases more CO2 emissions than the production of a single electric car."
^This is not even remotely true. On what basis are you making this claim?
https://theicct.org/publication/electric-cars-life-cycle-analysis-emissions-europe-jul25/
I never said steel nor cement required diesel, but I apologize for the confusion. They do require fossil fuels (coal mostly). Equipment for mining all the materials needed for renewables does require diesel, there is no suitable alternative (yet?) that has the same energy density.
I literally teach in a sustainability program. I'm not an apologist for FF's, I want to highlight how difficult this transition is. The only way out of this mess is not simple substitution, it's through degrowth.