Slashdot Mirror
Why Sustainable Power Is Unsustainable
Urchin writes "Although scientists are agreed that we must cut carbon emissions from transport and electricity generation to prevent the globe's climate becoming hotter, the most advanced 'renewable' technologies are too often based upon non-renewable resources including indium and platinum —
resources that could dry up in 10-15 years if they were widely used in the renewable energy market."
It's right in the original article:
There's another resource being unsustainably wasted on renewable energy, neodymium for neodymium-iron-boron magnets in wind turbines generators. Wind turbines produce even more worthless power than solar panels(see West Texas where wind farms pay ERCOT to take their electricity 20% of the time. If nobody wants the power ERCOT has to do the equivalent of running a giant toaster to get rid of it or the voltage and frequency would get out of wack).
Nothing is fully renewable that is suitable for realistically providing power for the typical modern life.
That statement is nothing but false. Why do people feel the need to perpetuate this rubbish ? And as usual it turns out they are conservatives / right wing / republicans.
Yes thats right, the educated world has rejected nuclear because of a well funded fear campaign orchestrated by all those large renewable energy corperations.
Analyse the cost of nuclear including decomisioning, insurance, waste management, monitoring and security costs for thousands of years. Figure out the net present value.
Nuclear is not feasable by any stretch of the imagination.
To make it feasable you need: A government that wants nuclear weapons, a goverment that is willing to accept insuarance, and waste costs for on behalf of thousands of future goverments and years of people.
Sounds like Mr right wing - "we dont like the government interfering" needs the government to make his nuclear dream come true.
I really don't understand why the right wingers arent jumping into the economic oportunities of the green revolution. Or maybe the smart ones are, and some others are happy to just live in fear and remember the good old cold war days.
...the information represents consensus opinion...
Of course the majority in every field, especially science, is ALWAYS right. If you were to go to the trouble to study the history of science or any other human endeavor, you would note that the majority has NEVER, even one time, come up with any significant progress for humanity. It has always been the lone Newton, Copernicus, Roemer, Kepler, Darwin, Einstein, Maxwell, Roentgen and countless others that challenged the majority status quo and brought about quantum jumps in scientific understanding. All of them were at first fought tooth and nail by the majority establishment.
Looking into the fields of Music, Literature, Philosophy and others, this is true as well.
If you want to read about well qualified climatologists who do NOT agree to the man caused global warming agenda, look here:
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=3056
All theory is gray
One more time: Runaway1956 won't recognize any scientist with evidence that disagrees with his opinion. He will also put forth weak, solely qualitative "facts". These "facts" are easily refuted with by quantitatively analyzing their substance. Add enough of their refuted "facts" and stir in old misconceptions long ago abandoned by honest scientists. Hell, according to Runaway1956 global warming COULD NEVER AT ALL BE man's fault, but that doesn't change the fact that the Runaway1956s of the earth won't hear any evidence that might repudiate their pre-formed opinions. Good grief......
There, I added, twisted, quoted out you out of context. Next, you can go crawl back into you hole and die, hopefully do so in an extremely painful way. Meanwhile, the rest of us will have to figure out a plan to deal with your old, daily commutes in your Ford Excursion. While initially these changes may be hard to deal with, no one will be forced to start foraging for food and living off the land. Doing nothing now would probably make things much worse in the long run, but not the end of mankind. However, if we can soften the blow in the end by making small or moderate changes to how things are done now, then this would be better.
Also, as to the FTA I have to giggle whenever I read about running out of a given element. Platinum and indium and other such metals will always be able to be recovered, recycled, mined, or even bred in nuclear reactors. The costs, however, would vary a quite a bit depending on the source. Also, there are often other devices that use different elements that are more common, but are not currently viable due to current prices and current methods of production.
Impersonating Tycho from Penny Arcade since before there was a PA.
Safe??? WHERE THE HELL DO YOU PUT THE WASTE? The most toxic material mankind has ever invented, it has to remain sealed from the environment for 10,000+ years, and you call it safe? In my own state of Washington there's a little reservation called Hanford that has nuclear waste sitting in "temporary" storage for decades because there's no permanent place to put it, and it's greadually leaking out of its encasement into the groundwater.
FUCK YOU, retard. I linked to a Canadian government agency, and a Canadian newspaper. I do not work for anyone right now; I'm a self-employed financial counsellor, you gutless, anonymous suck. I don't control what the reporter writes, and I'm not a dishonest little turd like you probably are who would try to edit or disguise what was originally written. I provided two honest links to refute what the original turd wrote. Are you so mentally deranged that you actually believe a few guys flying in planes over literally millions of square kilometres can count every single polar bear - a white object on a white background - accurately? If so, you're even more stupid than the original poster. Get off my internet, you simpleton.
What was once true, is no longer so