PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Direct current to make a come back ?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Electrical, Theory and Practice
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Sun May 08, 2016 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Supporting evidence? I think it self-evident to anyone inhabiting a spherical planet.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3382

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Then I think you have no evidence. That's not a scientific approach for your argument.
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Has Woodburner been taken over by John Hemming? Very Happy
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3382

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ha! If someone is going to make sweeping statements which I suspect are based on "common knowledge" or similar unfounded assumption, then anyone ought to reasonably ask where is the evidence. Some pollutants from solar power manufacturing are toxic and not within the ability of ecosystems to render harmless. A bit like gold mining, and fracking.

As for Mr. Hemmings, he is a politician, so any and all claims should be investigated.
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18551
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 7:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
Ha! If someone is going to make sweeping statements which I suspect are based on "common knowledge" or similar unfounded assumption, then anyone ought to reasonably ask where is the evidence. Some pollutants from solar power manufacturing are toxic and not within the ability of ecosystems to render harmless. A bit like gold mining, and fracking.


My sweeping statement was :

"The significant thing is that while both industries cause some pollution, that from the solar industry is within the capacity of the ecosystem to repair while the coal industry risks making civilisation as we know it impossible."

I've been the first to condemn the evil of gold-mining and its pollution. But my point is that the effects are localised. A few acres are trashed, a few lives are blighted or ended, but no amount of gold mining is ever going to threaten the global ecosystem's ability to support human civilisation. The same can be said about the localised effects of fracking. Where fracking differs from gold mining is in it's contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, directly from fugitive methane and indirectly by increasing the supply of fossil carbon to be converted to CO2.

Our greenhouse gas emissions do threaten human civilisation. Any suggestion that the pollution problems associated with solar and with coal are comparable is a denial of the significance of anthropogenic global warming, and that discussion is so last century.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3382

PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2016 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You may be right about the threat to civilisation. This is unfortunate and unjust if it happens to the many peoples around the world who live within their and their environment's means. For the many species that are threatened by our profligate behaviour then it will be a good thing if our present "civilisation" is rendered less destructive, and vastly reduced.
_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pepperman



Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
I got to the point where the article said solar panels don't create pollution. Their manufacture does, lots of it, so it's another vested interest article.


Kris is fully aware of the impact of solar PV:

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3382

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

From the comments in the link, I think Sheila sums it up:

Quote:
sheila chambers
(26)

"Green renewables" that use NON renewable resources are NOT renewable!
Solar panels need raw material made from OIL, there other raw materials are mined using HUGE oil burning machines, they are made by burning OIL, coal & natural gas for energy, they are assembled in factories using huge amounts of energy produced by burning fossil fuels, they are shipped across the pacific in ships burning dirty bunker oil.
They are not "green", they are not "renewable" & "sustainable growth" is a oxymoron.

We get massive amounts of raw materials from fossil resources that provide us with synthetic fibers, MEDICINES, paints, FERTILIZERS, pesticides, herbicides, FOOD, PLASTICS, we literally eat" OIL.
For every calorie of food we eat, TEN calories of OIL were burned!

Most of us would not even exist without OIL & after oil, most of us won't be existing as our excessive population will collapse.
NONE of those "renewables" can produce any of the raw materials we currently get from fossil resources.

So even if you have solar panels, inverter, voltage converter & many batteries to store that energy, you may still have the lights on but you will still be starving to death along with most of the rest of humanity.

Then there is climate change that is already causing a decline in our food production but that's another story.

Posted by: sheila chambers | April 07, 2016 at 01:29 AM

_________________
If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13974
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
For every calorie of food we eat, TEN calories of OIL were burned!


Ms Chambers is eating the wrong food.
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9822
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2016 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ms Chambers is getting the wrong end of the stick because on her basis virtually nothing is renewable. Renewable energy refers to the renewable source of the energy not the renewableness of the collection plant or equipment. Nothing, not even passive solar is renewable on her basis because they all need some sort of manufactured product to facilitate the capture of the energy. In the case of passive solar energy it is glass and the enclosing structure although that could be made from cob or something similar, although even that needs a deer antler at least to dig it up.

Regarding the food, it is commonly accepted that in Europe only five calories of energy are expended for one calorie of food. The ten refers to the US. Unless you grow your own food organically or buy organic from a local producer that figure probably applies.
_________________
"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Electrical, Theory and Practice All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group