I scrolled for an hour and somehow im back here? I dont know how but my reddit feeds currently just cycling. This is the third time ive seen your post. I was wondering why everything kept looking so familiar
Fr tho, once you set up the solar panels, they will produce tons more energy over their lifetime than it took to create and install. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I do remember them being wayy more environmentally efficient and fossil fuel efficient than fossil fuel production.
100% feel free to fact check me on this, but im pretty sure this is in line with current estimates, so be careful if you find something using older information which may not show recent advances in the solar sector.
Aren't you worried that if we take all the energy from the sun that the moon will be embiggened to seize control of the sky and become the predominant celestial body?
Certain components of solar panels are indirectly made from oil. (Plastics etc) its costs about 35lbs of oil to produce (and transport) one solar panel.
How long does a solar panel last before it needs to be replaced? How long is it fully efficient? How efficient are they at night or when covered by snow? There’s pros and cons to all of it. The new solar tech that’s not quite to market is extremely interesting, but, you need batteries as well. More cost, more lifespan issues. Now with solid state batteries on their way to market we might get somewhere. But you can’t just pull the plug on oil.
at least with solar panels that oil isn't getting burnt and used up as fuel, it's as a plastic component that's most likely going to get recycled. oil and its byproducts are a set of incredible substances with damn near miraculous properties, we absolutely shouldn't completely cut them out, but we shouldn't be using them this widely and wastefully just because its abundance made it the cheapest option.
of course plastic itself has its issues, you know we overdid it with the single use plastics when the ability to digest plastic is starting to become an evolved trait, the same way it happened to lignin in trees millions of years ago, but that's its own topic of conversation
Everything about this STINKS of disinformation. There are answers to every single one of your questions and even being extremely conservative and giving solar panels a low efficiency, low lifetime, and high downtime from maintenance/weather/night time, still puts it ahead of oil within that very conservative low lifetime.
You can very easily pull the plug on oil, and we will have to soon with the rise of AI companies increasing production at the rate it is. We don't have unlimited access to oil & coal and OPEC & co already have told us they won't be increasing supply to meet demand.
Theres pros and cons to everything but that does not mean everything is equal. The con to solar panels is that coal & oil companies can no longer exist to the same capacity and they understand that. Its why they "compete" with green energy by just greasing the palms of politicians.
I am so sick of this dumb both sidesisms everyone keeps resorting to as if the middle ground is always right. It's literally a fallacy bro. Make a damn point that isn't just baselessy throwing questions around when there are answers out there that defeat your entire narrative. Stop ruining the internet.
Most oil is traveling in pipes. Which is super efficient. However. Burning oil to boil some water is not very efficient. As internal combustion isn't very efficient either
More than two thirds of the energy stored in gasoline is lost as wasted heat in most cars, if it weren't for the fact that gasoline has pretty incredible energy density, it'd be almost unfeasible.
Hydrogen has about three times the energy density of gasoline, but also has the downsides of being quite explosive when freely mixed with oxygen, it's a gas so it needs to be in a pressure sealed tank, hydrogen is the smallest atom, and escapes quite easily, and that unlike petroleum, you have to create it all yourself from scratch, and it takes roughly the same amount of energy to make it as you get from burning it (though you could just have your electrolysis setup hooked up to some solar panels etc)
That's why hydrogen powered vehicles have been around for decades, but they remain quite niche, while most of the interest is in moving towards electric vehicles, even though they're much much lower energy density. As a fuel in the abstract it's quite great, there's just a lot of caveats along with it. For small and specific applications, it's pretty awesome, especially the fact the only byproduct is water, but it's really not feasible as main mobile fuel.
For the time being, I don't see anything surpassing petroleum based fuels for a long while as far as density + ease of use go, even with literally most of the energy being wasted as heat, unfortunately it's just too convenient (for now)
I thought hydrogen needed slightly more energy to create than to use in automobilism. Then again it's near infinitely cleaner (and quieter) than burning oil so it's a small negative for a very large positive.
Forgot to factor in that once oil becomes cheaper it gets used more, and building more infrastructure to support oil only deepens our dependency on it.
