Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[Shockm]

Again, you apparently don't read or comprehend much of anything that I post. You're still focused on the elites and ignore the fact that everything I've posted and talked about has been about or dependent upon clean tech being competitive. I'm not sure how you continually ignore all of that as it's been mentioned in multiple posts since I first joined in on this thread.

You continue to bring up climate change when most everything I've mentioned pretty much ignores that and simply focuses on the developing and improving tech that can lead to a cleaner environment, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with climate change.

You're focused on the agenda driven elites and what they want. I'm focused on the little guys out there improving upon and finding new ways of giving us a cleaner way to live in the future. Some of them are cost effective at least on a smaller scale right now and they're working towards bigger avenues. Some are just scratching the surface of what could be and what will be down the road.

You focus on the negatives of the people you hate. I mostly ignore them as they're meaningless to actual improvement and focus on those leading the drive to a better tomorrow. One that won't break the bank.

I'm not a fan of subsidies of any kind. But if we're talking about a fair market for clean tech to compete in, we have to remove all federal subsidies from fossil fuels as well. I don't know and don't care to look into what level of subsidies exist in all areas of energy and such, but if want a level playing field, they should be equal. My preference is that equal would be zero, but the costs of fossil fuels would go up then as well.

You'll probably never see me argue against getting government out of the way or out of subsidizing businesses. But as long as such things exist, all in the market should be able to compete on the same playing field.

But when it comes down to it, I will continue to focus on the little guys doing good works to help push us forward and remain positive about those things. You can continue to solely focus on the elites and their selfish desires to make money by trying to force things that aren't ready. Reading most of your posts make you seem like you're flat out anti anything that isn't oil. I'm sure that's not the case, but that's the perception you create with your tunnel vision.

Stop letting the elites live inside your head so much. You'll be better off.

There is a panic going on, and many people buy into it, and that seemingly includes you. You are a fan of an artificial market with tax payer subsidies, and almost everything you list, has subsidies included which drives up costs in the long term. You didn't read any of the articles by Lomborg and are doing exactly what he says to guard against, which is Not looking at this with a balanced POV. and instead panic. We are in this for the Long Haul.

[SubGod22]

Again, you apparently don't read or comprehend much of anything that I post. You're still focused on the elites and ignore the fact that everything I've posted and talked about has been about or dependent upon clean tech being competitive. I'm not sure how you continually ignore all of that as it's been mentioned in multiple posts since I first joined in on this thread.

You continue to bring up climate change when most everything I've mentioned pretty much ignores that and simply focuses on the developing and improving tech that can lead to a cleaner environment, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with climate change.

You're focused on the agenda driven elites and what they want. I'm focused on the little guys out there improving upon and finding new ways of giving us a cleaner way to live in the future. Some of them are cost effective at least on a smaller scale right now and they're working towards bigger avenues. Some are just scratching the surface of what could be and what will be down the road.

You focus on the negatives of the people you hate. I mostly ignore them as they're meaningless to actual improvement and focus on those leading the drive to a better tomorrow. One that won't break the bank.

I'm not a fan of subsidies of any kind. But if we're talking about a fair market for clean tech to compete in, we have to remove all federal subsidies from fossil fuels as well. I don't know and don't care to look into what level of subsidies exist in all areas of energy and such, but if want a level playing field, they should be equal. My preference is that equal would be zero, but the costs of fossil fuels would go up then as well.

You'll probably never see me argue against getting government out of the way or out of subsidizing businesses. But as long as such things exist, all in the market should be able to compete on the same playing field.

But when it comes down to it, I will continue to focus on the little guys doing good works to help push us forward and remain positive about those things. You can continue to solely focus on the elites and their selfish desires to make money by trying to force things that aren't ready. Reading most of your posts make you seem like you're flat out anti anything that isn't oil. I'm sure that's not the case, but that's the perception you create with your tunnel vision.

Stop letting the elites live inside your head so much. You'll be better off.

[Shockm]

Your problem is that you only focus on the extremists. If we get competitive clean energy here it doesn't matter what China and India do. I don't give a **** about the climate change debate. If tech improves and is competitive and we find cleaner ways to produce energy, we have cleaner air and water here. Smog becomes less of an issue in the cities. The problems asthma cause diminish.
.

