Are Green Initiatives doing more harm than good? - Paying Regimes that hate you for fuel instead of producing your own

[Toolbox]

Green movements are almost always co-opted by people looking for more power over the plebians and to further the economic divides in society. So no, anything that labels itself "green" is either wishful thinking or malicious at worst. I don't know if I can name anyone legit that actually calls being conscious of the environment green at this point.

Green initiatives are completely taken over by corporations and globohomo, so every "solution" is either pointless (paper straws), destroys the local economy so the elites could save a few dollars (moving factories to China), or a waste of money (huge investments in "Green" energy that barely supplies 1% of energy needs). If humanity goes extinct due to this then we fucking earned it.
The public is stupid, so the public will pay.

Moving factories over seas is almost always just going to be worse for the environment in the long run due to fuel burn alone, in general it would just have been better to improve local factories and infrastructure. The only reason any of this kind of thing is done is because it is economically cheaper in the short term and nothing else.

Wildlife preserves are great for dealing with the decline of biodiversity. The oceans are fucked, though. Dumping tires in there? You're smoking crack. That's not how coral reefs work. There are initiatives where concrete "sculptures" designed to assist the wildlife, but dumping that kind of trash (tires) into the ocean is just gonna kill shit.

Eh? The oceans are not "fucked" in a general sense. If anything the direct impact of overfishing is the biggest issue and if hatcheries were better supported it would be mitigated majorly. Unregulated sectors in the third world like the massive all consuming blob of Chinese ships is what we really need to up and nuke.

Nuclear is a great long term solution but natural gas i much more easily throttle-able. You have to take into account the changing energy demands throughout the day.
Better battery tech can help fix this but the reality is there is no fixing.

Lolwat? Building enough energy storage is tricky but technically possible. There are also a lot of different scaled kinds of nuclear reactors and many more under development.

Climate Change is real; it's mainly our fault; The hysteresis is way too long for anyone to really notice; we'll find ways to manage the massive pain in the ass it will be.

Is it a thing that is in effect? Sure. Is it indisputably only caused by emissions that humans are at fault for? No, but I do agree it is a contributing part. The big big fuck you in the climate change machine is the constant apocalypse doomerism, claiming the oceans are already rising massively over where they were and sometimes that it has even sped up, but if you check bare satellite imagery for the last several decades, even going back to aerial photos you really cannot tell anything is happening on a major level. Even low lying islands aren't being swallowed up, you can't really even see coastal changes that prove this. Is erosion speeding up on some of these areas? Maybe you can see it and prove it up close but it is happening by the micrometer of a millimeter a year and not anything that will end Florida in 50 years.

 

[Penis Drager]

The oceans are not "fucked" in a general sense

Yeh. I was being hyperbolic and most likely on a bender.
I agree with you there. Though the production of carboxylic acid isn't exactly "good" for aquatic life. They'll probably adapt.

Building enough energy storage is tricky but technically possible

I'm a big fan of pumped storage (basically you use exess energy to fill up an artificial lake behind a dam and then release the water into a hydro-electric system to make up for an energy deficit in times of high demand) but that has its own environmental consequences.

There are also a lot of different scaled kinds of nuclear reactors and many more under development.

Yeah, France is leading the way on this tech as far as I know. They basically adjust the number of graphite rods to meet the demand. The problem with most reactors is they are designed to run at full throttle all the time. Throttling more reactors means building more reactors.
You're absolutely right, but being unrealistic.

Is it [climate change] indisputably only caused by emissions that humans are at fault for? No, but I do agree it is a contributing part.

We are a, if not the, primary contributing factor.
As I said: it will be a pain in the ass. It won't be the end of the world. Global biodiversity will decline. Sea levels will rise. Storms will be worse and more frequent.
The tropics will expand to the north ans south. Temperate regions will retreat the same way. The polar climates will become more temperate.
If you want to moralize about it, run your own cost/benefit analysis. But this is just a thing that is happening.

 

[Toolbox]

Yeh. I was being hyperbolic and most likely on a bender.
I agree with you there. Though the production of carboxylic acid isn't exactly "good" for aquatic life. They'll probably adapt.

So you believe in the whole 'the acid cycle is irreversible' thing, or what? Has this actually been proven?

