What did you Today to Reduce your Carbon FootPrint?

ttystikk said:

Lol, they do add value to your home. Prices are coming down pretty quickly these days.

It will be ready for prime time soon, the early adopters have proven it.

Click to expand...

I don't know. National Geographic did a story on it. Utilities are lobbying hard against solar. In Florida you cant install solar.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=d405bbcad4454e84aea9b71434d5abb3&pq=latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/09/florida-makes-off-grid-living-illegal-mandates-all-homes-must-be-connected-to-an-electricity-grid/

More states may follow.

ttystikk said:

Fukushima wasn't political, it was an earthquake on a known fault. With such disastrous consequences for not thinking of EVERYTHING ahead of time, I'd say it just isn't worth it in terms of the cost to future generations.

Natural gas is the bridge you're looking for and it's already here and working.

Click to expand...

Fukushima was also built with obsolescent plans(known problems) as well, it was cheaper

whitebb2727 said:

I don't know. National Geographic did a story on it. Utilities are lobbying hard against solar. In Florida you cant install solar.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=d405bbcad4454e84aea9b71434d5abb3&pq=latimes.com/nation/la-na-no-solar-20140810-story.html

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/09/florida-makes-off-grid-living-illegal-mandates-all-homes-must-be-connected-to-an-electricity-grid/

More states may follow.

Click to expand...

COAL LOBBY.

Surprised? Don't be.

Thank the Koch smokers.

The entire rooftop solar industry is itching to get into Florida.

Singlemalt said:

Fukushima was also built with obsolescent plans(known problems) as well, it was cheaper

Click to expand...

I really don't think they cut that many corners, they simply did not realize the severity of what could happen.

ttystikk said:

I really don't think they cut that many corners, they simply did not realize the severity of what could happen.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, however there are close to 200 plants in Europe and they don't seem to have problems nor the fear that Americans have.

ttystikk said:

Fukushima wasn't political, it was an earthquake on a known fault. With such disastrous consequences for not thinking of EVERYTHING ahead of time, I'd say it just isn't worth it in terms of the cost to future generations.

Natural gas is the bridge you're looking for and it's already here and working.

Click to expand...

I disagree; Fukushima was political. We offered to fly in generators that could have kept the hot pools cooled. They declined. The generators were right there at the AF bases.

Natural gas has some downside. It is a fossil fuel with all the liabilities of containing carbon and being in limited supply.

I'm a big fan of nuclear. The cost of irradiating a few thousand square miles vs. the cost of raising our atmospheric pCO2 ... I can't really comment wisely on that. Ultimately we will need a space-rated power source, and for that I do think nuclear has a lot to recommend it. So while I can see a point to not building nukes inside the biosphere, I do hope research into effective, compact nuclear power sources continues. Such power may open up the solar system ... asteroid resources ... ~yum~

cannabineer said:

I disagree; Fukushima was political. We offered to fly in generators that could have kept the hot pools cooled. They declined. The generators were right there at the AF bases.

Natural gas has some downside. It is a fossil fuel with all the liabilities of containing carbon and being in limited supply.

I'm a big fan of nuclear. The cost of irradiating a few thousand square miles vs. the cost of raising our atmospheric pCO2 ... I can't really comment wisely on that. Ultimately we will need a space-rated power source, and for that I do think nuclear has a lot to recommend it. So while I can see a point to not building nukes inside the biosphere, I do hope research into effective, compact nuclear power sources continues. Such power may open up the solar system ... asteroid resources ... ~yum~

Click to expand...

Partial Dyson Sphere

curious2garden said:

Partial Dyson Sphere

Click to expand...

Hell yeah

cannabineer said:

I disagree; Fukushima was political. We offered to fly in generators that could have kept the hot pools cooled. They declined. The generators were right there at the AF bases.

Natural gas has some downside. It is a fossil fuel with all the liabilities of containing carbon and being in limited supply.

I'm a big fan of nuclear. The cost of irradiating a few thousand square miles vs. the cost of raising our atmospheric pCO2 ... I can't really comment wisely on that. Ultimately we will need a space-rated power source, and for that I do think nuclear has a lot to recommend it. So while I can see a point to not building nukes inside the biosphere, I do hope research into effective, compact nuclear power sources continues. Such power may open up the solar system ... asteroid resources ... ~yum~

Click to expand...

Natural gas contains less carbon than any other hydrocarbon. And the limited supply argument is FALSE, because natural gas can be and is already being made from natural and sustainable sources, like human waste. These two facts are the main reasons why I think it's the bridge to the future, even if it takes generations to get there. It may even itself be the future fuel we're looking for.

cannabineer said:

Hell yeah

View attachment 3834052

Click to expand...

