The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
[Energy] In the end, we'll still use liquified dinosaur carcasses for something
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Hemp may not be a silver bullet, but the fact that it is a soil friendly and quick growing crop (ready for harvest in 4 months, apparently) seems to be fairly self explanatory.
The fact that it can be grown with a similar amount of effort and money as corn (with less of a chance for failed crops due to sativa being a hardier plant), with similar water needs and much reduced pesticide requirements is a win win situation. We don't fuck up our trees and we can stop growing so much damn corn that's used for the entirely useless ethanol.
What I'm saying is that farmers will be able to grow a crop that is industrial in nature, and it'll help the environment without much change.
Something I've wondered about solar thermal, especially the ones that use the giant updraft towers, is what kind of effect having a lot of those things around would have on weather patterns. Maybe they aren't a large enough source of ground heat in the grand scheme of things to have any real effect?
They simply redirect energy that would otherwise... be absorbed by the ground anyway
Unfortunately, the resources required to transform solar energy into electricity are not byproducts of solar energy, the question is how long can industrial society sustain itself, not how long will life last
Yeah, there's burning the plant by-products, but unless you can easily make biodiesel you don't have the energy density requires to be useful
well, technically... yes they are.
There is also solar thermal, and the stuff it requires isn't particularly hard to come by.
In the sense that they were formed by fusion maybe. Thermal is better (though in the long run running the turbine may cause problems) but PV requires depletable resources to manufacture the panels
We sure are in imminent peril of running out of sand!
PV requires depletable resources, from our perspective, to the same extent that we might run out of sunlight. The quantities of not silicon used are tiny, and silicon is literally everywhere. You're sitting on tons of it right now. Everything else you need to do it is easily obtained - even the bake-out process could be simply and easily powered by concentrated sunlight.
According to this paper, supplying the current energy needs with PV would require 5.5 million sq km or given a 30 year life span the manufacture of about 180000 sq km / year. I'm guessing that current production is a few orders of magnitude less than that. It's hard to find any sources about specifics, but one source says that a company manufactured about 100MW worth of panels with about 6000 tons of waste product, and another says that about 750000 tons of solar panel-related waste product will be disposed of in CA including 1000 tons of lead and 300 tons of cadmium. There are also byproducts to the production of the silicon crystals needed to make the panels in the first place. While recycling may help, I don't know how much would be reclaimed and the energy costs of that reclaiming
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
If you want to argue for hemp, post something that talks about its efficiency compared to modern tree farms using real numbers. Otherwise, people here are going to thing you are a goose. A cliched hippy goose.
I love how the naysayers are free to not post a bit of evidence but anyone suggesting alternatives is shouted down. Also, hippy, really?
It is the nature of rhetoric. Post real numbers about hemp. Refute the fact that those things you linked are intentionally misleading about the nature of paper sources and their connection to deforestation. Otherwise you aren't going to convince people to believe other than they already do about subjects they have debated before and taken the time to educate themselves about.
Yes hippy. Absolutely. Or stoner. People will typically hear hemp as a silver bullet very poorly, due to their past associations with people who have expressed the opinion.
So, suggesting industrial hemp as an alternative to cotton or lumber is makes me a hippy stoner. Cool.
You seem like just another person who cheers the status quo, with no real evidence to back up your claims, and so you jump to ad hominem and stereotyping.
Also, it's pretty tough to find studies on something which is still largely illegal to grow, but you know that, which is why you're demanding hard numbers and sourced research, because you know I can't produce much, or that I won't since it would take too much time.
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
You can't make people change their mind. You can mitigate the impact of their choices though.
My wife and I personally go through maybe 75ish bottles of water a week (just at home and her while she is out). That behavior is not changing because she doesn't like any other type of reusable bottle. But now the bottles have like 1/3 less plastic in them, which mitigates a lot.
You can change conditions so people have better choices to choose from, educate the populace so their priorities aren't so narrow-minded and market new technology with methods that appeal to people. This isn't the perfect answer, not everyone is going to be effected for various reasons.
If you want to argue for hemp, post something that talks about its efficiency compared to modern tree farms using real numbers. Otherwise, people here are going to thing you are a goose. A cliched hippy goose.
I love how the naysayers are free to not post a bit of evidence but anyone suggesting alternatives is shouted down. Also, hippy, really?