I'm a big fan of pumped storage (basically you use exess energy to fill up an artificial lake behind a dam and then release the water into a hydro-electric system to make up for an energy deficit in times of high demand) but that has its own environmental consequences.

I would argue those consequences are less than letting our over reliance on gas to continue to pile up consequences, but again pumped storage isn't the only solution. Personally certain mechanical attempts like centrifuge storage could be more viable depending on how expensive future chemical batteries are.

Yeah, France is leading the way on this tech as far as I know. They basically adjust the number of graphite rods to meet the demand. The problem with most reactors is they are designed to run at full throttle all the time. Throttling more reactors means building more reactors.
You're absolutely right, but being unrealistic.

It is, again, still less expensive to figure this tech out than to just face the void of not having other alternatives.

We are a, if not the, primary contributing factor.
As I said: it will be a pain in the ass. It won't be the end of the world. Global biodiversity will decline. Sea levels will rise. Storms will be worse and more frequent.
The tropics will expand to the north ans south. Temperate regions will retreat the same way. The polar climates will become more temperate.
If you want to moralize about it, run your own cost/benefit analysis. But this is just a thing that is happening.

Again, even if we are, it does not make a difference that the continual doomsday predictions have been wrong for decades and continue to be wrong. It does not help any real research and it muddies the waters. It is also obviously not our main issue. The continual incompetence of companies creating future superfund sites is, direct pollution, mainly oil spillage and plastic, and our inability to make decent material alternatives to petroleum based plastic are. Among other things like urban expansion, birth rates in certain parts of the third world, etc.

 

[Penis Drager]

So you believe in the whole 'the acid cycle is irreversible' thing, or what?

It's reversed when the acid is neutralized by calcite. So it's entirely reversible so long as you're okay with shellfish and coral dying.

I would argue those consequences are less than letting our over reliance on gas to continue to pile up consequences,

Absolutely agree.

Personally certain mechanical attempts like centrifuge storage could be more viable depending on how expensive future chemical batteries are.

Don't know enough about centrifuge storage to say anything insightful about it. But the main benefit of batteries is a lack of hysteresis which makes the grid more efficient. Though there are well known environmental impacts to making such batteries so... yeah....

It is, again, still less expensive to figure this tech out than to just face the void of not having other alternatives.

Agreed. But the main problem with nuclear isn't the monetary investment. It's the time investment. You can build a natrual gas plant in about a quarter the time it takes to build a nuclear plant. It may be a good idea to phase out natural gas as the nuclear plants come online. But no government is that competent.

the continual doomsday predictions have been wrong for decades and continue to be wrong.

Because they're not made by actual scientists. Al Gore is a grifter and so is his co. The actual predictions have been mostly spot on.
There is no doomsday: only pain in the ass.

direct pollution, mainly oil spillage and plastic, and our inability to make decent material alternatives to petroleum based plastic are. Among other things like urban expansion, birth rates in certain parts of the third world, etc.

Yup.

 

[WickyWickyWoW]

trying to do research on the power sources for renewables and nuclear is always a mess, every different article and page will feed you wildly different numbers on how much X costs per MWH most of the time not adding in key factors like subsidies or other bureaucratic horse shit, assuming the site im reading at the instant isnt trying to sell me bullshit outright. Its gotten so bad shitposting on random web backwaters is almost becoming more trustworthy due to the extreme chaff of information out there.

As for the automotive side of things, EVs are not ready for widescale use. The lithium factor, range, rapid battery degradation, and the monumentous effort that is bringing all those discarded EV car batteries to the ocean for safe disposal, Those suckers are big. However with how fast EVs are progressing maybe those kinks will be ironed out and they might be better than ICE cars
Im surprised that hydrogen cars didnt become the replacement to gas. If they got the development that electrics got we might have seen a difference but unfortunately we got some weird obscure jap cars that are liable to be phased out completely before the decade is over.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I am curious what the selling point for EVs is besides muh climate change. There are plenty of potential problems with them even if you accept that narrative, of course.

EVs accelerate like a raped ape out of hell.

And you can “refill” at home.

That’s about it.

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

Green initiatives exist solely to ensure that a shift in energy doesn't change the status quo and power structures.

Green energy would theoretically lead to larger energy independence, which would be horrible for globohomo. Oil is great because it naturally centralizes power.

I think you're not seeing the elephant in the room.

