Weather at your house

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

This isn't a tit for tat statement. It's a practical question for an individual. Whether or not you believe in global warming is unrelated to what I'm asking. Why would anyone be against something like renewable energy? Or more fresh water to drink? Or cleaner air?

Are you obtuse or something?
Because, like what I thought I made clear, your renewable energy narrative is nothing but a scam and is actually more harmful than it is good.
Are you OK with them razing forests, ruining habitats, just to burn in co-gen stations that claim they are "green renewable energy" sources?

You and me, whether you want to believe that or not, are basically after the same things, but your refusal to educate yourself with what you have been brainwashed with is getting tiring.
Watch the movie. It might be tough for you to admit you've been lied to and fooled but I've always believed it is better to be slapped with the truth than it is to be kissed with a lie.

[packs]

Originally Posted by irv

Are you obtuse or something?
Because, like what I thought I made clear, your renewable energy narrative is nothing but a scam and is actually more harmful than it is good.
Are you OK with them razing forests, ruining habitats, just to burn in co-gen stations that claim they are "green renewable energy" sources?

You and me, whether you want to believe that or not, are basically after the same things, but your refusal to educate yourself with what you have been brainwashed with is getting tiring.
Watch the movie. It might be tough for you to admit you've been lied to and fooled but I've always believed it is better to be slapped with the truth than it is to be kissed with a lie.

Renewable energy isn't a scam. It exists and can exist in larger formats if developed further. You keep saying things like "are you ok with razing a forest for renewable energy?"

What does one have to do with the other? Are you suggesting there is no other way to develop renewable energy?

[irv]

Originally Posted by packs

Renewable energy isn't a scam. It exists and can exist in larger formats if developed further. You keep saying things like "are you ok with razing a forest for renewable energy?"

What does one have to do with the other? Are you suggesting there is no other way to develop renewable energy?

Good god, man. At least do yourself a favor and watch the movie. Renewable energy is nothing like you think it is. You've been brainwashed into believing something that simply isn't true nor better for the planet.

[packs]

Renewable energy has a clear definition: renewable energy is energy derived from natural sources that are replenished at a higher rate than they are consumed.

[Smarti5051]

As I type this, I am already regretting it, because I realize there is never a rational discussion of anything that has been politicized. But, on a micro level, I can tell you that when I bought my house 12 years ago, I had a high energy bill. So, I paid to have solar panels installed on my house. They are still pumping out about 900 KwH of energy each month and to my knowledge do not put any added stress on the environment. We also bought two Teslas, not for energy reasons - just because they are fun to drive and the X was a business tax write-off, and have not had to rely on gas for the past four years and that should continue for several years. So, again, on a micro level, I like to think that we have decreased the world's reliance on energy sources that could be harmful long term to the planet - maybe I am wrong. I also like to speculate that if everybody in a sunny climate did the same thing, it would have a more meaningful effect.

I believe there are plenty of profiteers and and a multitude of politicians that have used the environment solely for personal gain (on both sides of the aisle). But, on a basic academic consideration of the topic, it seems hard to argue that renewable energy sources do exist and could help decrease the reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Smarti5051

As I type this, I am already regretting it, because I realize there is never a rational discussion of anything that has been politicized. But, on a micro level, I can tell you that when I bought my house 12 years ago, I had a high energy bill. So, I paid to have solar panels installed on my house. They are still pumping out about 900 KwH of energy each month and to my knowledge do not put any added stress on the environment. We also bought two Teslas, not for energy reasons - just because they are fun to drive and the X was a business tax write-off, and have not had to rely on gas for the past four years and that should continue for several years. So, again, on a micro level, I like to think that we have decreased the world's reliance on energy sources that could be harmful long term to the planet - maybe I am wrong. I also like to speculate that if everybody in a sunny climate did the same thing, it would have a more meaningful effect.

I believe there are plenty of profiteers and and a multitude of politicians that have used the environment solely for personal gain (on both sides of the aisle). But, on a basic academic consideration of the topic, it seems hard to argue that renewable energy sources do exist and could help decrease the reliance on non-renewable energy sources.

This sounds great. Turning sunlight into electricity is a great concept, especially when you can also use that electricity as a substitute for gasoline. If I lived in a sunny state and had the dough, I'd love to do what you're doing.

The problems, as I see it, lie in the politicalization of it. First, the lies (like, CO2, which comprises less than 1/2 of 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere is "too much.") and second, the hypocrisy. The batteries in your Teslas require lithium, nickel, and copper among other elements. These need to be mined. Here in Minnesota, Twin Metals has been trying for more than a decade to open a mine to extract proven reserves of nickel and copper. Like the Keystone pipeline project, when conservatives are in power the process moves forward. When liberals gain power, they shut it down.

