- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California officially becomes first in nation mandating solar power for new homes
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:21 pm to Displaced
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:21 pm to Displaced
quote:
What about the batteries?
Do you realize how many extra batteries would be needed to meet the demands of one of the largest state in the nation going to solar powered homes?
Not to mention all the batteries for the growing number of electric cars.
I know liberals want to think electrical and solar power, which both require batteries, are somehow better for the environment than petroleum. But if they actually knew what went into making a battery and the environmental impact it has, they’d think different. Even the lowest grade dirty coal is better for the environment than producing batteries.
1
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:24 pm to doubleb
What is the energy footprint on those factories that produce solar panels and cells?
And what happens to the old, broken solar panels and cells?
And what happens to the old, broken solar panels and cells?
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:29 pm to TheCaterpillar
No lie, I was watching Tucker Carlson the other night, think it was Tuesday. He was talking to a “Socialist Democrat” about global warming. One of her arguments was that since we can make electric cars, we can make... get this... electric jets. I shite you not. This idiot was dead serious. She thinks we can make electric powered passenger jets.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:30 pm to Darth_Vader
I’d love to hear the engineering involved in one of those puppies 
Tucker a smug douche though
Tucker a smug douche though
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:33 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I’d love to hear the engineering involved in one of those puppies
First, how the hell is a an electric engine going to produce thrust?
Second, imagine the size of the batteries it would take to power such an engine. The plane would weigh as much as an aircraft carrier.
This post was edited on 12/6/18 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:35 pm to Darth_Vader
Heard Musk is getting to mars on just wind energy.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:39 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
I’d love to hear the engineering involved in one of those puppies
I was laughing and then I googled. There are actually a few interesting concepts out there. Now, whether it will ever be able to be scaled to commercial travel, I have no idea. And range is a major issue as will be price, I'm sure. Still, pretty neat.
LINK
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:40 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
No lie, I was watching Tucker Carlson the other night, think it was Tuesday. He was talking to a “Socialist Democrat” about global warming. One of her arguments was that since we can make electric cars, we can make... get this... electric jets. I shite you not. This idiot was dead serious. She thinks we can make electric powered passenger jets.
You do understand that in your haste to poke fun at someone else's ignorance, you actually exposed yourself...
Electric Jets are currently being developed by a number of companies
Not to mention the term "jet" is not strictly limited to combustion engines
Specific design concepts for a vertical-takeoff-and-landing supersonic electric jet were first made public by Musk in 2014. The concept includes a large percentage of the aircraft by weight being made up of high-capacity batteries and significantly decreasing the amount of aircraft structure devoted to control surfaces, depending to a greater extent on "gimbaling the electric fan" for control of aircraft attitude.[1]
Some clear advantages of an electric jet are that when going downwards the jet could theoretically charge the batteries from the energy moving downwards caused by the earth's gravity upon the plane. In a fuel powered jet the engines are still burning fuel when descending, this is similar to the regenerative braking of an electric car where the kinetic energy is stored in the batteries when the vehicle slows down. Another advantage is safety, in the rare case of an accident the risk of fire and or explosion which cause many of the airline accident deaths would be nearly zero as there is no jet fuel to combust on impact. In the need of an emergency landing there would be no need to "dump fuel" like with a jet fuel powered aircraft, which is done to reduce the aircraft weight to a safe gross weight for landing the aircraft safely without risk, in battery powered jet such practices are now redundant. One other advantage is the weight of the electric jet is no more a factor related to having to carry the weight of the fuel and then burn it off, the weight would be static irrespective of the amount of "fuel" (in this case stored electrical charge) being carried.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:41 pm to HammerheadLincoln
quote:
I don't know if this is the right way to go about this, but eventually we are going to need to shift away from fossil fuels.
Why?
quote:
I say we increase our use of solar, wind, and nuclear energy wherever it's feasible to do so.
Most people are still afraid of the danger of nuclear energy.
As for solar, intermittency is always going to be a problem in basically every state in America except California. You can say the same for wind. Ironically Texas is the largest wind power producer in the entire country.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:46 pm to RLDSC FAN
I think it’s a great idea in theory. Gets people less depended on fossil fuels. And $10,000 extra on top of the cost of the home isn’t a staggering increase. But I don’t know if I agree that it should be law. I don’t like big gov, but I’m okay with this.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:51 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Electric Jets are currently being developed by a number of companies
Just give me a "personal transporter" and yall can have all the jets and cars your heart desires.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:51 pm to Tigeralum2008
Let me know when they figure out how to lift a 747 30,000 ft in the air over New York and fly it across the Atlantic using electricity.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 4:53 pm to TigersHuskers
quote:If we didn't go to the moon there damn sure isn't a sun.
frick SOLAR
Posted on 12/6/18 at 5:48 pm to Bard
quote:
The unintended consequences from this should be interesting to watch.
