Thanks again. I think it has more servicing is that angle. Always an angle. It needs the extracted products. Yes at the same time it offers some environmental benefits. Although it still has nuclear waste.
Coal emits true. But it emits less than the woodchip burners creating electricity off incineration all over America, being sold as renewable and green because they recycle scrap wood. But they aren't only burning the wood, they're burning paint, some are burning rubber chips off tires. Wood burning is far more emitting than coal, green wood wet wood sap and lichen. The oxymoron is largely in the mining of coal, but mining uranium is an ugly business. Copper mining is very bad for the environment and so is almost all mining especially rare earth minerals and gems, stripping mining, and the toxic run off created from metals like copper etc. Strangely nobody complains about cooking, it is super emitting. But they will use biofuel, ethanol, it is worse than diesel and is thicker. Nevermind the impact of growing sugar cane or plants turned into ethanol just to burn as it emits twice as much. Diesel was less. Until somebody profited more off recycling for even more emissions.
EVs have almost nothing to do with the environment they're simply the next upgrade costing you more. What they don't emit out of their exhaust they emit in their consumption. Their ridiculously expendable lifetimes. Everything electric breaks quicker. Nobody can repair it either, because it is cheaper just to buy a new one. As we are left with mountains of ewaste putting plastic, acids, and batteries and toxic alloys everywhere. More plastic and ewaste in electrics. Now they control you completely, it is all on the same source, inflation, hacked and monitored. Sure they offer hydrogen as well. It is astronomically more expensive and the hydrogen fuel cells deplete much quicker than EV batteries. Like they need servicing every so many refills. EV batteries lasting about 7 years. Well not when you recharge them more and more because everything and your robot dog is plugged into your car.
You are correct in that there is no free lunch. Everything costs and everything has downstream impacts. Solar is hard on the environment to produce panels and they wear it quickly and are hard to recycle while solar collecting strays to heat water for steam are basically an invisible death beam to flying creatures. Wind is unpredictable and kills birds and bats en mass and the blades aren't recyclable, plus they need petroleum in their generator part. Hydro electric seems nice until one looks at the damage to eco systems. Plus dams get old and fail. Geothermal is an option, in some areas more than others but require expensive installation and even using an active volcano for the heat requires good plating to handle the sulphur. Coal is dirty to burn, radioactive and bad to mine. Electric batteries ruin the earth to produce. Nuclear requires resource mining and has radioactive waste. There IS no perfect solution yet.
The best we can do is do minimal harm while we work on newer safe and clean technology. We will get there someday, but for now, efficiency wise nuclear IS our best provider. Highest output for lowest damage of environment, when one has a suitable storage area for the waste figured out.
To help in the future we should start building waste energy plants near major cities. Burning plastics returns almost the same energy used to create them in the form of heat. Burning the plastic to heat water, drive a turbine and produce electricity to power the station and run electric vehicles on site for sorting and moving the material, maybe even charging the vehicles used to bring the waste to the site.
We can add in further usefulness by adding a double water reservoir with turbines similar to those used in Britain. They have to regulate their power carefully and can actually time increased consumption to commercials on popular televisions shows. IE everyone runs to put the electric kettle on for tea while the program is on commercial and they have a noticeable spike in electric demand. They have a large reservoir that turbine/pumps fill with water when electricity is put into the turbines, and on demand, they can allow the water to flow back through these turbines and spin them to produce power. Once the added load on the grid is gone, they can switch it back and use them to refill the reservoir again for the next need. If there’s ever a spill, it’s water. It’s not harmful to the environment, it’s cheap to refill losses and is basically a giant water battery.
