$50 oil, now what?

[A790]

I think people are overlooking the differences between "green" technology and sustainable technology.

This is all moot anyways once we figure out how to mine asteroids.

[riander5]

Originally posted by Gestalt
It's not relevant because of the scale involved. 35 BILLION bagels of oil per year is what we are replacing.

Your claim that Lithium is worse is doubtful even at one to one.
Batteries are only one way to store. Large plants are using other methods.

Of course there is no free lunch. But it's far better than directly burning into our atmosophere at yuge yuge scales.

I love bagels... But who is eating that many lets be real

[ickyflex]

Originally posted by Gestalt
It's not relevant because of the scale involved. 35 BILLION bagels of oil per year is what we are replacing.

Your claim that Lithium is worse is doubtful even at one to one.
Batteries are only one way to store. Large plants are using other methods.

Of course there is no free lunch. But it's far better than directly burning into our atmosophere at yuge yuge scales.

35 BILLION Bagels... that sounds like a lot of free lunch if you ask me

[J-hop]

Originally posted by A790
I think people are overlooking the differences between "green" technology and sustainable technology.

This is all moot anyways once we figure out how to mine asteroids.

Yea the funny thing is that as well as not being green in the sense that enviro nuts think it is unless the solar/electric industry can find a way to get away from lithium it isn't even sustainable either. With the poor recycling rate and poor lifespans and projected growth I've read that the worlds supply of lithium could be depleted in under 20 years.

Could just be fear mongering but even if it's 100-200 years that still isn't considered sustainable at all.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by A790
I think people are overlooking the differences between "green" technology and sustainable technology.

This exactly.

The government and ignorant sheeple keep using that green energy term, but there really isn't any such thing. And it sure the hell isn't solar and wind.

[Seth1968]

Typical house solar panels are embarrassingly inefficient (around 15%). A typical household will pay about $30,000 to outfit their Alberta house. That doesn't include maintenance, battery issues, and battery replacement.

Call me when they're at a reasonable price, 75% efficient, and use viable storage.

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by pheoxs
That's like saying we should've given up on electricity because the early power plants used coal with tons of pollution. Technology advances. There is no method that internal combustion can eliminate green house gases but it is possible that eventually batteries will hit a point where they no longer degrade and one battery can last a lifetime. Advancement takes time and money.

Sure sure in the far future maybe we will solve these problems but we don't have solutions now and solutions do not appear to be forthcoming. People have been saying for the last 50 years tech X is the "big" break through in battery storage. None of these have panned out when it comes to trying to store grid power.

So we either keep on our stupid current course till we discover tech that may or may not ever come to fruition or you start doing something today like building nuclear plants to replace ALL other methods of power generation.

Nope we've got geniuses who think that home solar panels are the key. It's like taking a step back into the 1800's when we used to burn coal at home before someone realized that it's horribly inneficient and suffers from massive maintenance problems. Solar is the same shit. You place shitty panels onto a shitty room at a shitty angle.

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
So we either keep on our stupid current course till we discover tech that may or may not ever come to fruition or you start doing something today like building nuclear plants to replace ALL other methods of power generation.

But but but Chernobyl

Anyway, I'm totally in agreement. Go nuclear until we have a practical alternative. Not that it's going to happen though.

[RealJimmyJames]

That nuke in peace river should have been built. Was a great idea. A nuke near fort mac would be smart too. Use the heat to make steam for a district-heat-type SAGD operation. Easy win.

Just not those CANDU pieces of shit, use a modern molten salt reactor or something.

[90_Shelby]

Originally posted by Gestalt
It's not relevant because of the scale involved. 35 BILLION bagels of oil per year is what we are replacing.

Your claim that Lithium is worse is doubtful even at one to one.
Batteries are only one way to store. Large plants are using other methods.

Of course there is no free lunch. But it's far better than directly burning into our atmosophere at yuge yuge scales.

Have you converted your hot water heater to electric or replaced your furnace with an electric heater? Taking into consideration your concerns with the oil and gas industry, have you taken these steps to rely more heavily on electric power sources? If no, why not?

If yes, I'd be very interested to hear what your electricity usage is like in Calgary.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Seth1968
Typical house solar panels are embarrassingly inefficient (around 15%). A typical household will pay about $30,000 to outfit their Alberta house. That doesn't include maintenance, battery issues, and battery replacement.

Call me when they're at a reasonable price, 75% efficient, and use viable storage.

17% cheapies, 24% top of the line. Solar energy converted from a free energy source. The extra energy is not wasted, has no impact on the environment negatively. Making an efficiency argument stupid really. The only downside is you need more panels.

Ibut after 120 years of cars, we are only in the 35% range, remaining 65% does nothing but burn off into the atmosphere. I imagine you aren't holding out for a 75% efficient car before you jump on the driving around band wagon.

