I struggled with deciding in which forum to start this discussion. It could be germane to a lot of them. But since the Tesla thread has had so much activity, and Tesla's technology is central in the conversation, I figured this would do well here.Since we as a country, will be joining quite a few other countries in trying to go green, has anyone looked at all aspects of just what is involved. from the child labor that produces some of the rare elements, to just how scaleable producing them can be? They are called rare for a reason. Is it possible to produce enough to supply the world with enough? At what cost?What about all of the energy used to produce, and refine them? What about the energy required to produce the machinery required to produce the machines that produce the machines? In short can we ever get to a point where we are truly green from top to bottom?Since energy from the Sun is plentiful and free, this would seem to be a no brainer. But I have a nagging feeling that even though we should, we won't get there.In order to get there, we need to do an "audit" if you will of the entire idea. Shoot holes in it. Expose it's weaknesses. Only then will it's strengths become something to focus on.Carbon neutral, Net zero etc. are buzzwords that are tossed around a lot... What they really mean is that we are still polluting. Just not as much, or that this pollution is OK as it is "offset"(another buzzword) by some form of green.I have many. many more questions, and I am sure there are more out there that I haven't even thought of.I look forward to a lively discussion

Oh ya, I watched a Praegar U video called "unobtainium" the other day. It outlined the percentage of maximum output of wind and solar, actually pretty pathetic and then all the energy expended in mining the required resources not to mention, like you said the infrastructure required. Lets shoot ourselves in the foot to kill the ant under our shoe.

There is one base loaded source of 'green energy' assuming you mean nonpolluting. And that is nuclear power. Yes the fuel must be disposed of the the spent fuel from these plants can be reprocessed and the volume reduced greatly. The remaining material can be safely buried in geologic structures. The volume is tiny compared to a fossil fuel plant or even wind and solar plants. Those windmills have to be disposed of for example and no one wants them. The blades are gigantic as you know if you ever passed some on the road. Solar plants aren't much better. another one went under in Nevada a week or so ago. Solar and wind both have the same problem. The sun doesn't shine 24 hrs/day and the wind doesn't blow 24 X 7. There is no practical storage method in sight. Battery storage is very very expensive, I saw an estimate of Trillions to finance a battery storage system of large enough capacity. Plus there just is not enough Lithium or Lead available to build the required batteries.Solar could work if you put the collectors in orbit and beamed the power down via microwaves. That would be extremely pricey. And also the definition of death ray seams to fit a multi-gigawatt microwave beam. The antenna farms would be very large as well. I doubt the Russians would be happy if we put something like that in orbit nor would we like it if they did or the Chinese.Wind is just plain not reliable, not even in Wyoming. I paid attention to wind farms when we drove thru a lot of them this summer and did not see one that didn't have at least 10-20 inoperative wind mills I've read that so many of the wind power equipment manufacturers have good bankrupt that getting repair parts can be impossible. When they were install the claim was that they would have 20 or 30 years of working life, instead they are being torn down after 10 years or less. And of course the wind only blows whn it wants to, and often that does not include the hottest parts of the summer which are often windless. I believe wind farms are usually around 20% available, which means they put power in the grid one hour in five on average.So you want to end air pollution build lots of nuke plants and hope for fusion power. Fusion plants by the way would be intensely radioactive after running for awhile. The fusion process produces lots of neutrons which would activate the plant structure.So the moral to all this is: TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.Fossil fuels are dirty and produce large volumes of wasteSolar intermittent and it has major waste disposal expenses. Plus a gigawatt sized plant takes up square miles of land compared to 100 acres for a GW fossil or nuke plant. It also kills tens of thousands of birds.Wind is the same as solar. Takes a lot of land, kills birds and bats and it is very difficult to get rid of a 200 foot long plastic wind mill part.Hydrogen is made from fossil fuel and is low density and has major storage and transport problemsBatteries are very expensive on the utility scale and there isn't enough raw material to make all we would need.Nuke causes loud and irrational NIMBY battles.

The scientists say to burn less carbon fuels. I believe solar and wind is the best method to capture the energy we need. I am not calling for dismantling the existing nukes but I think the waste needs a better solution before more is built. Reducing the need for Cobalt is in the works. Cutting costs including using organic material is also in process. I think economics has us on the correct path at this time. Progress seems slow and it will be a long multigenerational journey. We will learn and improve as we go same as we have for all of modern history.

