Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
Going green is Bullshit?
- Thread starter javaguru
- Start date
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
lol I was reading up on the Ice Age BS from the 1970's a while ago.
I am surprised Penn and Teller are attacking global warming. Good stuff!
"We'll hit the streets with a bullshit experiment" lol
Nice chart on the solar cycles.
This show is a riot!!! Is it on TV? Eco anxiety lol ETF!! That chick is a kook! And the fools in the group meeting. I bet they all will vote for the man whose name I cannot mention.
I am surprised Penn and Teller are attacking global warming. Good stuff!
"We'll hit the streets with a bullshit experiment" lol
Nice chart on the solar cycles.
This show is a riot!!! Is it on TV? Eco anxiety lol ETF!! That chick is a kook! And the fools in the group meeting. I bet they all will vote for the man whose name I cannot mention.
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
75th said:
Watch. It is HILARIOUS. The group meeting with the eco anxiety pricks is insanity at its best. I can now see how cults form and idiots commit mass suicide.
chris302001
Banned
PICK3 said:Aren't you concerned about your carbon footprint
I'm concerned about my carbon dick print..........that things gotta be huge!
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
PICK3 said:Aren't you concerned about your carbon footprint
I get rid of mine daily in the toilet. I can send you it if you want to add to yours...
javaguru
Banned
While humans do leave an ecological footprint, all the earth has to do is activate a few "super volcanoes" and we're fucked....nothing we can do about that.PICK3 said:
"A full-scale eruption of the Yellowstone caldera could result in millions of deaths. The last full-scale eruption, the so-called Lava Creek eruption, ejected approximately 240 cubic miles of rock and dust into the sky."
chris302001
Banned
Oceano said:
you're being sarcastic right????/
chris302001
Banned
Oceano said:
okay, sometimes I have a hard time detecting things like sarcasm and IQ in one's font....but thanks for clearing up the questions I had about your IQ........
then again, ur from the UK, so I dont expect you to understand the geologic forces goin on at Yellowstone.....its all good!!
chris302001
Banned
Oceano said:
Annoying it?????? well what made the caldera go nutz last time it blew? Were dinosaurs or wooley mammoths annoying it?
chris302001
Banned
java.....he's not really this dumb is he?
oceano, visit wiki and learn.......
Yellowstone has seismic activity almost daily.....it is one giant volcano.......
you can learn about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
please visit this site to learn that most of the time (if not all the time) volcanoes erupt without any precipitating human factor.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/volcano.htm
I chose websites that are easy to read and understand for you.
You're welcome.
oceano, visit wiki and learn.......
Yellowstone has seismic activity almost daily.....it is one giant volcano.......
you can learn about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
please visit this site to learn that most of the time (if not all the time) volcanoes erupt without any precipitating human factor.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/volcano.htm
I chose websites that are easy to read and understand for you.
You're welcome.
75th said:
I did, good shit.
chris302001
Banned
Oceano said:
billions of years?? jeez, you really dont have a clue do you? Earth is only 4.5 billion years old (and yes that is very young cosmically speaking), so saying billionS........ehhhhhh, I'm just nit picking now....
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
javaguru said:
The tidal waves that occurred last year were caused by a joint Indian / Israeli nuke test.
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
javaguru said:
I agree.
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
mrplunkey said:
Does it come with bad teeth, ugly women, and a free tour through the Muslim districts of London?
digimon7068
New member
chris302001
Banned
digimon7068 said:
lololol
digimon7068
New member
anybody got a line on some organic dbol. . .that was made in a lab that uses only recycled materials. . .under those goofy, curly-que, mercury-laden flourescent light bulbs. . .powered by windmills. . .where no animals were harmed during the manufacturing process??
I looked into solar panels for my house about 8 years ago. Not for "going green", but because I'm a cheapass and wanted to save money on my utility bills.
Yeah, they were too expensive. They wanted about $32,000 for the whole house and it would have saved me $30/month. pfft.