It is the nature of rhetoric. Post real numbers about hemp. Refute the fact that those things you linked are intentionally misleading about the nature of paper sources and their connection to deforestation. Otherwise you aren't going to convince people to believe other than they already do about subjects they have debated before and taken the time to educate themselves about.
Yes hippy. Absolutely. Or stoner. People will typically hear hemp as a silver bullet very poorly, due to their past associations with people who have expressed the opinion.
Whenever you are trying to get someone to change their mind, you bear the burden of proof. If you fail or don't play their game, that's fine, but their mind stays made up. Not a big deal on a forum, but it does matter in the real world when you are trying to change the minds of the people that can actually effect change.
The idea that the status quo doesn't need to defend itself is what makes certain arguments fall on deaf ears, especially when powerful interests benefit from the status quo.
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
You can't make people change their mind. You can mitigate the impact of their choices though.
My wife and I personally go through maybe 75ish bottles of water a week (just at home and her while she is out). That behavior is not changing because she doesn't like any other type of reusable bottle. But now the bottles have like 1/3 less plastic in them, which mitigates a lot.
You have to be a fake account, a persona manufactured just to piss people off. 75 bottles of water a week is hilarious, because your wife won't even drink from a glass or an aluminum water bottle. Hilarious.
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
You can't make people change their mind. You can mitigate the impact of their choices though.
My wife and I personally go through maybe 75ish bottles of water a week (just at home and her while she is out). That behavior is not changing because she doesn't like any other type of reusable bottle. But now the bottles have like 1/3 less plastic in them, which mitigates a lot.
From a pure cost perspective I don't understand this at all. Why don't you buy an RO water system? It's burning money for no benefit.
On the other hand you pay for your choices, so the issue is making sure we're pricing appropriately.
Just because, man, just because. Why not? We have infinite resources and infinite dumping ground and infinite energy to recycle! Live it up!
Hemp may not be a silver bullet, but the fact that it is a soil friendly and quick growing crop (ready for harvest in 4 months, apparently) seems to be fairly self explanatory.
The fact that it can be grown with a similar amount of effort and money as corn (with less of a chance for failed crops due to sativa being a hardier plant), with similar water needs and much reduced pesticide requirements is a win win situation. We don't fuck up our trees and we can stop growing so much damn corn that's used for the entirely useless ethanol.
What I'm saying is that farmers will be able to grow a crop that is industrial in nature, and it'll help the environment without much change.
High levels of soil fertility are required to maximize hemp productivity. Cultural requirements and production costs are quite similar to those of corn.
I'm having difficulty tracking down specific numbers on the fertilizer requirements for tree farming. This one has some specific info about industrial hemp's requirements, and it's not zero. Though, this is pretty much always going to be a thing when industry is attempting to maximize yield.
There is a lot about various trees that do enough nitrogen fixing and whatever that they actively improve soil quality, but I have no clue about how that applies to paper production. Those papers are specifically talking about sustainable farming methods for non-tree crops in nutrient poor soil environments (africa. basically).
Hemp is more productive per acre, but when talking about sustainability that isn't necessarily a huge concern.
Hemp may not be a silver bullet, but the fact that it is a soil friendly and quick growing crop (ready for harvest in 4 months, apparently) seems to be fairly self explanatory.
The fact that it can be grown with a similar amount of effort and money as corn (with less of a chance for failed crops due to sativa being a hardier plant), with similar water needs and much reduced pesticide requirements is a win win situation. We don't fuck up our trees and we can stop growing so much damn corn that's used for the entirely useless ethanol.
What I'm saying is that farmers will be able to grow a crop that is industrial in nature, and it'll help the environment without much change.
High levels of soil fertility are required to maximize hemp productivity. Cultural requirements and production costs are quite similar to those of corn.
I'm having difficulty tracking down specific numbers on the fertilizer requirements for tree farming. This one has some specific info about industrial hemp's requirements, and it's not zero.
There is a lot about various trees that do enough nitrogen fixing and whatever that they actively improve soil quality, but I have no clue about how that applies to paper production.
Hemp is more productive per acre, but when talking about sustainability that isn't necessarily a huge concern.
Hemp will grow where corn grows, with the big huge bonus benefit of not needing pesticides.
