Folding Forum

The term "carbon footprint" is a propagandist's construct- a meaningless term that doesn't relate to anything in the real world, but which is used as a tool of manipulation by those who would gain even more power over you.
The idea that CO2 is a pollutant is preposterous, yet there are many "caring and feeling" people who take up the banner of saving the planet by reducing man's emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Mankind emits less than 1/3 of 1% of all greenhouse gases. CO2 emissions are but a tiny fraction of that small total. For that, we are being guilt- tripped into handing over even more of our treasure and freedom to a bunch of politicians? What a joke.

7im wrote:And would a Mod or Admin add a "[not true]" or something to that affect to the title. We don't want casual forum readers to get the wrong idea.

Did you retire?

I have 8 cores running now...but I doesnt matter really. Heat warms my apartment during the winter

I'm a materials engineer by trade. I work every day looking at the energy/cost benefits of various recycling technologies. Hence I don't deal with wishes and hopes, but with reality and hard economic numbers.

I dont suppose you mdk [or anyone for that matter] have figures on the energy cost of creating a solar panel or a windmill for a windfarm?

Matilda was a wind turbine located on Gotland, Sweden. It produced a total of 61.4 GW·h in the 15 years it was active. That is more renewable energy than any other single wind power turbine had ever produced to that date.

Large wind turbines like that typically consist of...
163+ tons total
1.5-5 Megawatt production
About 90% [140 tons?] Steel 5% Aluminium [8 tons?] and the rest various metals/fibreglass/concrete.


Steel Production [from ore]: 5.5 kW-h/kg
Aluminium Production [from bauxite]: 12.8kW-h/kg
PVC is 7.2 kWh kg-1


Energy cost in production for our 1.5 Megawatt producing turbine:
770,000kW-h in Steel
102,000kW-h in Aluminium production
Total: 872,000kW-h

That doesn't include the power consumed in transporting these monoliths to their resting places etc.

The tall towers and blades up to 90 meters long are difficult to transport. Transportation can now cost 20% of equipment costs.

I dunno, always been curious as to how much energy these "green" energy producing technologies would have to produce in order to give a positive net effect.

[Had a bit more of a search around and found out that with 1997 technology average solar cells would take 51 months to return a positive net energy production, ie. produce as much energy as it took to create it]

on a deeper level, i think to myself, what happened to the basic principle of physics that says you cannot create or destroy energy, only change its form. where would the energy from the sun be going that came here besides heat?

more practical, to answer kelliegang, monday on top gear jay leno told jeremy clarkson (about the prius) that its a fashion statement becuase here in america we need everybody to know about all the good works we do anonymously. so true... thats why we spend more energy creating them than they produce. so we can say we did it. its trendy right now

Thats the problem isn't it.... it's all so trendy we can't figure out what is actually FEASIBLE in terms of energy reduction. It was nice to read some research that showed that solar cells at least can return a net positive effect on their production costs after 6 years, unfortunately for solar cells to pay for themselves for my household usage it'd take 40 years.... And... I couldn't determine whether the cost of production in energy was from silica or included the processing of silica sand into silica.

I did find reference to a warrantied life-length... which doesn't sound promising for my situation

Each c-Si cell generates about 0.5V, so 36 cells are usually soldered together in series to produce a module with an output to charge a 12V battery. The cells are hermetically sealed under toughened, high transmission glass to produce highly reliable, weather resistant modules that may be warrantied for up to 25 years.

Couldnt find how much less energy the cells would produce 30 years down the track.

I bet all the aluminium recycling plants in the world are rubbing their hands together anticipating the carbon trading schemes worldwide though

Does your 40 years to recoup your solar investment take into account the projected rising cost of energy, or just 40 years at the current rate?

And the Stim Plan in the US just boosted the tax rebates from a few grand to 30% of the installation. I know, doesn't help existing installs, but you could expand your current array. As electrical demands tighten, the price the utilities pay out for feeding the grid should go up substantially as well, shortening the break even point more, IMO.

Current prices, though 6 years for a solar cell to have a positive net energy production doesn't include the ecological costs of silica mining either... one can rarely account for "everything".

Our electricity costs were just raised 20-25% recently.

And the Stim Plan in the US just boosted the tax rebates from a few grand to 30% of the installation.

NICE!! .... just before the financial crisis Australia was talking seriously about winding up the rebate on Solar Panel installation then they raised it from 4,000 to 8,000 which works out to about 10% of the cost of the panels I would require to produce more than I use :\

Dont get me wrong, I would love to be "self sufficient" through solar energy, nothing appeals to me more... If the Gov't offered a low interest loan over 20 years I'd snap it up in seconds. I'm just curious as to exactly how "green" the energy is


Disclaimer: "95% of statistics are made up on the spot" - Take all statistics not from peer-reviewed reputable journals with a grain of salt and always consider bias.http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/kit-eat ... -renewable

While PV cells are manufactured a little like any other semiconductor device on a silicon frame, the power efficiency of silicon-only cells is pretty limited. By doping the silicon with other elements and creating multi-junction devices, the efficiency can be pushed way up to around 40%. One element used for this purpose is indium, which is also used in indium gallium arsenide-based infrared detectors and mini lasers, and to make LCD screens.