Bad news. A Tesla model S is 85%+ effieicnet. Lol

Understand the difference? No you don't.

$30k right now if you pay someone with a Tesla Powerwall. Our friend in Edmonton did it under $10 k, simple grid tied system and hasn't seen an electric bill balance in 2 years.

A Tesla Powerwall is extremely viable, but expensive. There is competition already, and Musk says prices will fall dramatically when gigafactory in Nevada is in full swing.

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by 90_Shelby


Have you converted your hot water heater to electric or replaced your furnace with an electric heater? Taking into consideration your concerns with the oil and gas industry, have you taken these steps to rely more heavily on electric power sources? If no, why not?

If yes, I'd be very interested to hear what your electricity usage is like in Calgary.

It's not all or nothing. It's steps and phases.

Our panels will be this year, we will see what happens from there.

Proving you can never satisfy anti science people, because even if we did all that, you would point to the plastic in my phone, and proudly call me a hypocrite.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Gestalt


It's not all or nothing. It's steps and phases.

Our panels will be this year, we will see what happens from there.

Proving you can never satisfy anti science people, because even if we did all that, you would point to the plastic in my phone, and proudly call me a hypocrite.

You are the one here that is refusing to take a holistic view. You cannot keep ignoring battery production and the damage it does. You cannot keep making the scale claim because your aim is to remove the scale difference so you can't claim that as a pro for solar.

Broken record here but you still refuse to discuss the sourcing of material for batteries, saying you don't have to address it because of current scale is a bit of a cop out

[Seth1968]

Originally posted by Gestalt

17% cheapies, 24% top of the line. Solar energy converted from a free energy source. The extra energy is not wasted, has no impact on the environment negatively. Making an efficiency argument stupid really. The only downside is you need more panels.

Ibut after 120 years of cars, we are only in the 35% range, remaining 65% does nothing but burn off into the atmosphere. I imagine you aren't holding out for a 75% efficient car before you jump on the driving around band wagon.

Bad news. A Tesla model S is 85%+ effieicnet. Lol

Understand the difference? No you don't.

$30k right now if you pay someone with a Tesla Powerwall. Our friend in Edmonton did it under $10 k, simple grid tied system and hasn't seen an electric bill balance in 2 years.

A Tesla Powerwall is extremely viable, but expensive. There is competition already, and Musk says prices will fall dramatically when gigafactory in Nevada is in full swing.

I'm not even going to waste my time blowing holes in everything you just said, but it's generally wrong and/or irrelevant.

[msommers]

Mining tailing ponds have never hurt anyone.

Well I guess there was that one time:



http://archive.boston.com/bigpicture...ic_sludge.html

[mazdavirgin]

Originally posted by Gestalt


It's not all or nothing. It's steps and phases.

Our panels will be this year, we will see what happens from there.

Proving you can never satisfy anti science people, because even if we did all that, you would point to the plastic in my phone, and proudly call me a hypocrite.

Only anti science person in this thread is you... You blindly believe in random hype without actually understanding anything you are talking about. You get a grade A dunce cap.

[A790]

Originally posted by Seth1968
I'm not even going to waste my time blowing holes in everything you just said, but it's generally wrong and/or irrelevant.

No it wasn't.

[Seth1968]

NO ONE is denying that we need a better energy source.

The real problem is the pixie dust people who are completely unrealistic about how such an implementation should occur. To add insult to injury, they want it done yesterday.

[A790]

Originally posted by Seth1968
To add insult to injury, they want it done yesterday.

Well, there is mounting evidence that suggests the window of opportunity we have to enact change that influences our climate is quickly closing.

Of course, one also has to accept the evidence that suggests such change is needed.

[Xtrema]

Originally posted by Seth1968


I'm not even going to waste my time blowing holes in everything you just said, but it's generally wrong and/or irrelevant.

Other than that Gesalt doesn't quite understand how the grid works, on consumer level what he said is kinda true.

The problem is, nobody really got a handle on how to phase in these green techs because of the 1:1 ratio on green vs fossil that you have to build. It make it even worst when you remove coal power generation which is already well depreciated and cheap to tie us over until battery is cheap enough.

AESO already did a study (not sure if it's published) that if 20% of us drives EV, the grid will be screwed as we don't have enough supply at night and solar won't help during that period. So I would think solar+in home battery will at least solve this problem to a degree.

Again, I'll throw this out there:
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/...64809/overview

For worst date, you create 0.3kwh. Best day creates 14kwh. If I have similar installation, I would have nothing flowing back to the grid at all but I can definitely reduce my usage.

Or if those 14kwh goes into powerbank and it flow back to my EV at night, at least I can claim my EV runs off grid. My commute to/from work if I have a Bolt would take 7-10kwh.

That said, a solar panel with battery is a heck lot of money to offset may be $1000/year of gasoline.