Yeah, they were too expensive. They wanted about $32,000 for the whole house and it would have saved me $30/month. pfft.
digimon7068
New member
gonelifting said:
look again. . .in many instances (i believe) there are funds available from the gov't through your electric company to help offset quite a bit of the cost. . .also, if you convert everything (heating, cooling, cooking, hot water heater, etc.) to electric you can increase your savings significantly. . .however, you'll still have the upfront cost of anything that you "convert". . .
i haven't looked into it much myself. . .i don't know if we have enough sunny days here in the alleghenies to make it worthwhile. . .
digimon7068 said:
Yep, New Jersey had about $12,000 in rebates at the time.
walliwalibus
New member
I thought going green was about smoking some funny cigs man.......................
javaguru
Banned
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/flat/bown/2007/green/item_59.htmlgonelifting said:
Imagine a solar panel without the panel. Just a coating, thin as a layer of paint, that takes light and converts it to electricity. From there, you can picture roof shingles with solar cells built inside and window coatings that seem to suck power from the air. Consider solar-powered buildings stretching not just across sunny Southern California, but through China and India and Kenya as well, because even in those countries, going solar will be cheaper than burning coal. That’s the promise of thin-film solar cells: solar power that’s ubiquitous because it’s cheap. The basic technology has been around for decades, but this year, Silicon Valley–based Nanosolar created the manufacturing technology that could make that promise a reality.
The company produces its PowerSheet solar cells with printing-press-style machines that set down a layer of solar-absorbing nano-ink onto metal sheets as thin as aluminum foil, so the panels can be made for about a tenth of what current panels cost and at a rate of several hundred feet per minute. With backing from Google’s founders and $20 million from the U.S. Department of Energy, Nanosolar’s first commercial cells rolled off the presses this year.
Cost has always been one of solar’s biggest problems. Traditional solar cells require silicon, and silicon is an expensive commodity (exacerbated currently by a global silicon shortage). What’s more, says Peter Harrop, chairman of electronics consulting firm IDTechEx, “it has to be put on glass, so it’s heavy, dangerous, expensive to ship and expensive to install because it has to be mounted.” And up to 70 percent of the silicon gets wasted in the manufacturing process. That means even the cheapest solar panels cost about $3 per watt of energy they go on to produce. To compete with coal, that figure has to shrink to just $1 per watt.
Nanosolar’s cells use no silicon, and the company’s manufacturing process allows it to create cells that are as efficient as most commercial cells for as little as 30 cents a watt. “You’re talking about printing rolls of the stuff—printing it on the roofs of 18-wheeler trailers, printing it on garages, printing it wherever you want it,” says Dan Kammen, founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. “It really is quite a big deal in terms of altering the way we think about solar and in inherently altering the economics of solar.”
In San Jose, Nanosolar has built what will soon be the world’s largest solar-panel manufacturing facility. CEO Martin Roscheisen claims that once full production starts early next year, it will create 430 megawatts’ worth of solar cells a year—more than the combined total of every other solar plant in the U.S. The first 100,000 cells will be shipped to Europe, where a consortium will be building a 1.4-megawatt power plant next year.
Right now, the biggest question for Nanosolar is not if its products can work, but rather if it can make enough of them. California, for instance, recently launched the Million Solar Roofs initiative, which will provide tax breaks and rebates to encourage the installation of 100,000 solar roofs per year, every year, for 10 consecutive years (the state currently has 30,000 solar roofs). The company is ready for the solar boom. “Most important,” Harrop says, “Nanosolar is putting down factories instead of blathering to the press and doing endless experiments. These guys are getting on with it, and that is impressive.” nanosolar.com —MICHAEL MOYER
digimon7068
New member
javaguru said:
is it worth looking into right now iyho?? your weather (sunny days vs overcast days) is probably pretty similar to where i'm at AND i live on a plateau (rather than in a valley) so the potential isn't limited by the surrounding geography. what do you think??
javaguru
Banned
This is the first generation which means in five to ten years it might be more affordable. I doubt it's worth it for the average homeowner, the article claims they can produce it for .30 a watt, if they sell it for .60 a watt it's still pretty pricey. The new technology is harnessing infrared light as well which means more power generation on cloudy days. Currently solar panels can utilize about 6% of the suns energy but with new technology they're expecting to get that number up to 30%. Currently, under the worst conditions, completely overcast and raining/snowing a solar panel will produce 20%-25% of a clear sunny day and a partly cloudy day it will produce 75% of a clear sunny day. Now that I've given you a confusing answer, I would check back in 4-5 years and see if it's worth it.digimon7068 said:
Oh, and in your calculations don't forget solar is DC and in the conversion to A/C you lose about 10% of the energy.
digimon7068
New member
javaguru said:
actually. . .i guess i was wondering what you thought of the current technology. . .you know. . .the solar roofing materials??
i'm going to build a big-ass garage in my backyard. . .is it worth looking into the solar roofing stuff and the batteries and what-not??
inkspot
New member
No I don't think it's bullshit. As in everything else, there are extremists. I loath the Sierra Club for closing down my favorite dirt bike riding spots. Save the Yucca's..geeze. But on the flip side I recycle 80% of household stuff, save the planet: clip the plastic from 6 pks, save the birds; walk or ride a bike to work. save the air. The hard core greenies would rather save the planet before the people. I wonder how green Al Gore is?