But indium is actually an amazingly rare metal: It's present in very few mineral ores, and makes up just 0.25 parts per million of the earth's crust--compared to the 63,000 ppm of iron. Some researchers estimate that if we continue to use indium at the current rate there may be just a 10-year supply left

There's a similar problem for fuel cell technology. Part of the magic that turns hydrogen into electricity in a fuel cell is the use of platinum as a catalyst: It promotes the chemical reaction that generates power and thus boosts the efficiency of the resulting cell.

But platinum, which is also a precious metal used decoratively and commonly elsewhere in electronics manufacturing, is thousands of times less abundant than even indium--it's present at around 0.003 parts per billion in the crust.

So if there's a radical rethink of the way we're exploiting the unrenewable and eco-harming energy resources of our planet, and a massive shift towards renewable energy resources, then the useful lifespan of both of these rare metals as electronic components is frighteningly short.

how much does platinum it really need? and this is only once in the construction not the constantly right? how much is really needed and how often is it changed? so its even recyclable once a fuel cell car dies right? at this point its a shift in the right direction. later we'll make even more improvements, maybe even some other way to promote the chemical reaction, and later than that new technologies will come. and lets be honest. its quite possible with people in general and their attitudes toward their cars, that theyll never change it. first of all, how many people actually track their mpg properly? i mean write down the trip meter readouts and the gallons, do the math, not the computer estimates onboard. then, for the people not included in that, who REALLY resets their trip meter every time? and out of those that do, a slow degredation of mpg over time probably not even noticed. thne out of the couple left who do notice, how many will bother to dump tons of money into the car bringing it back up to proper when its running just fine the way it is as far as they care. believe me i know ive run repair shops. people will spend 100,000$ on a mercedes with traction control and abs and bla bla bla suspension based safety features then buy 20$ tires that cancel it all out. NOBODY wants to pay for car repairs. so unless the car stops running completely, i can guess a slow degredation of mpH ok that looks like miles per hour not hydrogen, lets try miles per pound probably? so i will predict that in the case of the platinum wearing out, and quite sure a small amount in any case, if the car runs its not getting fixed, ESPECIALLY while theyre making payments on it. and when it does of something else guess whats getting recycled, speakign of which was anyone else offended by the subaru commercial where it goes to car heaven? because subaru is so responsible. sorry but the manufacturer doesnt send it to the junkyard, the owner does, and im pretty sure theres more stuff in the junkyard than just subarus. nor did subaru invent the junkyard. but im the bad guy now for saying something as unPC as junkyard, i believe its recycle yard this week. i guess im also the bad guy for talking about people not taking care of their cars. im the bad guy for saying ethanol in the gas is bad not good. im the bad guy for saying hey what about that guy with no head gasket and no piston rings blowing out tongs of black or white smoke? how many cars running averagely, niot even well, just averagly, does that 1 car equal pollution in. im the bad guy for saying UAW and spending millions resaerching new suv models to produce that no ones gonna buy. seriously, a new hummer? people couldnt even drive their explorers. people give em away used just to get out from the payments, but we need a H4. theres a company that deserves money. yeah its the economy why youre losing money. hey lets pay some union gangster asshole 40$ hour to ride around in a golf cart and pick up trash bags. well if you dont we're gonna shut the entire plant down. theyre punks and thugs and unions are antiquated and need to die. we dont need you any more we have OSHA and tons of regulations. even worse, you dabble in politics. youre a burden to the world. you wanna talk about the economy? toyota lost money in 2008, the first yearly loss in 80 years. thats the economy, not this mickey mouse bullshit. if they can produce a better car, import it, and sell for the same price as your junk thatll break in a year and costs more, you dont deserve the sale. please can we bend over the tax payers? sure we'll make a big show of selling ONE of our many planes and take $1/year salary with millions in bonuses. but how much is wasted a day in union BS and worthless r&d. well you know what, you dont have the guts to be what you wanna be. you people need people like me, so you can point your finger and say thats the bad guy. so say goodnight to the bad guy. last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again let me tell you.

anyway the reason people dont drive electric cars is what i call the leash. the power cord is a leash. you only have half the milage as a distace you can go. then it takes several hours to fill up. the thing that makes the honda so exciting is there are stations to fill up. it takes about the same time as gas. it doesnt look like a gay space ship. within california there is no leash. the hydrogen costs the same as the gas for now until gas goes back up then its even better. the thing that makes it the future is that its exactly like what we have now. its not a step back limiting our driving freedom. and dont try to bring up flex fuel that was a stupid idea for so many reasons. we shouldnt even be putting ethanol in our regular gas. the chevy volt is a much better idea. and good looking. thats SO important. for now tesla motors is at the front of battery technology and development. even designing a new set of battery cells for mercedes/swatch for a new hybrid version of the smart. other companies also paying them for to design battery cells for their cars also. imagine that, an all american car company MAKING A PROFIT every year consistantly. theyre sold out before the model year production begins. theyre expanding operations, opening new factories, creating jobs, furthering the science and technology. but lets go over here and reward these other companies with bailout money that are slaves to the UAW and have been losing money every year for over a decade, not just now in the recession.

how much does platinum it really need? and this is only once in the construction not the constantly right? how much is really needed and how often is it changed? so its even recyclable once a fuel cell car dies right?

