Solar panels and wind turbines are negative returns on energy and extremely heavy polluters.. You need a boatload of fossil fuels to have the machinery and manufacturing in place to create them.
Once drilled, oil and gas wells are extremely low-pollution, even with all of the tailpipe emissions at the other end of the supply chain.
The only energy source that is CO2 free is nuclear and radiation-based generation. But this was made ridiculously difficult to use or construct just before the war on fossil fuels (e.g. global warming) began.
No really they love CO2. More CO2 in air= more plant growth. More plant growth = more O2 produced by plants
Basically a homeostatic system which returns to an equilibrium.
I thought tesla was a commie company? It does have the 3 red stripe thingy as the E in their logo, all the cars look the same, plus didnt he get rich off govt contracts?
I miss a good screaming V8s. Now theyre all muted, or so fast that you cant enjoy a good pull through the gears, without risk of jail time
Solar panels and wind turbines are negative returns on energy and extremely heavy polluters. You need a boatload of fossil fuels to have the machinery and manufacturing in place to create them.
That is a problem of manufacturing and recycling infrastructure, as I stated already. These things are not being brought to market with these things in mind, because the market is not "free" but rather superdupermega controlled by the PTB.
Once drilled, oil and gas wells are extremely low-pollution
I don't actually give a crap about CO2. There is no data that supports CO2 being problematic in the scope that humans produce. Its the other pollutants that are problematic, including in the extraction process, the shipping process, the refining process and the burning process. Its not that clean. It may not be as dirty as "Climatologists" suggest (to me Climatologist = Climate Scientologist), but it is dirty, and solar could be very nearly completely free of pollutants if there were infrastructure in place for its manufacture and recycling (as I stated above).
The only energy source that is CO2 free is nuclear and radiation-based generation
Again, I don't care about CO2. Its a red herring. i am talking about pollution. I am a huge fan of nuclear energy, but it also has its pollution. It is not pollution free at all. That doesn't mean it can't be taken care of (infrastructure), but that infrastructure does not currently exist, just like it doesn't exist for solar.
Solar might be clean(er), but there is no way to produce enough to meet the needs of a 300-million human society. It is not anywhere close to the efficiency as petroleum.
It is not anywhere close to the efficiency as petroleum.
The energy density of petroleum is greater, but the surface area of the Earth (or the sun) is huge. There are many ways to make solar more efficient than petroleum through infrastructure.
I get it. Solar is not the godsend it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
I get it. Petroleum is not the devil it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
That doesn't mean that solar isn't a really great resource to tap, nor does it mean that solar isn't a better resource for actual sustainable (no pollution, basically infinite) energy production. I assert that solar can be both of those things (no pollution, basically infinite).
Its a function of designing systems to take advantage of things. Petroleum is chemical. Release of chemical energy has byproducts (pollution). That is the reality that needs to be dealt with in building infrastructure.
Petroleum is limited. How limited? I don't know, but its more limited than solar for sure.
Solar is basically free. Its there whether we use it or not, and there is a massive amount of it.
Solar is basically infinite. At least for the next few billion years. If we need more, we can put more solar gathering tools (currently called "solar panels") in space and send the energy down to earth.
Solar is basically pollutant free if it is designed to be so (there are no byproducts from the source, not counting the helium produced in the sun which stays there).
Using the sources we have available, solar is superior in all ways except energy density, but battery technology can meet petroleum and potentially pass it, and collecting the energy can be done over a large surface (home roof e.g.) and done indefinitely, producing more than enough than is needed. Its all a matter of infrastructure and a truly free market (which we have never experienced).
It is possible that solar can, at some point, get to the lofty ideals that many of us would love to see.
But that is not today, and that needs to be kept in mind, too.
Solar survives today due to massive subsidies. It is not economically viable on its own, except at very small scale.
Maybe that will change. That would be nice. Until then, we also must defend the efficient resource we have, which is petroleum.
I also used to think that "free energy" was nonsense. But as I learn a little more about Tesla (the man), I wonder if maybe he came up with some brilliant ideas that could be utilized.
What we really need is a free market in energy (free from government interference and conspiracy to push some ideas at the expense of others). We could possibly revolutionize the world within 10-20 years.
Solar is a pipe dream, and it's not an "infrastructurally-solvable" set of problems it faces.
Let's put it this way: a cow is solar powered. Each cow needs about 1-1.5 acres of land to convert that solar energy to sustain itself.
Want a real world experiment? Buy one of those cheap android cell phones running a 5inch screen and then replace the battery with a solar panel inverter and then keep it running the entire time the sun is out on a portable solar array of your choice.
The sun puts out a metric boatload of power, but very little of it hits earth. For what does hit earth, we have yet to build anything that can be mass produced to take advantage of more than about 35 percent of that in ideal conditions outside the laboratory (some lab experiments have yields conversions upwards of 80%, but they are not yet commercially practical).
Not really. FT processes operate at much lower temperature and pressure thresholds than what would exist deep beneath the earth.
They also generally rely on having some sort of hydrocarbon already present mixed with gases (co or co2), which would be hard to have in abundance within pressurized rock.
Solar panels and wind turbines are negative returns on energy and extremely heavy polluters.. You need a boatload of fossil fuels to have the machinery and manufacturing in place to create them.
Once drilled, oil and gas wells are extremely low-pollution, even with all of the tailpipe emissions at the other end of the supply chain.
The only energy source that is CO2 free is nuclear and radiation-based generation. But this was made ridiculously difficult to use or construct just before the war on fossil fuels (e.g. global warming) began.
The war on nuclear power is all I needed to know about CO2. They’ve had the solution since the 1960s.
They don’t want to “succeed” in their goals, because their goal is a lie.