Most all of our known energy sources came/comes from the Sun.Crude is plant or organic based, which is just another form of stored Sun energy that took millions of years to create. We are burning through it in just decades to a century or so.Wind is Sun based, as our weather is all based on solar heating/cooling to form low/high pressure areas where they push/pull air. Add in our planets rotation, which moves the air.Nuclear is questionable whether Sun based and have been in many discussions over the decades. Nuclear is the highest density form of potential energy, but has great down sides...or better stated...many more down sides.All are manageable with the big question...at what cost? On that, time factors that cost.“Clean energy” or “zero pollution” are more marketing than substantive. Go back into their origins and you will find crude at the source...as we know it today.Science continues to marvel.Example is hydrogen. Pure hydrogen used to take more energy to produce than it provides in the form of usable energy....but...that has been chipped at for decades and decades. Current best practice is photonics to split hydrogen and oxygen atoms with claimed 99% or higher efficiency.Then compressing that now very economical gaseous hydrogen into a liquid then consumes much energy. That is where one of my research teams were working on while in SunLabs We invented a solid state gas to liquid compressor with no moving parts....except for a one way valve (automotive AC and about $1.99) so it would pump.But...all that then requires electrical power, but now much into the noise level.Sizing for what society is accustomed to will be another issue, but solvable. Society will just have to change.Batteries will become obsolete except for the very small applications. To be replaced by containers holding liquid hydrogen.The diamond compression to create electricity is of interest, but currently only in the very, very low outage & power ranges. More scientific curiosity in the lab, but that is how most all things start out as...an idea...then a prototype or proof of concept model.Society will NOT willing move in mass unless catastrophe or mandated by government.Then everything in the food chain to the final usage or application of power.EVERYTHING we produce/manufacture/service/etc currently has crude base materials, processes, etc.The change will need to happen EVERYWHERE at almost the same time. Piece meal won’t cut it an too many 2 steps forward with 3-4 steps backwards. Leading to frustration of society and that will lead to distrust in the ‘new’ processes & products mandated by the governmentCurrent IP for EV’s only a stop gap and is best practices of the moment.Shinerbock has been saying fuel cell the way to go and I’ve concurred often, but that hasn’t caught on here...but current technology isn’t there yet. Generation of liquid hydrogen, transportation, storage, delivery, etc will continue to be a huge issue, but that will be overcome once ‘we have to’Wind generators, solar panels, etc all have crude in it’s food chain big time. Just invisible to most.

I dont think we can go full green energy anytime soon,bc airplanes for example will need FF for long time yetHowever for shorter cross country trip electric high speed trains would do better,especialy for people who dont like to flyBut then we would have to hire chinese or Japanese to build it as our leaders dont seem to know how.China high speed railwayshttps://youtu.be/aXo7wi488EoWhere do they get power to run,,hydroelectric,wind,solar,etc and nowChina already leads in renewable energyhttps://youtu.be/Lvem_WvLiDUHow can they acomplish so much in such short timeChina is run by engineers and well educated scientists,financial experts,not by some washed out tv personality science denier.https://youtu.be/A3SbhDZtFskChina is investing in infrastructure,roads,bridges,housing creating jobs for everyone and not wastin money on military no doubt helps.https://youtu.be/TbyBKTqnkdo

A top to bottom look at green energy | Good Sam Community

Reisender
Nomad
Jan 01, 2021
Whoops. Double post.
Reisender
Nomad
Jan 01, 2021
shelbyfv wrote:
Most of us enjoy lives much more comfortable, healthy and secure than those of our grandparents. Thank science. Think about who is promoting this current anti-science insanity and question their motives. Why is it so threatening to admit that there are folks who are smarter, better educated and have more understanding of these issues than a bunch of us sitting around the firepit? The debate over human caused climate change was over 10 years ago among legitimate scientists. The idea that corrective alternatives have to be cheaper than what we are doing now is absurd. We'll do what we have to, pay what we have to, or we'll be screwed worse than we already are.Y'all like the red? Shows I'm special too.:R

