"All things should be run on renewable energy."
Fixed that for you.
a lot of renewable energy is just silly and results in negative net energy (more energy consumed in production than energy gained)...not to mention extra real-estate used for low-efficiency solar panels, windmills, etc.
So everything should run on positive net energy sources or energy sources that output the least amount of entropy.
Hippies need to realize that there's no free lunch here. Entropy is always increasing, no matter what you do. These green initiatives often increase entropy more than coal-burning.
a lot of renewable energy is just silly and results in negative net energy (more energy consumed in production than energy gained)...not to mention extra real-estate used for low-efficiency solar panels, windmills, etc.
So everything should run on positive net energy sources or energy sources that output the least amount of entropy.
Hippies need to realize that there's no free lunch here. Entropy is always increasing, no matter what you do. These green initiatives often increase entropy more than coal-burning.
It's not about negative net within the conversion process only. The fact of the matter is, the sun shines, the wind blows, biomass decomposes, might as well harness this natural energy to cover a portion of load, otherwise it's sitting there doing nothing.
I agree; but when those devices which are manufactured to capture this energy are built at companies in countries with factories that puke pollutants unchecked and when the energy used to source the raw materials, manufature and transport those devices is far higher than then energy captured over the life of the device you have to question that logic a bit.
Factory pollutants are not exclusive to renewable equipment. They're endemic to any kind of manufacturing. The alternative to renewables, building a giant peaker plant, will have the same issues, plus you get additional pollutants during the combustion process.
Do you have a source that quantifies the energy for materials/transport > energy produced?
a lot of renewable energy is just silly and results in negative net energy (more energy consumed in production than energy gained)...not to mention extra real-estate used for low-efficiency solar panels, windmills, etc.
So everything should run on positive net energy sources or energy sources that output the least amount of entropy.
Hippies need to realize that there's no free lunch here. Entropy is always increasing, no matter what you do. These green initiatives often increase entropy more than coal-burning.
Those arent fuel cells, that's the new Mac Pro design .....
In other news Greenpeace is still extremely unhappy with Apple...
a lot of renewable energy is just silly and results in negative net energy (more energy consumed in production than energy gained)...
when the energy used to source the raw materials, manufature and transport those devices is far higher than then energy captured over the life of the device you have to question that logic a bit.
but still at the end of the day, often the green devices are dirtier than just burning fossil fuels.
Must be nice to sit on a board you get to sell your green energy products to. Conflict of Interest?
Like what?
Got any examples?
Of course they are not unique, but if they aren't producing the renewable parts, then, you aren't sourcing the materials and running the plants for that purpose, trucks aren't on the roads mining and moving the parts, container and bulk ships aren't sailing across the ocean to transport them, oil isn't being extracted to fuel them, etc.. Sure the plants would still be used and the vessels still be used and the oil of course still be used for other purposes, but those other purposes would also exist so the pullution from the creation of the renewable devices is in addition.
As for a source, I did a college paper on it a while ago, if I can pull out my sources I will be happy to post them; I recall several government and NGO sites having more than a few statistics about it. My paper focused on the micro side of energy savings and pollutants, ie home wind energy and CFL/LED lights, but the macro would apply.
----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc11
when the energy used to source the raw materials, manufature and transport those devices is far higher than then energy captured over the life of the device you have to question that logic a bit.
but still at the end of the day, often the green devices are dirtier than just burning fossil fuels.
Ethanol. Every gallon of ethanol fuel pumped into your car has a hidden $2.21 hidden subsidy supporting its creation and delivery being covered by taxpayers (or their grandchildren).
I find this to be a pointless statement. All electricity is the same and all things use electricity. There are many more houses than data centers, therefore I think all houses should run on renewable energy.
Those fuel cells actually look very Apple-like. iCell! Also, great to know they are fuelling it with biogas, much better for the environment than solar and natural gas.