By making a large power station Center we could combine technologies and have a waste energy plant burn plastics, catching the smoke and passing it through water like a stoner does with a bong, in several passes if need be, emit as little into the air as possible(with added filters if need be), power the turbines and fill a reservoir and off peak hours if say we don’t run this 24/7, the reservoir turbines continue adding power to the grid at night when people typically plug in their electric cars. Water from the bong filter can be put into tailings ponds and let the sun evaporate it and we can clean up the ashes and tailings into a remote landfill taking up much less room and getting some value back from the waste our civilizations creates. Power generation and removal of waste in 1 go, using water as a safe storage medium and a filter.
And down the road as plastics and wastes are phased out and depleted, the stations still have the water reservoir turbine system that can be reused with the next power generator built to replace the waste burnering generator. I’d be happy to take charge and lead the way for such a setup to be built and operated but it’s gonna need a LOT of permission from local and beyond politicians and energy execs.
Jettison the nuclear waste into Mars. Or Venus. Make a big stupid rocket and fly it into a barren planet with gravity.
But otherwise we are screwed by our consumption and the greed and hypocrisy of the solutions proposed.
Every solution simply increases demand for profit increasing in consumption, but none of them are environmental. Not one. Although some are slightly better but not by much. Resources are also finite and simply destroy entire ecosystems in their extraction.
Most of these green and renewable solutions are hypocritical and actually simply increase dystopia for no other benefit other than enslavement and corporate profit and increased taxation.
Sure it is nice to dream but we are way too populated for them to be viable for our masses in hyperinflation and debt. They simply increase more energy consumption for even more bullshit services and gimmicks. How many apps does it take to use a phone speaking to a dumb robot. Until we are all postal.
Civilizations flourish, peak, fall, and restart. At a certain point we’ll lose a lot of what we have now. What comes after, who can say. Green energy is a scam like most things, but actions like rocketing nuclear waste to another planet or the sun also consumes resources. Isolating it in hopes a future civilization can do something with it is a better, more resource efficient solution.
I’d love a small nuclear reactor about the size of a doghouse to power our farm. I heard years ago China was working on them due to population density and grid needs. Nuclear pellets coated in graphite to increase the surface area to remove the worry for criticality, and supposed to make it melt down proof. Run out of water or pump dies, instead of seconds to make the right call you have a week to do something before you fuck up your fuel and need new ones. While there’s plenty of people out there I wouldn’t trust with a piece of string much less a nuclear reactor, I hate the “we can’t have nice things cause Jerry is a fucktard” approach to life.
Jettisoning it would cost nothing. It has made that money from its production. The other resources are expunged in simple waste. How many dumb cars dumb planes dumb computers dumb tvs dumb phones do we waste because they are made to break. Until resources are running out. This planet is saturated in ewaste until there is nothing green. Because we need robots breaking even quicker as a new model comes out daily. We send them into space for free but our chemical and nuclear waste there is no solution for. We create toxicity on a planet with life. It doesn't seem logical.
A nuclear plant is what is needed for these new robotic farms where they create millions of plants and vegetables in the increased greenhouse environment with the lighting and water systems using robots to grow and harvest on huge conveyor belts. Where row upon row is stacked and constantly rotated without any soil. They aren't green or eco. But at least it is consumed by a bunch of overpopulating people needing nuclear things. Things that break and don't recycle but instead create heaps of toxic waste. These have replaced our planet with excess. You are sooner out of a job because AI is feeding you. No sooner banned from growing food and keeping livestock. Everything is grown by billionaires exploiting nuclear energy. They have monopolized food entirely it is lab meat and plant food entirely processed. Any humans are fertilizers. Problem even if we created that method entirely we would also overpopulate and the planet would be as threatened. We still use all the other bullshit which isn't sustainable. Those dumb cars, phones, computers and perishables.
That future we are walking blind into because greedy humans no longer grow or make anything except an evil wasteful ai. It sells them an artificial world. A world where they are nothing but electricity and the value of it.
Humans prior to today's AI exploitation and mass consumption lived for millenniums by actually doing something useful, today they whore themselves for nothing else, so pretty, continuously using machines until they have no use except making somebody taxes.