Not to mention, for Ethanol purposed, hemp has four times the density of cellulose than corn by weight.
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
You can't make people change their mind. You can mitigate the impact of their choices though.
My wife and I personally go through maybe 75ish bottles of water a week (just at home and her while she is out). That behavior is not changing because she doesn't like any other type of reusable bottle. But now the bottles have like 1/3 less plastic in them, which mitigates a lot.
From a pure cost perspective I don't understand this at all. Why don't you buy an RO water system? It's burning money for no benefit.
On the other hand you pay for your choices, so the issue is making sure we're pricing appropriately.
Just because, man, just because. Why not? We have infinite resources and infinite dumping ground and infinite energy to recycle! Live it up!
Don't confuse my awe at a waste of ones private individual resources with the fact that I don't think this a problem that represents an iota of importance to sustainability on civilization scale.
Again: we will have plastic bottles. Even if everyone stopped drinking bottled water tomorrow, we've still got the entire soft-drink industry and we can't very well convert that to glass which is not particularly recyclable in the first place. As in, there is an actual public safety issue here when you're dealing with public venues in this capacity, amongst many others. The issue is cloing the lifecycle, which will then set the price accordingly.
FYI 75 a week is pretty common - observe your local supermarket sometime. And come up with an answer for a place like Mexico.
It maybe be less, but I buy 2-3 cases of water every week and sometimes need to go out and buy more. Its costs me like $15 a week. It's really not a big deal. My wife can be a germphobe and feels like its too hard to get bottles clean, and if this gets her to drink more water, then good. Water is healthy.
Water is healthy. Filling the environment with plastic bottles isn't healthy for the environment.*
Hemp may not be a silver bullet, but the fact that it is a soil friendly and quick growing crop (ready for harvest in 4 months, apparently) seems to be fairly self explanatory.
The fact that it can be grown with a similar amount of effort and money as corn (with less of a chance for failed crops due to sativa being a hardier plant), with similar water needs and much reduced pesticide requirements is a win win situation. We don't fuck up our trees and we can stop growing so much damn corn that's used for the entirely useless ethanol.
What I'm saying is that farmers will be able to grow a crop that is industrial in nature, and it'll help the environment without much change.
High levels of soil fertility are required to maximize hemp productivity. Cultural requirements and production costs are quite similar to those of corn.
I'm having difficulty tracking down specific numbers on the fertilizer requirements for tree farming. This one has some specific info about industrial hemp's requirements, and it's not zero.
There is a lot about various trees that do enough nitrogen fixing and whatever that they actively improve soil quality, but I have no clue about how that applies to paper production.
Hemp is more productive per acre, but when talking about sustainability that isn't necessarily a huge concern.
Hemp will grow where corn grows, with the big huge bonus benefit of not needing pesticides.
Not to mention, for Ethanol purposed, hemp has four times the density of cellulose than corn by weight.
So uh yeah, there are practical benefits to this thing.
But we don't do cellulosic ethanol production with corn, we use do sugar production and either leave the cellulose biomass to mitigate soil depletion or use it for feed. In fact, we don't use the cellulose, because it is less efficient.
You are comparing apple seeds and orange juice. That's bad. I don't really have the information to totally correct for that though, and really don't feel any desire to defend corn ethanol because I don't agree with it or its subsidies.
Edit: That link is of very poor quality and has no hard numbers or citations. "Of course if Monsanto Corporation could make terminator hemp seeds which would use less water and provide 20 times the cellulose value that would be very good for Ethanol?" Like this statement here, there isn't anything actually supporting it and it's purely the author's supposition.
When i was doing landscaping and paving we needed a lot of bottled water because there was often no source of drinking water at work sites, and filling a massive jug of water and bringing it in meant you had piss warm drinking water really early in the day. Water bottles were much easier to keep cool.
And its not like im talking a single or couple bottles of water a day. Litres and litres and litres
I think it is probably worth noting that a fair amount of bottled water comes from threatened aquifers, is transported outside of the area the aquifer serves, and their is frequently few limits on production. Most folks in south florida are more concerned about the effects on the local water supply and the effects upon it water bottling has then recyclable plastic bottles.
Here's a longish paper that touches on the issue, though it is written by a lawyer and not a scientist.
It is a pretty small compared to usage by cities and agriculture, but it's a drop outside the bucket.
