Large Tesla Battery

2oldman wrote:

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
I guess I'm just to skeptical, I dont believe in people motives being honestly portrayed.

Perhaps. I think you're concentrating more on the types of people you don't like rather than the actual environmental problems with fossil fuels.

If a given person employed at a facility, college or whatever and is offered a grant to research something, there is always something that they are specifically to prove, or to justify. When the outcome is preordained by the requirements of the grants, the results will always give what the entity offering the funding is looking for, otherwise they may not offer you money again.
Hence I tend to often not trust anything being specifically funded by any organization beyond building, inventing, or creating. When the result is intellectual only, it will be politicized and bastardized to justify someones agenda.
When funding is offered to build something that is existing technology why is it that with every supposed great advancement, Tonopah as an example, some politician has to get their family members in for tremendous gains?
Skeptical? Yes,

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
I find myself INSULATED from many of these arguments.

Fine. I find it interesting, myself.

I find myself INSULATED from many of these arguments.

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
I guess I'm just to skeptical, I dont believe in people motives being honestly portrayed.

Perhaps. I think you're concentrating more on the types of people you don't like rather than the actual environmental problems with fossil fuels.

I can easily say that there are many in the oil and gas (and coal) industries who are scared to death of GCC and will fight it all the way. Saying Trump has an agenda is like saying the sky is blue. Everyone has an agenda to some extent - although I do have to hand it to BP and Exxon for realizing change is occurring and getting in on making a buck off it.

2oldman wrote:

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
Check the soil in an open area and the temperature may be 140 degrees, but if its in shade created by a solar farm, in particulaar as large as what the current enviro's want, that soil will be 20 - 30 - 40 degrees cooler, how many things will that kill? How many creatures habitats will be altered?

I don't know. What are you getting at? Keep burning fossil fuels because we may kill some soil creatures?

I'm not saying solar won't have *any* negative effects, but I'm convinced continuing to burn fossil fuels will.

The folks pushing for solar, are the same ones that fight other technologies in many cases, The Dams not built because of a snail darter, but because a company selling solar production donates to an organization those same folks that bemoaned the snail darter will condemn a species of tortoise to make room for a solar farm Its hypocritical. Enviromentalism is a noble cause, the problem is that currently its a sales game to promote a product or technology. Natural Gas is our cleanest burning fuel, and for 20 years it was what the enviros wanted us to go to. But as soon as those plants started being built, they fought them over every issue they could find from a bug on the ground, to changing the flow of a creek that beavers have been changing for millenia. I guess I'm just to skeptical, I dont believe in people motives being honestly portrayed.

2oldman wrote:
I don't understand why extracting carbon from co2 and burning it makes any sense.

It is CO2 neutral. Like growing a tree and then burning it. Net CO2 effect to the atmosphere is zero.

Carbon then ends up being a storage media for energy similar to hydrogen. Both cases end up using the sun's energy to create the stockpile.

Sure but if you read that article very carefully you'll see that the people who wrote it hint about the problem with energy inputs. Think of it this way, the bonds in Carbon Dioxide put it at the bottom of a very deep energy well. The desired end products are at the top of a tall mountain. To go from the bottom of a well to the top of the mountain require a lot of energy and that energy is stored in the fuels chemical bonds.

That stored energy is what you get when you burn the fuel to get CO2 and water. TANSTAAFL in this universe so you must put that energy into the process where CO2 is converted to fuel....an unbreakable law. Catalysts can make this process easier but they cannot violate the thermodynamic laws when they do so.

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
Check the soil in an open area and the temperature may be 140 degrees, but if its in shade created by a solar farm, in particulaar as large as what the current enviro's want, that soil will be 20 - 30 - 40 degrees cooler, how many things will that kill? How many creatures habitats will be altered?

I don't know. What are you getting at? Keep burning fossil fuels because we may kill some soil creatures?

I'm not saying solar won't have *any* negative effects, but I'm convinced continuing to burn fossil fuels will.

I don't understand why extracting carbon from co2 and burning it makes any sense.

2oldman wrote:

kerrlakeRoo wrote:
.. solar ever becoming the main source of power, thousands of square miles of the planet surface covered in plastics, which all require oil...., And the changes to the climate when all that plastic and glass is reflecting the suns warmth back into space, at some point, that too will become an issue. .

Plastics? Where do you get that?

My solar panels don't reflect much light. Being dark in color they tend to get hot.

They require plastics in connectors, fossil fuels to refine the metals there are many ways dirty old fossil fuels are involved even in those, and the batteries especially. As to reflecting the light, if you look at them from the "sunny side" they are basically a mirror, but while the suns rays naturally would hit soil, rock, or water and warm them, with large areas covered in raised panels, that heat is allowed to escape.
Soils even in deserts have life, and that life requires certain conditions. Check the soil in an open area and the temperature may be 140 degrees, but if its in shade created by a solar farm, in particulaar as large as what the current enviro's want, that soil will be 20 - 30 - 40 degrees cooler, how many things will that kill? How many creatures habitats will be altered?