Globohomos love green energy, because it's cheap to maintain. Barrages can last decades and still be fully functional, windmills can also last a long time without having to be fixed, last but not least solar farms generate a ton of energy, even if one of the solar panel breaks, they can just replace it and keep making money off the sun. Every single "green" energy can cause damage to the environment, yes this includes hydrolic and geothermal energy. At that, geothermal energy is one of the causes of earthquakes.

Oil does not make profit when the only countries that still carry it around are in the south or Russia and oil is also finite, this is why it's called a "fossil" fuel because it's going to go extinct like the dinosaurs. In that sense "green energy" is doublespeak, this basically means an energy that can be generated indefinitely.

By that same fact, nuclear is not green either, it is finite too, although it's a fact that nuclear doesn't pollute like oil does. Also that being finite is not their only issue, nuclear is just too dangerous for the globohomos to actually consider using in long term when it can cause them a gigantic deficit or even risk their own lives. In simpler words, the globohomos love what they call "green energy" because it is unlimited and also because nuclear is a very big concern to their monopolies since the nuclear plants can go off like the one at Chernobyl.

Obviously protecting the environment and developing a truly "green" energy is none of their concerns, what they want is:

1. To make tons of money, forever.
2. Not to put themselves or their monetary gains at risk.

I hope that makes you think. BTW there's a conspiracy theory that apparently you could create electricity with electricity, but the elites don't want you to know because it would give them no excuse to rob people's money. I don't know how true it holds or if it's even possible, but since I heard of that some years ago, I think I'd atleast let y'all know.

 

[TurdFondler]

@Kiwi & Cow

I don't disagree with those points. Infinite rent seeking through green initiatives is very much in line with globohomo. Nuclear is overlooked on purpose because it's climate independent, put it anywhere. Green power is always reliant on some special type of environment.

With current energy consumption green power will not deliver enough. We would have to cut back our expectations and standard of living to rely on it entirely.

You cannot make electricity with electricity, it violates thermodynamics.

 

[Hollywood Hitler]

I'm all about not polluting our environment, decimating habitats, cleaner, more efficient energy. I'm a big fan of hybrid vehicles (who wouldn't?)

Going "Carbon Zero" is impossible unless everyone goes Uncle Ted.

Right now, these retards that elected themselves want to go from A to Z.

 

[Bonesjones]

The only good thing about most green energy solutions is that they are very good small and medium term solutions. Solar power and wind are great at providing a decentralized power solution that's good enough for a small group of householder, anything more than that and it rapidly goes to shit. Same as completely ignored things like microhydro.

 

[Getwhatyou]

I think you're not seeing the elephant in the room.

Globohomos love green energy, because it's cheap to maintain. Barrages can last decades and still be fully functional, windmills can also last a long time without having to be fixed, last but not least solar farms generate a ton of energy, even if one of the solar panel breaks, they can just replace it and keep making money off the sun. Every single "green" energy can cause damage to the environment, yes this includes hydrolic and geothermal energy. At that, geothermal energy is one of the causes of earthquakes.

Oil does not make profit when the only countries that still carry it around are in the south or Russia and oil is also finite, this is why it's called a "fossil" fuel because it's going to go extinct like the dinosaurs. In that sense "green energy" is doublespeak, this basically means an energy that can be generated indefinitely.

By that same fact, nuclear is not green either, it is finite too, although it's a fact that nuclear doesn't pollute like oil does. Also that being finite is not their only issue, nuclear is just too dangerous for the globohomos to actually consider using in long term when it can cause them a gigantic deficit or even risk their own lives. In simpler words, the globohomos love what they call "green energy" because it is unlimited and also because nuclear is a very big concern to their monopolies since the nuclear plants can go off like the one at Chernobyl.

Obviously protecting the environment and developing a truly "green" energy is none of their concerns, what they want is:

1. To make tons of money, forever.
2. Not to put themselves or their monetary gains at risk.

I hope that makes you think. BTW there's a conspiracy theory that apparently you could create electricity with electricity, but the elites don't want you to know because it would give them no excuse to rob people's money. I don't know how true it holds or if it's even possible, but since I heard of that some years ago, I think I'd atleast let y'all know.

So your saying do nothing and keep sucking putin/Saudi dick?