When i was doing landscaping and paving we needed a lot of bottled water because there was often no source of drinking water at work sites, and filling a massive jug of water and bringing it in meant you had piss warm drinking water really early in the day. Water bottles were much easier to keep cool.
And its not like im talking a single or couple bottles of water a day. Litres and litres and litres
You're situation is different from Space's wife. It sucks but I can understand why you do that.
I think it is probably worth noting that a fair amount of bottled water comes from threatened aquifers, is transported outside of the area the aquifer serves, and their is frequently few limits on production. Most folks in south florida are more concerned about the effects on the local water supply and the effects upon it water bottling has then recyclable plastic bottles.
Here's a longish paper that touches on the issue, though it is written by a lawyer and not a scientist.
It is a pretty small compared to usage by cities and agriculture, but it's a drop outside the bucket.
So two reasons why bottled water is incredibly stupid then. Cool.
But, what do I know, I'm just a dirty stoner leftist hippy treehugger communist whatever-the-fuck.
I think it is probably worth noting that a fair amount of bottled water comes from threatened aquifers, is transported outside of the area the aquifer serves, and their is frequently few limits on production. Most folks in south florida are more concerned about the effects on the local water supply and the effects upon it water bottling has then recyclable plastic bottles.
Here's a longish paper that touches on the issue, though it is written by a lawyer and not a scientist.
It is a pretty small compared to usage by cities and agriculture, but it's a drop outside the bucket.
So two reasons why bottled water is incredibly stupid then. Cool.
But, what do I know, I'm just a dirty stoner leftist hippy treehugger communist whatever-the-fuck.
No, but you communicate poorly and give that impression, which is a problem if you want to convince people of things.
I think it is probably worth noting that a fair amount of bottled water comes from threatened aquifers, is transported outside of the area the aquifer serves, and their is frequently few limits on production. Most folks in south florida are more concerned about the effects on the local water supply and the effects upon it water bottling has then recyclable plastic bottles.
Here's a longish paper that touches on the issue, though it is written by a lawyer and not a scientist.
It is a pretty small compared to usage by cities and agriculture, but it's a drop outside the bucket.
So two reasons why bottled water is incredibly stupid then. Cool.
But, what do I know, I'm just a dirty stoner leftist hippy treehugger communist whatever-the-fuck.
No, but you communicate poorly and give that impression, which is a problem if you want to convince people of things.
We both know that I'm not going to convince you or SFK of anything.
Also, you did claim that I was a hippy pothead, so I doubt I'm the one communicating poorly. It's tough to avoid getting frustrated when people are endlessly defending plastic bottles and insisting that we have infinite resources and infinite time with which to deal with climate change.
I asserted we could use hemp for things which we currently use lumber and cotton for, and you said I was a hippy stoner. That's communicating poorly.
You remind me of typical conservatives whose first go-to defense is "Oh well if you'd just communicate better. If you'd just be more polite. If you would just state our case better." So nonsensical.
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
You can't make people change their mind. You can mitigate the impact of their choices though.
My wife and I personally go through maybe 75ish bottles of water a week (just at home and her while she is out). That behavior is not changing because she doesn't like any other type of reusable bottle. But now the bottles have like 1/3 less plastic in them, which mitigates a lot.
From a pure cost perspective I don't understand this at all. Why don't you buy an RO water system? It's burning money for no benefit.
On the other hand you pay for your choices, so the issue is making sure we're pricing appropriately.
Just because, man, just because. Why not? We have infinite resources and infinite dumping ground and infinite energy to recycle! Live it up!
Don't confuse my awe at a waste of ones private individual resources with the fact that I don't think this a problem that represents an iota of importance to sustainability on civilization scale.
Again: we will have plastic bottles. Even if everyone stopped drinking bottled water tomorrow, we've still got the entire soft-drink industry and we can't very well convert that to glass which is not particularly recyclable in the first place. As in, there is an actual public safety issue here when you're dealing with public venues in this capacity, amongst many others. The issue is cloing the lifecycle, which will then set the price accordingly.
FYI 75 a week is pretty common - observe your local supermarket sometime. And come up with an answer for a place like Mexico.
It maybe be less, but I buy 2-3 cases of water every week and sometimes need to go out and buy more. Its costs me like $15 a week. It's really not a big deal. My wife can be a germphobe and feels like its too hard to get bottles clean, and if this gets her to drink more water, then good. Water is healthy.