Thanks again. I think it has more servicing is that angle. Always an angle. It needs the extracted products. Yes at the same time it offers some environmental benefits. Although it still has nuclear waste.
Coal emits true. But it emits less than the woodchip burners creating electricity off incineration all over America, being sold as renewable and green because they recycle scrap wood. But they aren't only burning the wood, they're burning paint, some are burning rubber chips off tires. Wood burning is far more emitting than coal, green wood wet wood sap and lichen. The oxymoron is largely in the mining of coal, but mining uranium is an ugly business. Copper mining is very bad for the environment and so is almost all mining especially rare earth minerals and gems, stripping mining, and the toxic run off created from metals like copper etc. Strangely nobody complains about cooking, it is super emitting. But they will use biofuel, ethanol, it is worse than diesel and is thicker. Nevermind the impact of growing sugar cane or plants turned into ethanol just to burn as it emits twice as much. Diesel was less. Until somebody profited more off recycling for even more emissions.
EVs have almost nothing to do with the environment they're simply the next upgrade costing you more. What they don't emit out of their exhaust they emit in their consumption. Their ridiculously expendable lifetimes. Everything electric breaks quicker. Nobody can repair it either, because it is cheaper just to buy a new one. As we are left with mountains of ewaste putting plastic, acids, and batteries and toxic alloys everywhere. More plastic and ewaste in electrics. Now they control you completely, it is all on the same source, inflation, hacked and monitored. Sure they offer hydrogen as well. It is astronomically more expensive and the hydrogen fuel cells deplete much quicker than EV batteries. Like they need servicing every so many refills. EV batteries lasting about 7 years. Well not when you recharge them more and more because everything and your robot dog is plugged into your car.
You are correct in that there is no free lunch. Everything costs and everything has downstream impacts. Solar is hard on the environment to produce panels and they wear it quickly and are hard to recycle while solar collecting strays to heat water for steam are basically an invisible death beam to flying creatures. Wind is unpredictable and kills birds and bats en mass and the blades aren't recyclable, plus they need petroleum in their generator part. Hydro electric seems nice until one looks at the damage to eco systems. Plus dams get old and fail. Geothermal is an option, in some areas more than others but require expensive installation and even using an active volcano for the heat requires good plating to handle the sulphur. Coal is dirty to burn, radioactive and bad to mine. Electric batteries ruin the earth to produce. Nuclear requires resource mining and has radioactive waste. There IS no perfect solution yet.
The best we can do is do minimal harm while we work on newer safe and clean technology. We will get there someday, but for now, efficiency wise nuclear IS our best provider. Highest output for lowest damage of environment, when one has a suitable storage area for the waste figured out.
To help in the future we should start building waste energy plants near major cities. Burning plastics returns almost the same energy used to create them in the form of heat. Burning the plastic to heat water, drive a turbine and produce electricity to power the station and run electric vehicles on site for sorting and moving the material, maybe even charging the vehicles used to bring the waste to the site.
We can add in further usefulness by adding a double water reservoir with turbines similar to those used in Britain. They have to regulate their power carefully and can actually time increased consumption to commercials on popular televisions shows. IE everyone runs to put the electric kettle on for tea while the program is on commercial and they have a noticeable spike in electric demand. They have a large reservoir that turbine/pumps fill with water when electricity is put into the turbines, and on demand, they can allow the water to flow back through these turbines and spin them to produce power. Once the added load on the grid is gone, they can switch it back and use them to refill the reservoir again for the next need. If there’s ever a spill, it’s water. It’s not harmful to the environment, it’s cheap to refill losses and is basically a giant water battery.
