It isn't. The bastards who make money off dirty energy want to keep making money from it, so they fund "research" saying its bad.
and none of those places have the military power to back their claims if someone tried to step to them. Also, if they get uppity they'll be getting a does of freedom and democracy just like every other place that's tried it... why do you think we're still fucking with the middle east =/
Hehe, yeah I'm not sure if it is that bad, but the profit margin seems to be smaler these days. Around here every time one of them can squezze out another couple years of time they get to operate usually causes rich fucks to dance in the streets, because their calculation just got a whole lot better.
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
I don't think i ever heard anyone claim it was bad...
It has mostly to do with the big guys investing into the other kind of energy and their inability to go back on their choice.
It is in the US, because America has such an incredibly rotten political sphere where any form of progressive policies are being fought tooth and nail by VERY strong economic interests at all times. The US really needs to strengthen their policies with regards to conflict of interest. I mean several department heads are responsible for regulating an industry they were previously a part of. The latest example (I think, hard to keep up) would be the ex-Verizon lawyer being the head of the FCC and now pushing to kill net neutrality.
Since the oil/coil companies have a shitton of money they can buy significant political influence and spend tons of money on misinformation, which causes Americans to have record breaking disbelief in scientific concensus on climate change, and other issues as well.
It would turn billionaires into millionaires.
And for a capitalist fascists country that isn't good.
I'd like to point out that while clean energy is important. It's even more important to have renewable energy. A lot of people in this thread basically said money was the problem. Well, most people including the fossil fuel industry agree it isn't a problem anymore. They see a path to maintain their businesses and they are actively investing in it. That is why companies like Exxon have switched sides on the climate change debate. You won't see a lot of resistance unless you're getting your news from the 80's and 90's.
Back to my point though. The price of energy effects the market more than the pollution it causes. Renewable energy can be very cheap since you don't have to dig it out of the ground or drill deep under the ocean. Once your initial investment is done it's pure profit minus maintenance. So it's a given that it will completely replace most fossil fuels in the near future based purely on better pricing. Of course renewable energy is also carbon neutral and creates less pollution. The pollution that it does create is easier to handle.
And that is good.
More attention should be given to generation four nuclear reactors. Much of our carbon neutral, air pollution free energy comes from nuclear right now. But the reactors are old and need to be replaced. Newer reactors are much safer and create much less waste. They are a good solution for areas that don't have a lot of wind and sun or don't have the money to build storage capacity into their grid. India for example. Or China.
Transition technologies that pollute less and provide a smooth transition are great too. Here's an example. This is a fuel cell that's being developed. It uses gas like you would use for your oven or heater. But it doesn't burn it. It's has a very high efficiency (50%) and releases zero emissions at the point of use. So instead of having the inefficiencies of burning gas at a power plant and then delivering it over power lines to your home you produce it right inside your house. It's a great product for places where gas is cheap.
http://www.cerespower.com/
Natural gas is replacing coal in the US and that's why coal is in trouble, pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords isn't going to help that.
.
"This will be a fight against overwhelming odds from which survival cannot be expected. We will do what damage we can."
-- Capt. Copeland
Did they fix any of the problems that usually make fuel cells DOA?
Like being heavy, low energy density,high maintenance, issues with the catalyst/electrolyte membrane, operating temperatures, etc..?
Also you say it uses gas? So some kind of methane? What's the redox reaction here? Where does the carbon go?
Last edited by Cosmic Janitor; 2017-06-02 at 07:10 AM.
Hear, hear!
The Fall of Old The School Western Ways. <3
... and yet, they're after the North Pole -_-
Also,
http://nypost.com/2017/05/17/dubai-w...r-fresh-water/
I would encourage you to watch the video and do more research on their site for specifics. I can tell you a few things though. They've sold 150k of them in Japan, apparently there is a big market there for them since they are shutting down their nuclear power plants.
The fuel cells are made of steel and ceramic so they are very cheap and the catalyst is not made of rare elements. It seemed like a very compact unit. They showed a 1 kilowatt hour cell installed in a house. It was fairly compact about the 4 foot by 2 foot in size. It produced some heat but was negligible.
It can run on hydrogen, biofuel or natural gas. It's not carbon neutral its low carbon. If you were running it on hydrogen produced from a renewable power plant then it would be though.
They seem to be looking at ramping up production. In the near future.
For more details you'll have to do more research on your own.
People like these two students make clean energy SEEM bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lY-AIhGbU
What I mean is people need to fully understand all the facts before saying one or the other are bad. I'm not saying oil and the like is good nor am I denying the negative effects of them but "Clean Energy" has become such a buzz word these days that people just cling to it.
It's "bad" because consumers can't afford to pay for it. If it could be done at a large scale cheaply, "clean" energy would replace oil and coal as quickly as the infrastructure could support it. Which is, in and of itself, another problem that is tied to consumer wealth. You cannot, for example, tell someone who earns $25k/year they need to buy a brand-new $30k automobile that is either battery-operated or uses some hypothetical exotic fuel, to replace the beater they can barely afford to keep on the road as is, because the economics of it just do not work out.
OMG 13:37 - Then Jesus said to His disciples, "Cleave unto me, and I shall grant to thee the blessing of eternal salvation."
And His disciples said unto Him, "Can we get Kings instead?"