And that's the hypocrisy. The people who proclaim and mandate a nationwide transition to electric vehicles too often shut down efforts to obtain the necessary raw materials. Meanwhile, there are environmental concerns about discarding used solar panels and batteries.

On the micro level, solar looks like "clean" energy. On the macro level, not so much. Concerns about mining, disposing of waste, ramping up power plants to handle more EV demand, etc. reveal the whole "clean energy" movement to be, well, not so clean after all.

[packs]

I feel like you're making definitive statements about technology that is still being developed. While they were developing gasoline and infrastructure for cities, they used lead in fuel and piping. Later on we found out that lead blunted the IQ of almost half the US population and we phased it out of the manufacturing process.

Solar technology, renewable fuels, and other alternative power sources are all in their development stages. I feel like it's a mistake to assume manufacturing issues can't be resolved or that there are definitively no alternatives to the same process.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

I feel like you're making definitive statements about technology that is still being developed. While they were developing gasoline and infrastructure for cities, they used lead in fuel and piping. Later on we found out that lead blunted the IQ of almost half the US population and we phased it out of the manufacturing process.

Solar technology, renewable fuels, and other alternative power sources are all in their development stages. I feel like it's a mistake to assume manufacturing issues can't be resolved or that there are definitively no alternatives to the same process.

I agree. The main thing I'm saying is, the people who claim to want technological advances need to quit their hypocrisy and get out of the way. If we need lithium, copper and nickel, then allow us to mine it. If the power grid needs to be ramped up to support more EVs, then build nuclear power plants. Or natural gas power plants. Too many politicians have one foot on the gas pedal and the other on the brake.

In time, improvements in technology, including clean mining and clean, efficient disposal of used solar panels and batteries, will happen.

[irv]

Originally Posted by Mark17

This sounds great. Turning sunlight into electricity is a great concept, especially when you can also use that electricity as a substitute for gasoline. If I lived in a sunny state and had the dough, I'd love to do what you're doing.

The problems, as I see it, lie in the politicalization of it. First, the lies (like, CO2, which comprises less than 1/2 of 1/10th of one percent of the atmosphere is "too much.") and second, the hypocrisy. The batteries in your Teslas require lithium, nickel, and copper among other elements. These need to be mined. Here in Minnesota, Twin Metals has been trying for more than a decade to open a mine to extract proven reserves of nickel and copper. Like the Keystone pipeline project, when conservatives are in power the process moves forward. When liberals gain power, they shut it down.

And that's the hypocrisy. The people who proclaim and mandate a nationwide transition to electric vehicles too often shut down efforts to obtain the necessary raw materials. Meanwhile, there are environmental concerns about discarding used solar panels and batteries.

On the micro level, solar looks like "clean" energy. On the macro level, not so much. Concerns about mining, disposing of waste, ramping up power plants to handle more EV demand, etc. reveal the whole "clean energy" movement to be, well, not so clean after all.

And, that would also look hypocritical with all the big diesel/gas powered equipment and machinery they would need to mine/extract those things, never mind the costs in the billions.
No, currently, because it is so much cheaper, they use child labor in far away countries paying children a dollar a day, if that, to mine those elements for them, but of course, rarely, there is no funded media coverage of it as they want to keep those facts and the real truth away from those that believe green energy, every bit of it, is green and friendly from top to bottom.

Just like the movie shows, they never talk nor show you those things that they expose. I wonder how many know how many times they tried to delete/remove this movie?
I wonder how many know, since they couldn't have it removed, that the Liberal funded Youtube had an age restriction setting placed on it to help keep the viewing numbers down for those that didn't belong to youtube nor wanted to nor knew how to sign in?
Numerous vids that were once up showing these children down in totally unsafe pits in the worst possible working conditions have now been removed. I wonder why they don't want people seeing those or knowing the real story behind the ev, solar and wind movement???
Our Liberal govt's know this but why don't they speak of these things and go out of their way to keep it quiet???
The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that at least 25,000 children are working in cobalt mines in the DRC, a number that is sure to grow as the production of climate-friendly electric cars expands.

Cobalt mines – child labour in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Cobalt is a critical component in rechargeable car batteries and is indispensable for the transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy sources.Jun 17, 2022
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo...ergy%20sources.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-po...l-scale-mining
https://www.theguardian.com/global-d...-mining-deaths
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...greener-future
https://www.ft.com/content/c6909812-...6-a4640c9feebb
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsan...siddharth-kara

Green energy, Yeah, way way better than what we currently have.