Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Living creatures do not change the balance of carbon in the system.
Burning fossil fuels does change the balance of carbon in the air.
|
It's just a question of time scale.
Fossil fuels got that carbon from living creatures that sequestered it.
On a Large enough time scale total planet Carbon does not change... but on shorter time scales it does ... and living creatures are a big part of why and how that happens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awd180
First, I don't disagree with reducing a carbon footprint but it has been shown in a number of reports that removing all personal use combustion engines wouldn't effect the carbon footprint.
|
There is far more to pollution and 'Green' than just the carbon footprint.
And per unit of work that gets done , ICEs in vehicles produce significantly more of those other non-Carbon pollutants per year , or per unit of fuel energy input.
Not the biggest piece ... but a disproportionally larger contributor compared to the work that gets done from / by them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awd180
the cleanest with nearly 0 emissions a year is nuclear (only emissions are from backup diesel and gas generators).
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awd180
To consider other forms of green energy product you need to also consider how they are made.
|
For Nuclear as well.
Don't forget to include all the pollution of building the nuclear ... mining the materials ... refining the material ... transporting the materials ... operation ... containment / disposal of all waste ... even the waste they often just vent into the air ... etc.
When the whole life cycle is all added in ... Nuclear is no where near 0 emissions any more.
Although individual studies give various results ... some painting the nuclear picture you describe , others painting the opposite ... I have not read them all ... but the trend I've seen seems to be ... that the difference in results comes from how much of the whole system , the study looks at ... smaller snap shoots more favor nuclear being very clean , even compared to RE ... larger snap shoots of the entire nuclear power system over longer period of time seem to paint a far less clean image of it compared to RE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awd180
Wind mills and solar panels need plastics and a large amount of them, the more plastics produced is just as bad if not worse for the environment. Plus wind mills and solar panels couldn't meet the needs of society, especially if we need them to power transportation as well.
|
They do not 'need' plastics ... wind mills and hydro power were in use before the invention of plastics.
They use some plastic ... so does nuclear ... but it is a comparatively small % ... the vast majority of a Wind Mill for example is steel ... not plastic.
I'll agree the total net needs to be included ... including the production of the device... but the pollution and or carbon foot print of the RE production is not nearly as large as you seem to suggest there ... All combined , they are often net cleaner than any of the non-RE options.
As for Solar + Wind "couldn't met the needs of society"... that is incorrect... we don't yet have enough deployed to do so ... but there is way more than enough to be able to do so.
In 2007 annual energy consumption for the entire U.S. was ~100 Quadrillion BTUs ... transportation is a small % of that total ... that total is less than 0.5% of the total solar energy available in the US ... plus more is also available from wind , hydro , etc.(EPA Annual Energy Outlook 2009)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awd180
Hope this helps open some peoples minds, granted mine is open and I believe the technology is growing it's just the pros and cons need to be weighed justly.
|
100% agree.