Not to mention that CO2 isn’t a substantial greenhouse gas.
The whole thing is a fraud, every single element.
It’s got what plants crave!
No really they love CO2. More CO2 in air= more plant growth. More plant growth = more O2 produced by plants Basically a homeostatic system which returns to an equilibrium.
I am still hoping Tesla will come through ...
I thought tesla was a commie company? It does have the 3 red stripe thingy as the E in their logo, all the cars look the same, plus didnt he get rich off govt contracts?
I miss a good screaming V8s. Now theyre all muted, or so fast that you cant enjoy a good pull through the gears, without risk of jail time
I fell off my chain reading this, trying to think when did Nikola Tesla get rich off govt contracts! kek
I was not talking about Tesla company, but Nikola Tesla and his universal energy discovery.
Perhaps he meant Nikola Tesla
Also the amount of Rare Earth Material per vehicle goes as follows.
Gas sedan-0.44Kg Electric sedan-1.0Kg Hybrid sedan-4.5Kg
Or per 100,000 cars(not a lot)
Gas sedan-44,000Kg Electric Sedan-100,000Kg Hybrid Sedan-450,000Kg
It’s pretty wild when you extrapolate those numbers 🤯
Stats are from SAE.org and from 2012 so could have slightly changed
That is a problem of manufacturing and recycling infrastructure, as I stated already. These things are not being brought to market with these things in mind, because the market is not "free" but rather superdupermega controlled by the PTB.
I don't actually give a crap about CO2. There is no data that supports CO2 being problematic in the scope that humans produce. Its the other pollutants that are problematic, including in the extraction process, the shipping process, the refining process and the burning process. Its not that clean. It may not be as dirty as "Climatologists" suggest (to me Climatologist = Climate Scientologist), but it is dirty, and solar could be very nearly completely free of pollutants if there were infrastructure in place for its manufacture and recycling (as I stated above).
Again, I don't care about CO2. Its a red herring. i am talking about pollution. I am a huge fan of nuclear energy, but it also has its pollution. It is not pollution free at all. That doesn't mean it can't be taken care of (infrastructure), but that infrastructure does not currently exist, just like it doesn't exist for solar.
Solar might be clean(er), but there is no way to produce enough to meet the needs of a 300-million human society. It is not anywhere close to the efficiency as petroleum.
The energy density of petroleum is greater, but the surface area of the Earth (or the sun) is huge. There are many ways to make solar more efficient than petroleum through infrastructure.
I get it. Solar is not the godsend it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
I get it. Petroleum is not the devil it is suggested to be by the Climatologists.
That doesn't mean that solar isn't a really great resource to tap, nor does it mean that solar isn't a better resource for actual sustainable (no pollution, basically infinite) energy production. I assert that solar can be both of those things (no pollution, basically infinite).
Its a function of designing systems to take advantage of things. Petroleum is chemical. Release of chemical energy has byproducts (pollution). That is the reality that needs to be dealt with in building infrastructure.
Petroleum is limited. How limited? I don't know, but its more limited than solar for sure.
Solar is basically free. Its there whether we use it or not, and there is a massive amount of it.
Solar is basically infinite. At least for the next few billion years. If we need more, we can put more solar gathering tools (currently called "solar panels") in space and send the energy down to earth.
Solar is basically pollutant free if it is designed to be so (there are no byproducts from the source, not counting the helium produced in the sun which stays there).
Using the sources we have available, solar is superior in all ways except energy density, but battery technology can meet petroleum and potentially pass it, and collecting the energy can be done over a large surface (home roof e.g.) and done indefinitely, producing more than enough than is needed. Its all a matter of infrastructure and a truly free market (which we have never experienced).
It is possible that solar can, at some point, get to the lofty ideals that many of us would love to see.
But that is not today, and that needs to be kept in mind, too.
Solar survives today due to massive subsidies. It is not economically viable on its own, except at very small scale.
Maybe that will change. That would be nice. Until then, we also must defend the efficient resource we have, which is petroleum.
I also used to think that "free energy" was nonsense. But as I learn a little more about Tesla (the man), I wonder if maybe he came up with some brilliant ideas that could be utilized.
What we really need is a free market in energy (free from government interference and conspiracy to push some ideas at the expense of others). We could possibly revolutionize the world within 10-20 years.
Solar is a pipe dream, and it's not an "infrastructurally-solvable" set of problems it faces.
Let's put it this way: a cow is solar powered. Each cow needs about 1-1.5 acres of land to convert that solar energy to sustain itself.
Want a real world experiment? Buy one of those cheap android cell phones running a 5inch screen and then replace the battery with a solar panel inverter and then keep it running the entire time the sun is out on a portable solar array of your choice.
The sun puts out a metric boatload of power, but very little of it hits earth. For what does hit earth, we have yet to build anything that can be mass produced to take advantage of more than about 35 percent of that in ideal conditions outside the laboratory (some lab experiments have yields conversions upwards of 80%, but they are not yet commercially practical).
There is no such thing as "fossil fuels."
https://greatawakening.win/p/12kFZBAP0G/
But if you are talking about petroleum, you are spot on.
Abiotic production has as much evidence as fossil-pressure formation. Both are based on processes we can only guess at and cannot reproduce in a lab.
Aside from that: linguistically, fossil fuels is synonymous with petroleum products, even if you consider it imprecise.
But aren’t the processes hypothesized Fischer-Tropsch processes more or less?
Not really. FT processes operate at much lower temperature and pressure thresholds than what would exist deep beneath the earth.
They also generally rely on having some sort of hydrocarbon already present mixed with gases (co or co2), which would be hard to have in abundance within pressurized rock.