So pipelines end up increasing oil consumption overall and make lowering carbon emissions harder, especially in less wealthy areas.
So the main goal with renewable power is not to completely eliminate power plants, its to support them.
Some places need power plants. Their energy demands require that system of energy production. However, we can build less power plants by building solar and wind farms where we can, making it affordable to do so, and putting solar and wind farms in areas that won’t be used for other purposes.
Additionally, battery technology is constantly improving and the materials used can be reused and recycled more efficiently than burning fuel.
Lastly, nuclear power is the PERFECT technology to replace fossil fuel based power plants. Many coal plants can be transformed into nuclear plants, and nuclear is so much cleaner and safer than all of them.
Tldr: batteries are getting better, solar and wind are both part of a complete solution, and nuclear is the other half of it.
Wind is way better than Solar, solar is honestly way overhyped. I’ve had 2 environmental science professors in my life and both of them pointed out the drawbacks of solar power. The killer is how radioactive they become after a while; becoming literal toxic waste, the grid related issues they cause, have expensive installation costs, and they straight up LOOK UGLY and will ruin your roof. Not to mention some areas just can’t get value out of them
How do you think is going to drive the solar panels around ?
And that driver?
Albert Einstein
The car? A Tesla model 3
idk maybe infinite energy from the wind and sun
I scrolled for an hour and somehow im back here? I dont know how but my reddit feeds currently just cycling. This is the third time ive seen your post. I was wondering why everything kept looking so familiar
Fr tho, once you set up the solar panels, they will produce tons more energy over their lifetime than it took to create and install. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I do remember them being wayy more environmentally efficient and fossil fuel efficient than fossil fuel production.
100% feel free to fact check me on this, but im pretty sure this is in line with current estimates, so be careful if you find something using older information which may not show recent advances in the solar sector.
Aren't you worried that if we take all the energy from the sun that the moon will be embiggened to seize control of the sky and become the predominant celestial body?
Certain components of solar panels are indirectly made from oil. (Plastics etc) its costs about 35lbs of oil to produce (and transport) one solar panel.
True, but it only takes 3 years to carbon offset the production of solar panels. All energy created after the first 3 years is effectively completely carbon neutral. Same can’t be said for oil production/use.
And how much does power 25lb of oil produce in its lifetime compared to a solar panel. Also that 25lb of oil isn’t going to be usable for fuel.
How long does a solar panel last before it needs to be replaced? How long is it fully efficient? How efficient are they at night or when covered by snow? There’s pros and cons to all of it. The new solar tech that’s not quite to market is extremely interesting, but, you need batteries as well. More cost, more lifespan issues. Now with solid state batteries on their way to market we might get somewhere. But you can’t just pull the plug on oil.
at least with solar panels that oil isn't getting burnt and used up as fuel, it's as a plastic component that's most likely going to get recycled. oil and its byproducts are a set of incredible substances with damn near miraculous properties, we absolutely shouldn't completely cut them out, but we shouldn't be using them this widely and wastefully just because its abundance made it the cheapest option.
of course plastic itself has its issues, you know we overdid it with the single use plastics when the ability to digest plastic is starting to become an evolved trait, the same way it happened to lignin in trees millions of years ago, but that's its own topic of conversation
Everything about this STINKS of disinformation. There are answers to every single one of your questions and even being extremely conservative and giving solar panels a low efficiency, low lifetime, and high downtime from maintenance/weather/night time, still puts it ahead of oil within that very conservative low lifetime.
You can very easily pull the plug on oil, and we will have to soon with the rise of AI companies increasing production at the rate it is. We don't have unlimited access to oil & coal and OPEC & co already have told us they won't be increasing supply to meet demand.
Theres pros and cons to everything but that does not mean everything is equal. The con to solar panels is that coal & oil companies can no longer exist to the same capacity and they understand that. Its why they "compete" with green energy by just greasing the palms of politicians.
I am so sick of this dumb both sidesisms everyone keeps resorting to as if the middle ground is always right. It's literally a fallacy bro. Make a damn point that isn't just baselessy throwing questions around when there are answers out there that defeat your entire narrative. Stop ruining the internet.