Actually this isn't true. The extremists aren't just the jet flying elites. They actually include Biden, his cabinet members, and the left wing of the Democrat Party (AOC, Bernie, and most of the party who are going along with the agenda they are pushing). They are focusing and pushing immediate energy changes, that are driving up the energy costs for the average American (to cool and heat their homes, drive their vehicles,.pay reparations to 3rd World Countries to not allow them to use fossil fuels to develop, etc.). These changes should be free market driven (instead of federal subsidy driven), and take more than the 10 years they are pushing, and are closer to perhaps 25 years, or maybe even 50 years. The Biden Administration is giving subsidies to non-fossil fuel companies for WIND FARMS (in both the midwest, and in the Oceans) that are possibly, and maybe probably have LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES. The sea habitats are being harmed and causing Whales to wash onto shores in the oceans, and who knows the long term effects. The midwest farm lands are replacing food growers with SOLAR and WIND farms. AND the Sea and Farmlands are being paid for by the tax payers. in the future, if these taxes are discontinued, the clean energy costs because they are then market driven sky rocket.

Here is a Balanced Voice of Climate Change Reason that I've brought up before for the people who want Small Government, Market Driven Climate Ideas as opposed to Big Government Solutions Tax Payer paid. Bjorn Lomborg who has studied these issues says that "This isn't the End of the World", and we have time to make the necessary changes.

Bjorn Lomborg: 7 myths about climate change

https://unherd.com/thepost/bjorn-lom...limate-change/

[SubGod22]

This is pretty cool. Sounds like if this is successful, and American and United believe that it will be, that the option to have more regional flights out of smaller airports will return and open up air travel to more people. Jet fuel has become so expensive that a lot of these types of flights have been dialed back or even abandoned. This one will be interesting to follow over the next few years.

Aviation Startup ZeroAvia Flies Largest-Ever Hydrogen Electric Aircraft

An aviation start-up just set a new world-first for the largest hydrogen-powered aircraft flight in history—a 19-seat aircraft called the Dornier 228.

Designed by ZeroAvia, the start-up is developing hydrogen-powered engines for regional flights, and over the last 12 months has really taken off.

This most recent flight was a 10 minute affair from the Cotswolds Airport in Gloucestershire, England, but was only the most recent manifestation of their success.

ZeroAvia counts American and United airlines as their investors, and by 2025, the firm has 1,500 pre-orders of their hydrogen electric powertrains to fulfill. The prototype powertrains have received approval from both the UK and US civil aviation authorities.

“This is a major moment, not just for ZeroAvia, but for the aviation industry as a whole, as it shows that true zero-emission commercial flight is only a few years away,” ZeroAvia founder and CEO Val Miftakhov said in a statement Thursday.

The flight comes after news in August that the company signed a memorandum of understanding with American Airlines for 100 of the powertrains, which are being developed for 90-seat aircraft.

“Having support from [one of the] world’s largest airline is a strong indication of the progress we’re making on the development of hydrogen-electric, zero-emission flight,” added ZeroAvia Founder and CEO Val Miftakhov. “We are focused on delivering sustainable travel, and are delighted that American, a visionary leader in the industry, sees ZeroAvia as a part of the future of aviation.”

Hydrogen as a fuel source is currently one of two more sustainable alternatives to powering aviation. Accounting for 2.8% of all global emissions, passenger aircraft need high octane, energy dense fuel sources because of the weight limitations which batteries can’t account for.

[pinstripers]

In Finland, electric car owners are being told not to warm up their vehicles on cold mornings to avoid putting unnecessary strain on the nation’s failing electricity grid.

[SubGod22]

There is also the human population bomb to consider, which by itself produces a lot of environmental degradation which leads to climate disasters, not that that should deter us from developing and adopting clean energy. With 8 going on 9 billion people on earth, the alternatives like, for instance, wood substituted for concrete become problematic unless in the end we are going to build everything with mud brick. The positive here is that humanity is pushing ahead with the development of new technologies which may provide alternatives in the future. But even if we follow and utilize the new technological developments we are still going to need carbon based products which likely come from fossil fuels.

Another reason I'd like to see hemp used more. It grows fairly quickly and easily and can be used for papers and plastics as well as building materials.

[WstateU]

[pinstripers]

Daniel Turner @DanielTurnerPTF
Why does Greta Thunberg never protest in China?

[N Crestway]

There is also the human population bomb to consider, which by itself produces a lot of environmental degradation which leads to climate disasters, not that that should deter us from developing and adopting clean energy. With 8 going on 9 billion people on earth, the alternatives like, for instance, wood substituted for concrete become problematic unless in the end we are going to build everything with mud brick. The positive here is that humanity is pushing ahead with the development of new technologies which may provide alternatives in the future. But even if we follow and utilize the new technological developments we are still going to need carbon based products which likely come from fossil fuels.