Powerbuilder333
Timeout? No, timeouts are for Plats
I can't see any down side to recycling, and conserving energy/resources. Key word = conserving (as in turning off the lights when you leave a room), not eliminating the use of...
I avoid wastage not because I'm a eco-fascist, but because I'm a cheap SOB!
I read that Al Gore has made $20 million off of his global warming movie and speeches. Fucker lives in a mansion and travels in a private airplane. Is it hip to be a hypocrite?
I avoid wastage not because I'm a eco-fascist, but because I'm a cheap SOB!
I read that Al Gore has made $20 million off of his global warming movie and speeches. Fucker lives in a mansion and travels in a private airplane. Is it hip to be a hypocrite?
walliwalibus
New member
inkspot said:
Up until he literally turned green from that mine he had in his back yard he wasn't green. As far as I know its still there. Let me find out what he was mining.
sardonicone
New member
Oceano said:
Yellowstone on AVERAGE blows about once every ~600,000 years. The last eruption was over 600,000 years ago.
And no, Homo Erectus wasn't testing nukes back then.
big_bad_buff
New member
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073
yes global warming caused by man is totaly BS, it just shows how stupid and gullible humans are...sure, keep the world clean, stop littering...the end
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073
yes global warming caused by man is totaly BS, it just shows how stupid and gullible humans are...sure, keep the world clean, stop littering...the end
inkspot
New member
javaguru said:
I'll call you on this one. I had to look up Penn & Teller. Shocking I know. Who would have thought famous magicians could turn into foul mouthed wanna be debunkers. Sitting through 30 mins of Penn was grueling.
Here is an excerpt taken from wikipedia:
Penn & Teller "Bullshit"
Allegations (and acknowledgement) of bias
Many critics accuse Penn and Teller of being biased in their approach to debunking their opponents' arguments. For example, Chaz Miller, who was interviewed for the "Recycling" episode, said that Bullshit! attempts to exclude certain information if it does not favor the show's position. Some of these claims do not go without rebuttal: the Recycling episode does mention information on beneficial recycling though, specifically that recycling aluminum cans and other metals is in fact beneficial.
While Penn and Teller are self-professed skeptics, critics have been quick to note that Bullshit! is not dedicated to fact-based debunking or inquiry. An otherwise favorable review by The Onion A.V. Club noted:
Bullshit! isn't journalism, exactly. The show is one-sided by design: P&T's field interviewers rarely confront their subjects with the evidence against them, preferring to let the crackpots ramble on so that Jillette's voiceover rejoinders can score points without inciting a real argument.
Recycling
The myth-busting website De-Fact-o.com has criticized Penn & Teller's source on paper recycling (Daniel K. Benjamin, "Eight Great Myths of Recycling"), saying that Benjamin relied on outdated studies to make some of his claims.[16]
I don't believe I made a comment on landfills except to thank you for your contributions. Let's face it, landfills will always be needed. We are a throw away society. All I'm sayin' is if we all do something it is better than doing nothing.
chris302001
Banned
javaguru said:He pointed out we have more trees in the US than we did in the 1920's due to the fact they have an economic value. As far as redwoods being "better" than other trees, you some kind of tree racist?
We had a deck made of redwood, and I remember getting slivers and them hurting worse than other slivers....fucking redwoods........
Or maybe that was just chemicals that the wood was treated with giving me a burn.........
inkspot
New member
LOL okay the redwoods were a bad example.javaguru said:He pointed out we have more trees in the US than we did in the 1920's due to the fact they have an economic value. As far as redwoods being "better" than other trees, you some kind of tree racist?
FACT: The US is the world's largest consumer of paper
FACT: Nearly 4 billion trees worldwide are cut down each year for paper, representing about 35% of all harvested trees. Many of the trees used for paper come from tree farms which are planted and replenished for that purpose.
So yes they have economic value so what? What's the difference between tree farms and flowers farms?
Penn's point was that recycling paper means a decrease in trees planted. Again so what? Supply and demand.
My point still is if it can be recycled, it should be. btw that little bit with the 10 trash cans and the two unfortunate nimwits was funny. Candid camera came to mind lol
canadianhitman
Well-known member
PICK3 said:Aren't you concerned about your carbon footprint
Not at all. As long as third world countries are burning the filtihiest fuels as their primary energy sources, and have no controls whatsoever on industrial pollution, why the fuck should I drive a coke can on wheels or suffer without air conditioning. It's not even gonna make a dent.
