Submitted by yourSAS t3_z7t0sf in technology
Reply to comment by jonanzr in Rolls-Royce successfully tests hydrogen-powered jet engine | Britain's Rolls-Royce said it has successfully run an aircraft engine on hydrogen, a world aviation first that marks a major step towards proving the gas could be key to decarbonising air travel. by yourSAS
I recommend you give this a read then.
https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/xdytr0/the_renewable_energy_scam/
Yeah but we aren't gonna give up modern day life. Yes renewables take finite non renewable resources, but they result in much less damage than the melting of the planet through climate change.
Except it takes 7x the amount of energy to produce the same result, how is that even remotely effective?
What does this even mean? Over how long? Building the structures? Running it continuously? How does that energy equate to the amount it puts out?
In “moving on from oil” we would be walking away from a complex and often-violent and always critical supply and transport system, only to replace it with at least ten more. A world in which we “electrify everything” requires an order of magnitude more copper and lithium and nickel and cobalt and graphite and chromium and zinc and rare earths and silicon and more.
The future is darker, and less green, than you think.
What point are you arguing? I asked about energy amounts and you bring up rare earth metals.
Yes. I agreed that finite resource materials are required.
I suppose what your definition of "green" is required. I'm thinking of carbon emissions resulting in climate change.
My point is it takes 7x as much energy/resources to produce renewable tech that has a shelf life of 10 years. How is that going to achieve cooling the planet if everything we use now takes 7x the resources and every middle class person wants it?
7x what we emit now is not better.
It would help if you had credible sources backing up the specific claims you want to work with, and not a link to a fifteen page self-post ramble.
So you didn't read it, got it.
Of course I didn't read it. My time has worth, and I have very little reason to believe that that post does.
Well that was a rant, but anything I have to say about it was already said in the comments on that post.
Really, you put a lot of effort towards being wrong.
So you're just going to ignore physics then.
First of all, materials such as iron and copper have to be mined. Mining is extremely destructive to the environment, and is carried out by machines such as giant excavators and huge trucks. All these machines are of course I diesel powered.
To create steel, iron ore and carbon, both non-renewable resources, have to be heated to about 1500 degrees. [The production of one tonne of steel emits about 1.8 tonnes of CO2] (https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-insights/decarbonization-challenge-for-steel). There are between 225 and 285 tonnes of steel in each turbine, so that's 400 tonnes of CO2 just to produce the steel for one turbine! It also takes plastic to build wind turbines. There are over 50 tonnes of plastic in the blades of a 5 MW wind turbine. Plastic is obviously a petroleum by-product. On top of that, each wind turbine needs between 200 and 1400 litres of a petroleum-based lubricant to work properly, which has to be replaced once every 4-7.
And that's not all. To prevent overloads and short circuits in the switchgear of wind turbines, sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) is used. SF6 is 22,800 times more powerful than CO2 and remains in the atmosphere for almost 3000 years! It is the most powerful greenhouse gas known. Each wind turbine contains about 5kg of SF6, which, if released into the atmosphere, would add the equivalent of about 117 tonnes of CO2. This is about the same as the annual emissions of 25 cars. That's not counting the fact that all the materials have to be mined/extracted, transported to a factory, and then the turbines transported over long distances to their final destination by special convoy, adding tonnes of CO2.
Your viewpoint is as damaging as the corporations releasing fossils fuels. People like you will lead the way to a downward spiral of society by telling everyone theres nothing we can do.
Not a single one of those problems is unsolvable. Not a single one of those statements makes green energy less efficient than coal.
We are already on the downward spiral. "people like you" you mean someone who sees what has to happen. Humans are a species in the overshoot of their ecological environment. This is commonplace. Species go into overshoot all the time and from the point of view of nature, it is a feature and not a bug because overshoot introduces creative disruptions. This may however be the first time that a species has gone into overshoot globally rather than locally.
The size and complexity of civilization is an emergent property of exploiting the stored sunlight in fossil energy. The party will soon end. All use of energy to perform work increases entropy which degrades the physical environment in which it is used. Our problem is that we discovered 500 million years of stored sunlight and used it all up in 200 years.
People searching for substitutes for fossil fuels with the expectation that we won’t have to live with less energy have not thought it through. Learning to live with the same energy people in 1721 used is the challenge we face this century.
Cynicism is not productive, it does not make you enlightened. Its just another form of gullibility.
As opposed to techno-optimism or hopium?
All of those also get us nowhere.
We can have a sustainable society. Its not impossible, but its going to take work. Hard work. And no small amount of sacrifice.
Yep, it's going to take an absolute monumental shift in the way we live, work and exist. I'm actually really excited for the change, it's going to be hard for many but if it pivots us out of our death spiral I'm all for it.
The only way to deal with a Gish gallop is to start picking out claims randomly. So:
> Each wind turbine contains about 5kg of SF6, which, if released into the atmosphere, would add the equivalent of about 117 tonnes of CO2. This is about the same as the annual emissions of 25 cars
Never mind the fact that the article you link mentions that wind farms are now being built that phase out SF6. Let’s just look at scale.
Conservatively, the average electric car needs 5000 kWh per year to run. An average wind turbine produces 843,000 kWh per month. So the turbine pays off those 25 car-years worth of emissions in under 5 days
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments