Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: JS80
wow that post is full of fail
Care to be specific?
The ultimate result of this green redesign will be a 67 percent reduction in the use of heating energy, a 55 percent reduction in the use of power, a 43 percent drop in water consumption, and a 55 percent decline in carbon dioxide emissions.
what's the capex cost? what's the payback period? what's the ROI?
Unless what you meant by "Green = $$$" is Green = will cost you a shit ton of money.
not to mention you 0/10 rant too
I would argue that is impossible to measure the positive effects of "going green" with simple Dollar amounts.
That is part of our problem.
You don't think that retrofitting a building actually wastes energy?
The problem with greenies (and why the US doesn't spend more on it) is you're all trying to fix the problem from the wrong side of the equation. Why not spend on something we can both agree on?
The only arguable point there is reducing CO2 emissions-- but that's only going to be reduced because of reduced power consumption (power which is generated by fossil-fuel plants).
Better to just get rid of the entire problem in the first place-- move entirely to nuclear. No, it's completely safe now; the barrier is stupid greenies/liberals who don't know how far we've progressed in the last 50 years. They simply see "nuclear" and think "bad". We have an infinite supply of U-238, and enough U-235 for up to 10,000 years at exponential energy demand growth. With reprocessing, there is no nuclear waste (you keep re-using the radioactive stuff until there's nothing harmful anymore. This is how France does it.). Even without reprocessing, we can either
a). dump it to the bottom of the ocean (where, yes, it's perfectly safe. Why? Because we mix the waste into molten glass, pour that into a 6" thick concrete cylinder block, and put that inside a barrel. For it to harm the environment, the ocean would have to somehow get through 6" of concrete, and then grind up all the glass. That could happen on the beach;, not in a structure underneath the bottom of the ocean)
b). put it somewhere like that huge mountain we have so that we can get back to it and use it for super cheap as soon as we start building feeder/breeder-reactors (nuclear reprocessing reactors). This is specifically why FDR chose to have places to store the waste-- to ensure that when we would have a practically infinite supply when technology improved and breeder reactors became cheaper.
As it stands the greenies would rather have us waste money retrofitting buildings with expensive nonsense that simply delays the inevitable-- moving to nuclear. Keep in mind the longer we delay, the more radioactive material there is that gets spewed right into the air from fossil power plants. Hydro-electric is only an option in some areas, and nobody's done any studies on the climate effects of pulling all our energy from the wind. Not to mention all the migratory birds you kill with massive wind farms-- the EM radiation from those huge motors confuses the birds (it overrides the earth's magnetic field and so their brain-compass tells them south is changing directions every 100 yards). And please don't bring solar into it, conventional affordable panels can only absorb 25% of the sunlight energy. You need a solar field the size of Texas to power California-- and Cali's energy demands are NOT decreasing, and there are limited improvements that can be made to increase solar panel efficiency. If there were something that could foreseeable increase efficiency to 50% (at which point the private sector would be very interested) then we could talk about getting government funding involved, but not until then.
SO lets just all agree and spend the money in 3 areas:
1). Reduce and rewrite government safety regulation on nuclear plant construction. We can't do what France does because the regulations change faster than you even design a plant-- not to mention build one.
2). Replacing coal plants with nuclear fission plants and reprocessing centers
3). Research nuclear fusion. Specifically, materials development-- currently the only problem we have with nuclear fusion is we don't have any materials that can withstand the high-velocity neutron bombardment from the nuclear fusion (this is the problem ITER has-- the panels only last about 10 minutes). Stronger materials and we've got energy4eternity baby.
Facebook
Twitter