I think it is probably worth noting that a fair amount of bottled water comes from threatened aquifers, is transported outside of the area the aquifer serves, and their is frequently few limits on production. Most folks in south florida are more concerned about the effects on the local water supply and the effects upon it water bottling has then recyclable plastic bottles.
Here's a longish paper that touches on the issue, though it is written by a lawyer and not a scientist.
It is a pretty small compared to usage by cities and agriculture, but it's a drop outside the bucket.
So two reasons why bottled water is incredibly stupid then. Cool.
But, what do I know, I'm just a dirty stoner leftist hippy treehugger communist whatever-the-fuck.
No, but you communicate poorly and give that impression, which is a problem if you want to convince people of things.
We both know that I'm not going to convince you or SFK of anything.
Also, you did claim that I was a hippy pothead, so I doubt I'm the one communicating poorly. It's tough to avoid getting frustrated when people are endlessly defending plastic bottles and insisting that we have infinite resources and infinite time with which to deal with climate change.
I asserted we could use hemp for things which we currently use lumber and cotton for, and you said I was a hippy stoner. That's communicating poorly.
You remind me of typical conservatives whose first go-to defense is "Oh well if you'd just communicate better. If you'd just be more polite. If you would just state our case better." So nonsensical.
You did not make an argument. You have actually set few very few arguments in this thread. You also haven't been responding to points raised by other people, and are cherry picking the things you want to respond to. All of that adds up to poor communication. I get convinced of things all the time on these boards. Hell, my entire view of trans people changed because of a few posters. The way you're posting? No, that's not going to change anyone's mind.
Space, let's not go overboard with your changing views. You've made some improvements but it's not like you've become a libby lib liberal with your time here. Nor is every progression quick or permanent. You're going to have to do more than the minimum to impress people.
I agree that it can be difficult to change your mind from an argument with someone that is stubborn in their views. That's unavoidable. It's not only up to them to change their mind for you - you have to open your mind to other possibilities first otherwise it doesn't matter how polite or logical they are you'll never be convinced. You need to re-examine your beliefs and ideas, too. Find the flaws in your arguments and if people are giving critiques that make sense take that as a legitimate response to consider, even if their tact is poor. You don't have all the answers.
You're not above being stubborn in your arguments. Which is only going to escalate tensions with the other party. You won't learn anything by doing that.
She doesn't like it. Believe, me, we have discussed every option. She likes the disposable bottles. It's not a high price to pay for a convenience, imo. The real bitch of it is that we don't have curb side recycling so we just wind up throwing them out (I know that's bad).
So, recycling is available, it's just too inconvenient?
She doesn't like it. Believe, me, we have discussed every option. She likes the disposable bottles. It's not a high price to pay for a convenience, imo. The real bitch of it is that we don't have curb side recycling so we just wind up throwing them out (I know that's bad).
I thought you'd said you were going to take them to the store and recycle them.
exactly. The future will be glorious and fun and all just like then present. It will just be cleaner because of science. No need to cut back when you can science up ways to keep comfort clean if you're wealthy, white, and don't get fucked by climate change on the way to the future.
FTFY
Also, ITT: Science is magic.
Who exactly is getting fucked by climate change? And how is it racial?
Sometimes I think you're just a toll account. You can't actually be a real person.
Also, the poorest regions in the world, which just *happen* to be populated by non-whites will be hit the hardest by the effects of climate change, and it's happening already.
Geth, infract our friend Tburkle with a major for A) calling someone a troll, and generally pick a giant asshole in this thread.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
How could we have become so different, @TBurk83? Why can we no longer understand each other? What did we do wrong? Infracted @TBurk83 (3 points for 60 days) for "A) calling someone a troll, and generally pick a giant asshole in this thread"
I asserted we could use hemp for things which we currently use lumber and cotton for, and you said I was a hippy stoner. That's communicating poorly.
You claimed switching to hemp would alleviate any concerns you have for sustainability of paper products &c. without any real justification for it. That's stupid. I doubt you'll find anyone here who supports the ban on hemp for industrial (or recreational) use. That's different from believing that hemp will be a silver bullet. It will have benefits as well as its own problems that need to be addressed in order to ensure sustainable practices throughout the various products lifecycles and land management.