By making a large power station Center we could combine technologies and have a waste energy plant burn plastics, catching the smoke and passing it through water like a stoner does with a bong, in several passes if need be, emit as little into the air as possible(with added filters if need be), power the turbines and fill a reservoir and off peak hours if say we don’t run this 24/7, the reservoir turbines continue adding power to the grid at night when people typically plug in their electric cars. Water from the bong filter can be put into tailings ponds and let the sun evaporate it and we can clean up the ashes and tailings into a remote landfill taking up much less room and getting some value back from the waste our civilizations creates. Power generation and removal of waste in 1 go, using water as a safe storage medium and a filter.
And down the road as plastics and wastes are phased out and depleted, the stations still have the water reservoir turbine system that can be reused with the next power generator built to replace the waste burnering generator. I’d be happy to take charge and lead the way for such a setup to be built and operated but it’s gonna need a LOT of permission from local and beyond politicians and energy execs.
Jettison the nuclear waste into Mars. Or Venus. Make a big stupid rocket and fly it into a barren planet with gravity.
But otherwise we are screwed by our consumption and the greed and hypocrisy of the solutions proposed.
Every solution simply increases demand for profit increasing in consumption, but none of them are environmental. Not one. Although some are slightly better but not by much. Resources are also finite and simply destroy entire ecosystems in their extraction.
Most of these green and renewable solutions are hypocritical and actually simply increase dystopia for no other benefit other than enslavement and corporate profit and increased taxation.
Sure it is nice to dream but we are way too populated for them to be viable for our masses in hyperinflation and debt. They simply increase more energy consumption for even more bullshit services and gimmicks. How many apps does it take to use a phone speaking to a dumb robot. Until we are all postal.
Civilizations flourish, peak, fall, and restart. At a certain point we’ll lose a lot of what we have now. What comes after, who can say. Green energy is a scam like most things, but actions like rocketing nuclear waste to another planet or the sun also consumes resources. Isolating it in hopes a future civilization can do something with it is a better, more resource efficient solution.
I’d love a small nuclear reactor about the size of a doghouse to power our farm. I heard years ago China was working on them due to population density and grid needs. Nuclear pellets coated in graphite to increase the surface area to remove the worry for criticality, and supposed to make it melt down proof. Run out of water or pump dies, instead of seconds to make the right call you have a week to do something before you fuck up your fuel and need new ones. While there’s plenty of people out there I wouldn’t trust with a piece of string much less a nuclear reactor, I hate the “we can’t have nice things cause Jerry is a fucktard” approach to life.
Jettisoning it would cost nothing. It has made that money from its production. The other resources are expunged in simple waste. How many dumb cars dumb planes dumb computers dumb tvs dumb phones do we waste because they are made to break. Until resources are running out. This planet is saturated in ewaste until there is nothing green. Because we need robots breaking even quicker as a new model comes out daily. We send them into space for free but our chemical and nuclear waste there is no solution for. We create toxicity on a planet with life. It doesn't seem logical.
A nuclear plant is what is needed for these new robotic farms where they create millions of plants and vegetables in the increased greenhouse environment with the lighting and water systems using robots to grow and harvest on huge conveyor belts. Where row upon row is stacked and constantly rotated without any soil. They aren't green or eco. But at least it is consumed by a bunch of overpopulating people needing nuclear things. Things that break and don't recycle but instead create heaps of toxic waste. These have replaced our planet with excess. You are sooner out of a job because AI is feeding you. No sooner banned from growing food and keeping livestock. Everything is grown by billionaires exploiting nuclear energy. They have monopolized food entirely it is lab meat and plant food entirely processed. Any humans are fertilizers. Problem even if we created that method entirely we would also overpopulate and the planet would be as threatened. We still use all the other bullshit which isn't sustainable. Those dumb cars, phones, computers and perishables.
That future we are walking blind into because greedy humans no longer grow or make anything except an evil wasteful ai. It sells them an artificial world. A world where they are nothing but electricity and the value of it.
Humans prior to today's AI exploitation and mass consumption lived for millenniums by actually doing something useful, today they whore themselves for nothing else, so pretty, continuously using machines until they have no use except making somebody taxes.