To be honest, no idea but what is actually recycled in the car industry right now? almost nothing except for replacement parts for the old broken ones which you can get from smash repairs/scrapyards.... but where does your broken part go? landfill?

sorry but the manufacturer doesnt send it to the junkyard, the owner does, and im pretty sure theres more stuff in the junkyard than just subarus.

It made me laugh seeing the latest suggestion by the automotive industry that the government pay people for crushing their old cars in order to get them to buy new ones with "greener" technology.... the cars weren't being recycled, the metals aren't being melted down.... just crushing the lot and stacking it in scrapheaps....
Yeah... great green idea

im the bad guy for saying ethanol in the gas is bad not good.

My lancer when it was new [and for the first 2 years] averaged 450-500km per tank [40L]. I'm no good at looking after vehicles and money is tight so drove it into the ground getting manufacturer recommended services only and used [unknowingly first, then knowingly] 5-10% ethanol replacement fuel for the last 3 years and it was down to 360km per tank maximum.
It died the other day so I got the timing belt service done at 100,000km and they blew out all the built up crap from the ethanol fuel which had been choking the engine until it could no longer run. I'm now driving a 5 year old car getting the same mile per gallon that I was when it was brand new [back up to 509km per tank in average driving].

Uhhh.... this topic seems to have strayed a little off topic. So...........

I own a Kill-A-Watt, which is one of those handy $15-20 devices you can plug into an outlet and it does all kinds of whiz-bang stuff, the most relevant of which is showing the instantaneous power consumption as well as energy usage over time. I plugged a kill-a-watt into my fridge and left it there for about a week while my family of 3 used the fridge in its normal capacity. It's one of those split down the middle types, freezer on one side, fridge on the other. Apparently bottom-freezer units are more efficient due to the whole principle of cold air falling to the bottom. Makes sense. Anyway, bottom line is that over the course of a week it averaged 2.4 kw/h a day. A PS3 consuming 200 watts would be 4.8 kw/h a day, so even the MOST power consuming PS3 is 2x my fridge. I hear the newer PS3's are only 135 watts, which is 3.2 kw/h a day.

7im wrote:the price the utilities pay out for feeding the grid should go up substantially as well, shortening the break even point more, IMO.

So I did some more researching...

Apparantly the price that the grid pays you here in QLD australia is 44c per kwh... which is double and then some on the price you have to pay for your energy consumption... so assuming it's installed for domestic purposes and you work 9-5 and consume only base amounts of energy whilst the solar panels are producing, you can basically use 2-3x what your panels are capable of producing and still come out on top in terms of energy cost per month. [but this is only helping your bottom line, not so much the planet]

If you take into consideration loan costs for the installation of the panels [for the biggest panels you can fit on an average roof]. The only way the whole system pays for itself completely in the 25 year warranty and loan period is if you only use 1400kwh per quarter [not including your hot water heating] and you use it mainly whilst the sun is down or low.

After 25 years you'd be making money every quarter though.

Of course if you're not covering 100% of your usage then what's the point? The rest would have to be purchased "green" anyhow to make a difference... so overall you'd be better off just paying that $4 a week extra to BUY green energy [which also encourages more green energy production]

buy green energy? i have to hear this one. please explain this to me before i last out in a rant about how thats not possible im gonna keep an open mind so just tell me

spazzychalk wrote:buy green energy? i have to hear this one. please explain this to me before i last out in a rant about how thats not possible im gonna keep an open mind so just tell me

Here in Arizona (and probably other forward-thinking states) the utility companies let you pick either a percentage or a dollar amount to put towards renewable energy. We have a number of small solar power plants here in Arizona with at least two very large-scale (several square miles in size) solar-thermal generation plants in construction. Since these energy plants cost more, they make it voluntary to pay more for your bill in order to have it go directly towards helping to pay the higher cost of construction of these plants versus the ubiquitous coal-fired plants around the state.

ok i was right then. youre not paying for green power youre paying for construction of it.

The way it works in Australia is the energy companies which supply you, purchase energy from a "Greenpower" supplier based on your elected amount of kwh [either a specific number per day/quarter/year or equal to the % of your personal use that you elected, 10-100%].

There are other concepts where you purchase credits but I'm far more dubious of these.

Solar power fed into the grid by private residences/schools/farmers/businesses is now being paid out to the tune of 44c per kwh by the energy networks to encourage farmers/entrepreneurs to set aside half an acre of land to set up a solar power "farm" which can be worth 35,000 per year, the costs of setup able to be depreciated over time to make it worthwhile.