[SubGod22]

Your problem is that you only focus on the extremists. If we get competitive clean energy here it doesn't matter what China and India do. I don't give a **** about the climate change debate. If tech improves and is competitive and we find cleaner ways to produce energy, we have cleaner air and water here. Smog becomes less of an issue in the cities. The problems asthma cause diminish.

Again, there are a lot of people trying to do it for the right reasons. And even some of them that believe climate change is a major issue can help push and improve upon clean tech that pushes us in the right direction.

And you apparently missed the part where I've always said that I support an all of the above approach and you can move away from fossil fuels until clean tech is competitive and efficient. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be striving to get away from fossil fuels as much as possible. Nuclear is the best short term solution while people work to improve upon solar, wind, hydro, thermal, hydrogen and whatever else is out there.

I've also posted in the past of certain businesses and communities doing non energy related things to try and clean up the air in their communities. I remember one that used moss of some sort on the outside of buildings. That helped clean some of the air and helped with noise pollution. Others have been utilizing rooftops of structures to plant trees and such, which also helps the avian community.

Focus less on Al Gore and John Kerry and more on the people putting in real work to improve clean tech and where that can potentially lead us.

[Shockm]

Al Gore has made over $300Million by spreading his climate alarmism. As he rails on about boiling oceans and rain bombs, his green investment firm is paying him $2 Million a month. How can you believe him?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-George-W.html

[Shockm]

But no one is honest. You can’t have clean energy without supporting fossil fuel energy. There had to be a combination. Also, until they get Asia, China and India to buy into clean energy, success cannot be the result. You are buying into false success, and a “pie in the sky”. Anyone who buys into that will also buy into Davos.

[SubGod22]

You do realize that there are a lot of non-elites that are working on cleaner and more efficient energies right? Not everyone in that industry is an alarmist like Gore and Kerry and are simply in it to make the world a cleaner place. Do we really object to cleaner energy if it's reasonably priced and efficient? Some seem to be anti anything clean because they can't separate the actual industry with the wealthy simply trying to profit off of scare tactics.

I have a long history on this board of taking an all of the above approach to energy, with a large focus on nuclear because it's clean and efficient and we can do that now while working on making others better.

Are people in the clean energy industry looking to make money? Of course they are. You're a shitty business person if you don't have profit in mind. But the only way to really get there is to be better than what we have already, or at least close to it. Some people will absolutely be willing to pay a little more for cleaner options. There's nothing wrong with that. Hell, that's what oil and gas is in business for. Though they're also some of the leaders in researching and trying to develop alternative sources to power the future.

I wish the media would focus less on the scare tactic blowhards and more on the actual tech and development. That's why I enjoy a couple of the sites I pull things from. Most are generally research oriented companies/individuals looking to make a positive difference. It's a lot like cancer research and such, where a lot of time and money goes into trying to find the little things that make a huge difference and can be of value to the public. The encouraging thing is there really is a lot of tech out there that shows potential value on a larger scale. Some may end up being more regionally based due to climate conditions and that's alright.

[Shockm]

After reading about the wealthy Elites comments and rants (like John Kerry, and Al Gore) at Davos Switzerland(many of whom have mansions on Ocean shores, which according to them will be underwater by 2030 and all fly charter jets), I don’t trust anything they say regarding the technologies that we are about to discover. These Elites could care less about the poor and middle classes. After all, they are going to be our Saviors.

[SubGod22]

Interesting concept. I'm sure more research/testing will be done on this.

Researchers Harness Sunlight to Produce Both Power and Food - Using Light to Improve Each Harvest

Scientists working in techno-agriculture have found that by covering crops with canopies of translucent solar panels, they can separate the light which generates energy from the light that leads to photosynthesis in plants.

This not only means a farmer could generate solar energy and crops at the same time, but better crops, and more energy than could be achieved with the two operations separately.

Different-colored light from our sun impacts biology on Earth in different ways. The blue spectrum of sunlight for example is what life uses to detect daytime, and is a trigger for major hormonal shifts in animals and plants from active to inactive behaviors.

Red light on the other end is preferentially what plants use to turn carbon dioxide into sugars. Red light isn’t as hot as blue light, and plants exposed to growing conditions with red light spectra show less heat stress than those exposed to blue light. Blue light on the other hand is what is needed to generate solar power in any meaningful way.

With this in mind, associate professor Majdi Abou Najm from the Univ. of California, Davis, tested organic solar panels made from translucent material that absorb the blue light to generate electricity, but allow the red light with its longer wavelengths to pass through to the crops below.

At the UC Davis Agricultural Experiment Station, Abou Najm and his team planted three different plots of processing tomatoes, a common central valley California crop, under a canopy of selective red light, another of selective blue, and a third uncovered plot.