California to the rest of the US - "Hey guys, watch this!"
Posted on 12/6/18 at 7:14 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
Why?
Because one day there won't be any left. I know that's not going to be remotely any time soon, but we might as well start getting ready for that eventuality sooner rather than later.
quote:
Most people are still afraid of the danger of nuclear energy.
As for solar, intermittency is always going to be a problem in basically every state in America except California. You can say the same for wind. Ironically Texas is the largest wind power producer in the entire country.
Nuclear energy is actually pretty safe, hopefully over time people's fears about it will diminish.
With improved battery technology the indeterminacy of solar/wind will become less of an issue. I know it's still an issue now, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it to increase our use of it.
I was also surprised about Texas. I did the drive between Dallas and Amarillo recently and I was surprised about the amount of windmills there were.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 7:15 pm to RLDSC FAN
I'm ok with this. State's rights and what not. I don't want the feds to do it though.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 7:18 pm to RLDSC FAN
As long as they frick over their own selves I don't give a shite.
The problem is this shite spreads
If solar panels were attractive people would demand them.
The problem is this shite spreads
If solar panels were attractive people would demand them.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 7:30 pm to HammerheadLincoln
quote:
Because one day there won't be any left.
How do you know? How far into the future are we talking? One day the sun will burn out too and maybe that happens before we run out of fossil fuels.
quote:
but we might as well start getting ready for that eventuality sooner rather than later.
So we should strangle technology and force only chosen technologies down our throats for the sake of something that might not happen for hundreds of years?
quote:
Nuclear energy is actually pretty safe,
We still have no way to shield radiation in the event of a nuclear meltdown. I shouldn't have to point out the several instances where a nuclear meltdown was catastrophic. That's largely the central fear the average voter has.
quote:
hopefully over time people's fears about it will diminish.
Even in France, where everything is supposedly climate friendly, they discussed shutting down nuclear as part of the Paris climate agreement.
quote:
With improved battery technology the indeterminacy of solar/wind will become less of an issue.
Well until that technology gets invented and hits the market....
quote:
I know it's still an issue now, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth it to increase our use of it.
If you have to uproot current technology (power anytime we want with the flip of a switch) and replace it with worse technology (requires sunlight or wind), you re doing it wrong.
Even if the US was 100% renewable energy powered, China and India would cancel them out. A single volcanic eruption could cancel out decades of climate change measures.
Also, being "climate friendly" is really expensive and mostly a problem addressed by rich nations. There are villages all over the world still with no clean water or reliable power infrastructure. I think those people arent too worries about solar panels.
Theres a reason climate change policies are championed by the super mega ultra rich.
quote:
I was also surprised about Texas. I did the drive between Dallas and Amarillo recently and I was surprised about the amount of windmills there were.
Because Texas has the land and doesnt have the extensive amount of environmental regulations that a state like California has. California is it's own worst enemy.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 7:31 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Specific design concepts for a vertical-takeoff-and-landing supersonic electric jet were first made public by Musk in 2014.
You are one of the too many STEM-challenged retards that believes in the Hyperloop too, aren't ya?
quote:
Another advantage is safety, in the rare case of an accident the risk of fire and or explosion which cause many of the airline accident deaths would be nearly zero as there is no jet fuel to combust on impact.
You are truly ignorant. Go short circuit a Li-po cell, go watch videos of these batteries suffering from thermal runaway. They burn hotter than jet fuel and take special chemical extinguishers to put out. You are utterly stupid if you think a plane crashing with thousands of pounds of any type of battery with the energy density required to move a jet over long distances isn't going to be killing people when it crashes.
Posted on 12/6/18 at 7:34 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I know liberals want to think electrical and solar power, which both require batteries, are somehow better for the environment than petroleum. But if they actually knew what went into making a battery and the environmental impact it has, they’d think different. Even the lowest grade dirty coal is better for the environment than producing batteries
Bingo...DRC brings you coltan batteries for electric cars
youtube DRC minerals coltan
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News