Green Energy

Posted on 30/04/2020 11:59 by brue

Sustainable energy, I'm sure you know what that means, the opposite of finite resources. 

I think you could argue till the proverbial "cows come home" but we are running out of time to sort this one. Yes, it costs money so people want a return on their investments in this tough old world. maybe we'll do it for free in the future? That would be good.

I'll leave it at that. 

Posted on 30/04/2020 13:28 by ChemicalJasper

"Sustainable energy, I'm sure you know what that means, the opposite of finite resources. wink"

I do, but do you?

That is my point and the point of the film exactly, the majority of the "sustainable" sources (biomass, solar, wind) are nothing like sustainable, they use more energy to create and sustain them, including infrastructure, as a whole life cycle (some as short as 15-20 years life span), that the off-set they provide is negative - i.e. Over the whole life cycle we are just making it worse from a true environmental perspective....other than the money being generated!

Unless you have actually watched the film it's fairly pointless debating it as you need understand the information presented, rather than what you currently think about the subject. You cannot form an opinion on the content of a comprehensive 1 hour 30 minute film, from a paragraph review based on what people potentially being exposed by the film say.

We need to save the planet, I want green solutions, but when did politicians start being driven by science rather than big business.

Green tech is the new oil rush, there is so much money up for grabs, whether it is actually green or not in the long term is inconsequential.

80% of "sustainable" energy is Biomass - it is chopped down all over the world, destroying habitats and shipped across the world in oil burning ships. To generate 1 year of energy for the US, it would take all the trees in the US...then what? - It simply is NOT sustainable. 

I would implore you to watch the film and then come back and tell me I'm wrong!

    

Posted on 30/04/2020 17:38 by Freddy55

“but when did politicians start being driven by science rather than big business.”

It probably passed you by, but there’s a nasty little virus doing the rounds 😉

Posted on 30/04/2020 17:59 by CJDM

Politicians are currently always saying that they are following scientific advice re the virus.  That's because nobody really had a clue regarding what was going to happen, so they took advice thereby covering their own b******es. After all, they are politicians

Posted on 30/04/2020 18:02 by JVB66

But in the background is the No 10 "adviser?" 

Posted on 30/04/2020 13:28 by ChemicalJasper

"Sustainable energy, I'm sure you know what that means, the opposite of finite resources. wink"

I do, but do you?

That is my point and the point of the film exactly, the majority of the "sustainable" sources (biomass, solar, wind) are nothing like sustainable, they use more energy to create and sustain them, including infrastructure, as a whole life cycle (some as short as 15-20 years life span), that the off-set they provide is negative - i.e. Over the whole life cycle we are just making it worse from a true environmental perspective....other than the money being generated!

Unless you have actually watched the film it's fairly pointless debating it as you need understand the information presented, rather than what you currently think about the subject. You cannot form an opinion on the content of a comprehensive 1 hour 30 minute film, from a paragraph review based on what people potentially being exposed by the film say.

We need to save the planet, I want green solutions, but when did politicians start being driven by science rather than big business.

Green tech is the new oil rush, there is so much money up for grabs, whether it is actually green or not in the long term is inconsequential.

80% of "sustainable" energy is Biomass - it is chopped down all over the world, destroying habitats and shipped across the world in oil burning ships. To generate 1 year of energy for the US, it would take all the trees in the US...then what? - It simply is NOT sustainable. 

I would implore you to watch the film and then come back and tell me I'm wrong!

    

Posted on 30/04/2020 18:16 by brue

CJ, you've been vociferous in the past about the oil industry, implying that you've been involved with it, so perhaps you have a vested interest but as you well know fossil fuels are not renewable. That's my last word on the matter and that is the whole point in the search for sustainable energy, finding renewables and finding the least polluting ones, not for us but for future generations who won't have access to oil and gas, it will all be gone.

I can form an opinion from a review but it wasn't the review that has given me my own thoughts on the matter, they've been there a long time. The main thought is "what are we going to do when fossil fuels run out?" 

Posted on 30/04/2020 18:16 by brue

CJ, you've been vociferous in the past about the oil industry, implying that you've been involved with it, so perhaps you have a vested interest but as you well know fossil fuels are not renewable. That's my last word on the matter and that is the whole point in the search for sustainable energy, finding renewables and finding the least polluting ones, not for us but for future generations who won't have access to oil and gas, it will all be gone.

I can form an opinion from a review but it wasn't the review that has given me my own thoughts on the matter, they've been there a long time. The main thought is "what are we going to do when fossil fuels run out?"