0
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Hemp is no silver bullet but it sure makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Also since this is generally the thread for it: the type of "we must cut back and learn to have less" environmentalism is, in my opinion, really actively harmful to getting successful environmental policies enacted and voted for because it presents a caustic and distorted view of sustainability and technology.
We're pretty close, in most western countries, to ordinary people having "enough" at current price levels. The extremes - the opulence of the mega-wealthy - is a ridiculous outlier that's basically not relevant (and they tend to do what's fashionable, and failing that, legal). It is entirely reasonable that we can simply engineer our way around the periphery of issues with "what we need" to arrive at a sustainable solution which leads - long-term - purely to increases in quality of lifestyle for individuals (since being more efficient beyond environmental necessity leads to more people having more).
Eh, it depends on the framing involved. Pointing to advances in technology or pricing in negative externalities creating different incentives that prioritize less consumption of something can be made positively by focusing on an improvement in quality of outcome. More compact development with a mixture of zoning allowed uses will result in less driving and less demand for cars. You can either make this out to be the UN taking our freedoms and Hummers, or as liberating people from congestion. It can also be framed as stealing square footage, or making floor plans that work for you rather than having a butler's dining hall you never use.
Posts
The fact that it can be grown with a similar amount of effort and money as corn (with less of a chance for failed crops due to sativa being a hardier plant), with similar water needs and much reduced pesticide requirements is a win win situation. We don't fuck up our trees and we can stop growing so much damn corn that's used for the entirely useless ethanol.
What I'm saying is that farmers will be able to grow a crop that is industrial in nature, and it'll help the environment without much change.
According to this paper, supplying the current energy needs with PV would require 5.5 million sq km or given a 30 year life span the manufacture of about 180000 sq km / year. I'm guessing that current production is a few orders of magnitude less than that. It's hard to find any sources about specifics, but one source says that a company manufactured about 100MW worth of panels with about 6000 tons of waste product, and another says that about 750000 tons of solar panel-related waste product will be disposed of in CA including 1000 tons of lead and 300 tons of cadmium. There are also byproducts to the production of the silicon crystals needed to make the panels in the first place. While recycling may help, I don't know how much would be reclaimed and the energy costs of that reclaiming
All you've stated is a bunch of reasons why we can't get rid of plastic bottles that are optional. These are choices. I love how your explanation is "well we just can't." Choices.
It takes energy to create plastic bottles. It takes energy to recycle them. It takes energy to dispose of them. Bottled water is an absolutely stupid thing and is an absolutely stupid waste of resources. Drink fucking tap water, holy shit.
So, suggesting industrial hemp as an alternative to cotton or lumber is makes me a hippy stoner. Cool.
You seem like just another person who cheers the status quo, with no real evidence to back up your claims, and so you jump to ad hominem and stereotyping.
Also, it's pretty tough to find studies on something which is still largely illegal to grow, but you know that, which is why you're demanding hard numbers and sourced research, because you know I can't produce much, or that I won't since it would take too much time.
You can change conditions so people have better choices to choose from, educate the populace so their priorities aren't so narrow-minded and market new technology with methods that appeal to people. This isn't the perfect answer, not everyone is going to be effected for various reasons.
Why doesn't she like any other reusable bottles?
The idea that the status quo doesn't need to defend itself is what makes certain arguments fall on deaf ears, especially when powerful interests benefit from the status quo.
You have to be a fake account, a persona manufactured just to piss people off. 75 bottles of water a week is hilarious, because your wife won't even drink from a glass or an aluminum water bottle. Hilarious.
Just because, man, just because. Why not? We have infinite resources and infinite dumping ground and infinite energy to recycle! Live it up!
http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/sb/sb681/
I'm having difficulty tracking down specific numbers on the fertilizer requirements for tree farming. This one has some specific info about industrial hemp's requirements, and it's not zero. Though, this is pretty much always going to be a thing when industry is attempting to maximize yield.
There is a lot about various trees that do enough nitrogen fixing and whatever that they actively improve soil quality, but I have no clue about how that applies to paper production. Those papers are specifically talking about sustainable farming methods for non-tree crops in nutrient poor soil environments (africa. basically).
Hemp is more productive per acre, but when talking about sustainability that isn't necessarily a huge concern.