Lol. Loved the red.
shelbyfv
Explorer
Jan 01, 2021
Most of us enjoy lives much more comfortable, healthy and secure than those of our grandparents. Thank science. Think about who is promoting this current anti-science insanity and question their motives. Why is it so threatening to admit that there are folks who are smarter, better educated and have more understanding of these issues than a bunch of us sitting around the firepit? The debate over human caused climate change was over 10 years ago among legitimate scientists. The idea that corrective alternatives have to be cheaper than what we are doing now is absurd. We'll do what we have to, pay what we have to, or we'll be screwed worse than we already are.Y'all like the red? Shows I'm special too.:R
thomas201
Explorer
Jan 01, 2021
Chinese People's Volunteer Army capture Seoul in January 1951
Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950
The occupation of Outer Mongolia by the Beiyang government of the Republic of China began in October 1919 and lasted until 18 March 1921
Sino-Soviet border conflict 1969
Sino-Indian War 1962
2020 China–India skirmishes are part of an ongoing military standoff between China and India. Since 5 May 2020, Chinese and Indian troops have engaged in aggressive melee, face-offs and skirmishes at locations along the Sino-Indian border

Yep the Chinese have never invaded anybody. Why should they be different than us, we are all Mark 1, Mod 0 humans.
free_radical
Explorer
Dec 30, 2020
Me Again wrote:
free radical wrote:

Did you know that Taliban from neigborin Afganistan atacked Tibet China and murdered thousands of civilians not long ago tryin to instal Sharia law?
Why dont western media report on that?
Yet
China still allows ALL religions including Islam and even has 35.000 Islamic Mosques.

Along this 47 mile border area?

"China shares only a small mountainous border with Afghanistan that is virtually
impassable and barely inhabited. Beijing’s involvement with Afghanistan increased during
the Taliban rule, after Chinese Uighurs trying to stoke an insurgency among southwest
China’s Muslim population took sanctuary and training among the Afghans. Some Uighurs
also fought together with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Lest it again become a safe haven
for foreign militants under the protection of radical Islamists, China’s present interests lie
with an Afghanistan that is politically stable and enjoying reconstruction. Yet Beijing’s
contribution to date has been relatively modest, a mere $150 million pledged by late
2005 compared with $900 million from Japan. Of late, China seems mostly engaged in
using diplomatic means to thwart an open-ended U.S. military presence in Afghanistan
and the region."

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr162.pdf

Pardon me if I take any US gov info with large grain of salt

We are fed endles anti china BS mainly bc US needs an enemy somewhere to justify
Spending money on military and

Invading other countries and stealing their resources,
Weapons of mass destruction Iraq rings a bell?

China never invaded any country so I see no need to fear them.

China has over 60 milion muslims so Taliban would like to infiltrate and radicalize and destroy chinese system
What do you think our Goverment would do IF muslims try same thing here

I noticed that Google and YT is blocking any positive news on China
No doubt cia works
Try searching YT for

Fighting terrorism in Xinjiang

YT blocks sharing the link,freedom of speach LOL

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_China
Cummins12V98
Explorer III
Dec 29, 2020
Nothing "Clean or Green" about any of this.
ppine
Explorer II
Dec 29, 2020
I used to live with a nuclear engineer. I have worked on several projects related to nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site.

The problem with nuclear power is what to do with the waste that is generated. We have no good answers. We have tried a lot of bad experiments.
Me_Again
Explorer III
Dec 29, 2020
free radical wrote:

Did you know that Taliban from neigborin Afganistan atacked Tibet China and murdered thousands of civilians not long ago tryin to instal Sharia law?
Why dont western media report on that?
Yet
China still allows ALL religions including Islam and even has 35.000 Islamic Mosques.

Along this 47 mile border area?

"China shares only a small mountainous border with Afghanistan that is virtually
impassable and barely inhabited. Beijing’s involvement with Afghanistan increased during
the Taliban rule, after Chinese Uighurs trying to stoke an insurgency among southwest
China’s Muslim population took sanctuary and training among the Afghans. Some Uighurs
also fought together with the Taliban and al Qaeda. Lest it again become a safe haven
for foreign militants under the protection of radical Islamists, China’s present interests lie
with an Afghanistan that is politically stable and enjoying reconstruction. Yet Beijing’s
contribution to date has been relatively modest, a mere $150 million pledged by late
2005 compared with $900 million from Japan. Of late, China seems mostly engaged in
using diplomatic means to thwart an open-ended U.S. military presence in Afghanistan
and the region."

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/sr162.pdf
GDS-3950BH
Explorer
Dec 29, 2020
Huntindog wrote:
As far as trains go, I imagine the enviromental
study could be wrapped up in 10-20 years. :B

:B

Only currently does the 10-20 years apply.
In about a month that will change to 20-40 years and the price of the study will quadruple while they search for the ever elusive Unicorn fart as a power source, Come on man!.
Huntindog
Explorer
Dec 29, 2020
As far as trains go, I imagine the enviromental
study could be wrapped up in 10-20 years. :B