 

[Grub]

Yes because they do nothing to address actual ecological problems while being detrimental to most of society.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

this is why it's called a "fossil" fuel because it's going to go extinct like the dinosaurs.

Wrong. Growing up in the 90s its because they're derived from ancient organic matter. Coal, for example, derieves from peat and other plant matter subject to hight heat and pressure over millenia. Always cool to see the narratives shift

 

[Car Won't Crank]

Wrong. Growing up in the 90s its because they're derived from ancient organic matter. Coal, for example, derieves from peat and other plant matter subject to hight heat and pressure over millenia. Always cool to see the narratives shift

Dino oil is also a common colloquial term for petroleum based oils. The root for petroleum itself describes its origins too.

 

[Toolbox]

Dino oil is also a common colloquial term for petroleum based oils. The root for petroleum itself describes its origins too.

I do have to wonder if the whole 'it's made from dinosaurs" thing, when they would have only been a fraction of a fraction of what generated oil, is purely some sort of psyop to make oil look worse. If people knew it came from mostly plants would they think its green or something?

 

[Kiwi & Cow]

I do have to wonder if the whole 'it's made from dinosaurs" thing, when they would have only been a fraction of a fraction of what generated oil, is purely some sort of psyop to make oil look worse. If people knew it came from mostly plants would they think its green or something?

Correct, it mostly comes from marine life, including marine plants and animals, so that's also why most of the oil can be found in the sea as opposed to land.

It does take up to 300 million years to form making it finite in present time, so that would never be a "green" energy because a "green" energy means an energy that can be harvested indefinitely, it's doublespeak.

Spoiler

also wanted to say it was my 369th post.

 

[NewRetroVagina23]

Any attempt to massively scale up solar, hydro, or wind will result in the very climate disruption Green advocates claim to be worried about. People forget that when it comes to energy, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Those hills you dot with windmill farms are taking kinetic energy out of the air itself- deploy enough and you begin causing massive changes to the surface-level wind currents. You think that's not altering the local climate quite a bit? Same for the valleys and plains you dot with solar arrays- that's a significant alteration in surface albedo and ground-level temperatures, how do you think you're going to hand wave away these changes as trivial when your own climate science says mean albedo plays a huge role in both local and global climate? Need I go on about the dangers of unrestrained hydrelectric damming? China is practically the poster child for such rash ecological decisions, and not all of their troubles maintaining them are due to shoddy construction.

Like others in this thread, I would be greatly interested in seeing nuclear, specifically Thorium reactors, further explored. I feel that is where the future must lie.

 

[Toolbox]

Any attempt to massively scale up solar, hydro, or wind will result in the very climate disruption Green advocates claim to be worried about. People forget that when it comes to energy, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Those hills you dot with windmill farms are taking kinetic energy out of the air itself- deploy enough and you begin causing massive changes to the surface-level wind currents. You think that's not altering the local climate quite a bit? Same for the valleys and plains you dot with solar arrays- that's a significant alteration in surface albedo and ground-level temperatures, how do you think you're going to hand wave away these changes as trivial when your own climate science says mean albedo plays a huge role in both local and global climate? Need I go on about the dangers of unrestrained hydrelectric damming? China is practically the poster child for such rash ecological decisions, and not all of their troubles maintaining them are due to shoddy construction.

Like others in this thread, I would be greatly interested in seeing nuclear, specifically Thorium reactors, further explored. I feel that is where the future must lie.

The future of solar and wind almost exclusively lie in the hands of DIY off grid types. They are much better generators for single family sustainability than anything else. Very small scale hydro turbines are also usable in this way and cause minimal disruption to the environment when used right. Dams, especially those that are built almost solely to "control" nature in rivers and to generate power, need to go the way of the dodo as soon as we have better reactor scaling.

 

[Ser Prize]

The future of solar and wind almost exclusively lie in the hands of DIY off grid types. They are much better generators for single family sustainability than anything else. Very small scale hydro turbines are also usable in this way and cause minimal disruption to the environment when used right. Dams, especially those that are built almost solely to "control" nature in rivers and to generate power, need to go the way of the dodo as soon as we have better reactor scaling.

I mean, water wheels are as old as the hills.

 

[Toolbox]

I mean, water wheels are as old as the hills.

More efficient generally than water wheels by scale, basically it's just creating a tiny ducted turbine that is able to handle water.