Hemp will grow where corn grows, with the big huge bonus benefit of not needing pesticides.
Not to mention, for Ethanol purposed, hemp has four times the density of cellulose than corn by weight.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Hemp-Can-Be-Used-to-Make-Ethanol&id=146067
So uh yeah, there are practical benefits to this thing.
Water is healthy. Filling the environment with plastic bottles isn't healthy for the environment.*
* it is good that they are not all plastic
But we don't do cellulosic ethanol production with corn, we use do sugar production and either leave the cellulose biomass to mitigate soil depletion or use it for feed. In fact, we don't use the cellulose, because it is less efficient.
You are comparing apple seeds and orange juice. That's bad. I don't really have the information to totally correct for that though, and really don't feel any desire to defend corn ethanol because I don't agree with it or its subsidies.
Edit: That link is of very poor quality and has no hard numbers or citations. "Of course if Monsanto Corporation could make terminator hemp seeds which would use less water and provide 20 times the cellulose value that would be very good for Ethanol?" Like this statement here, there isn't anything actually supporting it and it's purely the author's supposition.
And its not like im talking a single or couple bottles of water a day. Litres and litres and litres
Here's a longish paper that touches on the issue, though it is written by a lawyer and not a scientist.
It is a pretty small compared to usage by cities and agriculture, but it's a drop outside the bucket.
You're situation is different from Space's wife. It sucks but I can understand why you do that.
So two reasons why bottled water is incredibly stupid then. Cool.
But, what do I know, I'm just a dirty stoner leftist hippy treehugger communist whatever-the-fuck.
No, but you communicate poorly and give that impression, which is a problem if you want to convince people of things.
We both know that I'm not going to convince you or SFK of anything.
Also, you did claim that I was a hippy pothead, so I doubt I'm the one communicating poorly. It's tough to avoid getting frustrated when people are endlessly defending plastic bottles and insisting that we have infinite resources and infinite time with which to deal with climate change.
I asserted we could use hemp for things which we currently use lumber and cotton for, and you said I was a hippy stoner. That's communicating poorly.
You remind me of typical conservatives whose first go-to defense is "Oh well if you'd just communicate better. If you'd just be more polite. If you would just state our case better." So nonsensical.
Metal bottles + dishwasher?
Space, let's not go overboard with your changing views. You've made some improvements but it's not like you've become a libby lib liberal with your time here. Nor is every progression quick or permanent. You're going to have to do more than the minimum to impress people.
I agree that it can be difficult to change your mind from an argument with someone that is stubborn in their views. That's unavoidable. It's not only up to them to change their mind for you - you have to open your mind to other possibilities first otherwise it doesn't matter how polite or logical they are you'll never be convinced. You need to re-examine your beliefs and ideas, too. Find the flaws in your arguments and if people are giving critiques that make sense take that as a legitimate response to consider, even if their tact is poor. You don't have all the answers.
You're not above being stubborn in your arguments. Which is only going to escalate tensions with the other party. You won't learn anything by doing that.
So, recycling is available, it's just too inconvenient?
I thought you'd said you were going to take them to the store and recycle them.
Geth, infract our friend Tburkle with a major for A) calling someone a troll, and
Infracted @TBurk83 (3 points for 60 days) for "A) calling someone a troll, and
You claimed switching to hemp would alleviate any concerns you have for sustainability of paper products &c. without any real justification for it. That's stupid. I doubt you'll find anyone here who supports the ban on hemp for industrial (or recreational) use. That's different from believing that hemp will be a silver bullet. It will have benefits as well as its own problems that need to be addressed in order to ensure sustainable practices throughout the various products lifecycles and land management.
Eh, it depends on the framing involved. Pointing to advances in technology or pricing in negative externalities creating different incentives that prioritize less consumption of something can be made positively by focusing on an improvement in quality of outcome. More compact development with a mixture of zoning allowed uses will result in less driving and less demand for cars. You can either make this out to be the UN taking our freedoms and Hummers, or as liberating people from congestion. It can also be framed as stealing square footage, or making floor plans that work for you rather than having a butler's dining hall you never use.
Better less, but better.
Which is one of the many reasons why it shouldn't be banned. It still doesn't make the timber or paper industry somehow worse at land management.
Which is one more than we've built throughout my entire existence.