Read it, dug it. Not gonna solve our earthly problems, lol

cannabineer said:

I disagree; Fukushima was political. We offered to fly in generators that could have kept the hot pools cooled. They declined. The generators were right there at the AF bases.

Natural gas has some downside. It is a fossil fuel with all the liabilities of containing carbon and being in limited supply.

I'm a big fan of nuclear. The cost of irradiating a few thousand square miles vs. the cost of raising our atmospheric pCO2 ... I can't really comment wisely on that. Ultimately we will need a space-rated power source, and for that I do think nuclear has a lot to recommend it. So while I can see a point to not building nukes inside the biosphere, I do hope research into effective, compact nuclear power sources continues. Such power may open up the solar system ... asteroid resources ... ~yum~

Click to expand...

My distaste for nuclear power has everything to do with contamination of Earth's biosphere for future generations; off planet energy is very likely to be nuclear in many cases- fine with me!

ttystikk said:

Natural gas contains less carbon than any other hydrocarbon. And the limited supply argument is FALSE, because natural gas can be and is already being made from natural and sustainable sources, like human waste. These two facts are the main reasons why I think it's the bridge to the future, even if it takes generations to get there. It may even itself be the future fuel we're looking for.

Click to expand...

It is cheap to pull it out of the ground. Biomethane is an "opportunity fuel" that depends on waste etc. being cheap. Biofuels are imo a starvation diet for any civilization that aspires to leave the homeworld. Our planet has a limited mass, and so the energy resources here are limited, barring someone finding a way to do "energy arbitrage" between cosmoses. I suspect that will be the next hot ticket, but i am, as you see, a huge fan of hard sci-fi.

Singlemalt said:

Perhaps, however there are close to 200 plants in Europe and they don't seem to have problems nor the fear that Americans have.

Click to expand...

YET.

And you are incorrect about their fears; Germany voted to quit using nuclear power.

cannabineer said:

It is cheap to pull it out of the ground. Biomethane is an "opportunity fuel" that depends on waste etc. being cheap. Biofuels are imo a starvation diet for any civilization that aspires to leave the homeworld. Our planet has a limited mass, and so the energy resources here are limited, barring someone finding a way to do "energy arbitrage" between cosmoses. I suspect that will be the next hot ticket, but i am, as you see, a huge fan of hard sci-fi.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of cowshit out there... capturing that methane and using it for fuel cells reduces global warming because methane is 20 times worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas. The fuel cells themselves would be twice as efficient as coal fired power.

And by the way, do you have any idea how much it takes in fossil fuels to make the fuel for nuclear power? That uranium sure as fuck doesn't dig itself out of the ground, or refine itself.

Natural gas is a renewable energy source that's very much untapped. It can certainly be part of a sustainable energy future.

ttystikk said:

YET.

And you are incorrect about their fears; Germany voted to quit using nuclear power.

Click to expand...

It wasn't a vote by citizens, it was a government decree . Yes they had protests before and after Fukushima, but as well 71% of the population believe that to be a tactical manoeuvre related to upcoming state elections at the time

Singlemalt said:

It wasn't a vote by citizens, it was a government decree . Yes they had protests before and after Fukushima, but as well 71% of the population believe that to be a tactical manoeuvre related to upcoming state elections at the time

Click to expand...

Of course you're right. It seemed to be a fear response considering the timing, but time will tell.

ttystikk said:

There's a lot of cowshit out there... capturing that methane and using it for fuel cells reduces global warming because methane is 20 times worse than co2 as a greenhouse gas. The fuel cells themselves would be twice as efficient as coal fired power.

And by the way, do you have any idea how much it takes in fossil fuels to make the fuel for nuclear power? That uranium sure as fuck doesn't dig itself out of the ground, or refine itself.

Natural gas is a renewable energy source that's very much untapped. It can certainly be part of a sustainable energy future.

Click to expand...

Uranium is expensive to refine, but joule for joule it would be competitive. The problems are political (as in Germany, where they voted physics) (and here, where NObody wants the waste storage facility in their backyard).

My steak is done and I'm switching gears from "argue" to "nom"

curious2garden said:

Partial Dyson Sphere

Click to expand...

Until its functional I'll stick with the cheaper Dyson. It may not generate power but
I can afford one of these.

France is the big success story but again, folks are spooked due to Fukushima. It's not like I have a dog in the fight, but I think if people/gov'ts are really serious about clean energy they should also consider nuclear. Biggest problem is short-cuts, human error and padding profits

Carbon footprint, eh? I'm reclusive so I rarely drive, I take my ebike most places, I rarely shower, and hardly ever do the dishes. I think I'm doing my part, my conscience is clear...