Spinach is the one true power
Most oil is traveling in pipes. Which is super efficient. However. Burning oil to boil some water is not very efficient. As internal combustion isn't very efficient either
More than two thirds of the energy stored in gasoline is lost as wasted heat in most cars, if it weren't for the fact that gasoline has pretty incredible energy density, it'd be almost unfeasible.
Hydrogen has about three times the energy density of gasoline, but also has the downsides of being quite explosive when freely mixed with oxygen, it's a gas so it needs to be in a pressure sealed tank, hydrogen is the smallest atom, and escapes quite easily, and that unlike petroleum, you have to create it all yourself from scratch, and it takes roughly the same amount of energy to make it as you get from burning it (though you could just have your electrolysis setup hooked up to some solar panels etc)
That's why hydrogen powered vehicles have been around for decades, but they remain quite niche, while most of the interest is in moving towards electric vehicles, even though they're much much lower energy density. As a fuel in the abstract it's quite great, there's just a lot of caveats along with it. For small and specific applications, it's pretty awesome, especially the fact the only byproduct is water, but it's really not feasible as main mobile fuel.
For the time being, I don't see anything surpassing petroleum based fuels for a long while as far as density + ease of use go, even with literally most of the energy being wasted as heat, unfortunately it's just too convenient (for now)
I thought hydrogen needed slightly more energy to create than to use in automobilism. Then again it's near infinitely cleaner (and quieter) than burning oil so it's a small negative for a very large positive.
Yea, it does, but if you're using a renewable source to power that creation it's less of an issue, more akin to a temporary storage medium.
So lets build a pipeline.
the planet clearly isn't warm enough let's keep making pipelines and consume record levels of oil!!!
Pipelines reduce oil consumption by reducing the need for road transport.
Forgot to factor in that once oil becomes cheaper it gets used more, and building more infrastructure to support oil only deepens our dependency on it.
So pipelines end up increasing oil consumption overall and make lowering carbon emissions harder, especially in less wealthy areas.
Thats more of a you problem but ok.
Dude, you aint gotta use crude oil to lube up for an exxon exec, coconut oil works great too
[removed]
This was removed for breaking the sub rule of "Be civil"
Glad to see im ou here inspiring the way I lay this pipe
People be more like "solar power isn't reliable"
Sun doesn't always shine buddy, the hot rocks however remain hot for quite awhile.
That's what the batteries are for in a solar setup.
With batteries it gets insanely expensive and still you'd ideally want to have climate with little snow and long winter days.
So the main goal with renewable power is not to completely eliminate power plants, its to support them.
Some places need power plants. Their energy demands require that system of energy production. However, we can build less power plants by building solar and wind farms where we can, making it affordable to do so, and putting solar and wind farms in areas that won’t be used for other purposes.
Additionally, battery technology is constantly improving and the materials used can be reused and recycled more efficiently than burning fuel.
Lastly, nuclear power is the PERFECT technology to replace fossil fuel based power plants. Many coal plants can be transformed into nuclear plants, and nuclear is so much cleaner and safer than all of them.
Tldr: batteries are getting better, solar and wind are both part of a complete solution, and nuclear is the other half of it.
Not in the EU. They want to completely eliminate fossil fuels while simultaneously shutting down nuclear, i.e. in Germany.
As for the rest, I agree.
Unlike oil workers who are able to work 24 hours a day instead of only 8 hours a day.
The famously efficient internal combustion engine
We have these things called pipelines, but some people don’t like them very much.
With hydro, your power travels directly to you with the aide of gravity for FREE. Check make nukecucks
Wind is way better than Solar, solar is honestly way overhyped. I’ve had 2 environmental science professors in my life and both of them pointed out the drawbacks of solar power. The killer is how radioactive they become after a while; becoming literal toxic waste, the grid related issues they cause, have expensive installation costs, and they straight up LOOK UGLY and will ruin your roof. Not to mention some areas just can’t get value out of them
Truck
Noice
That makes profits stupid