Are you trying to be eco friendly?

[ToboRobot]

I ride a bike.

I don't own cargo ships, if I did, I would stop using bunker fuel.

I don't own coal power plants, but if I did, I would switch to nuclear.

If the people in charge wanted to do something about the planet, they would start with major polluting systems that have easy alternatives (cargo ships are a good example, they can switch from bunker fuel to diesel immediately), rather than banning plastic bags or other consumer level plans.

Unfortunately the we are focusing on bogus climate change (learn stats people) instead of reducing pollution. 

Don't believe the notion that we can all have solar panels on our houses and electric cars with wind turbines, and there won't be some massive dirty mine somewhere else.

[Lairlair]

12 minutes ago, Arika S said:

Nuclear should be the backbone of any energy grid.

I kind of agree, but let's also not downplay the inherent problems linked with nuclear, one of which is the waste caused by the operation of the plant and the dismantling.

 

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

a 40+ year old accident with 80 year old technology

Again, I kind of agree... But Chernobyl is succession of human mistakes, and if we're honest, there's nothing preventing us that it would happen again. That said, risks are inherent to any energy source. Hydro caused more deaths than nuclear and for now there's more risks letting the CO₂ escape into the atmosphere so...

 

I just wish the debates around nuclear energy were a bit less emotional. At the end of the day it's mostly a technical question. I understand that there's a lot of fear surrounding the topic, and it's important to address that too. I'd probably feel different if I lived close to a nuclear plant. But it's a bit frustrating sometimes.

 

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

How much of those gases are produced just by exxon mobil refineries?

Sure Exxon should also be held accountable, and by a lot more than the average Joe. But whether they like it or not, there's always a moment the average Joe shakes hands with Exxon when they tank their car. It has to go both way. If a mayor thinks of starting a new policy to put bike lines everywhere on the roads of the city, but no individuals even thought of riding their bikes to begin with, it's never going to happen. And vice versa, if you just ride your bike to feel better about yourself but never reach out to those regulating the infrastructure... Well it's good, but would be better if you dragged other people along with you

[Lairlair]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

an earth quake/tsunami that most (if not all) of Australia don't get

How can you say this

 

[CommanderAlex]

On 10/12/2022 at 4:47 AM, Lairlair said:

is it all worth it? Do we really need raytracing or is it time to stop here and now before we are forced to?

Thoughts? What are you doing as an attempt to be eco friendly?

I think it's all worth it. I'm not the one to upgrade to a new platform every year and decide to use it until it no longer can keep up and serve my needs from day to day. Every 5-6 years for the platform and maybe 3 years for a new graphics card in between? Just like my first computer in 2015, a 4790K with crossfire R9 270X. Then I upgraded to a GTX 1070 and then finally moved over to X299 in 2019, which was a mistake that I was misinformed in the CPU space of what is going on between Intel and AMD. So then in 2021, I upgraded to X570 with the 5950X and plan to keep this for 4 more years, maybe 5 if I can stretch it. I did upgrade to a RTX 2080 but sold it to a friend of mind, so that's pretty nice to reuse and sell off. I have a RX 6900XT that I'm happy with and seeing the new tech released is nice and all, but the price tags associated make it hard to upgrade if I want to, not need to. 

 

I still have my Z97 board with the 4790K, X299 with 9800X, and extra RAM kits and those 270Xs just in case anything were to happen. Raytracing, for me, is just eye candy and can hardly tell a difference in games between RT and rasterization. 

 

So, my attempts to be eco friendly are to sell computer gear used so that follows reduce/reuse/recycle and keep it out of landfills, I also purchase used camera lens as I don't believe it spending new price for something that performs well like used or even refurbished. I got a Mac Pro 4,1 that I've upgraded to the max with a RX480 8GB on my desk I like to tinker with. 

 

Funny enough, luckily a recycling center near me does recycle computers/batteries etc so I take my stuff there to recycle instead of throwing in the land fill. Actually, when purchasing an older Mac, it came with 2 Apple monitors that appeared to have been gutted. Took them to the recycling center and the guy there gave me a hard time since it appears to have been opened and that any valuables inside were gone. Told him the story and they took them. They probably would just chuck them in the garbage. 

[Arika]

2 minutes ago, Lairlair said:

I kind of agree, but let's also not downplay the inherent problems linked with nuclear, one of which is the waste caused by the operation of the plant and the dismantling.

elaborate?

 

In terms of overall impacts, nuclear is still the least impactful green energy source we have access to especially when you look at what it's output can be.

 

Solar panels create magnitudes (multiple hundred times) more toxic waste than nuclear plants and are essentially impossible to recycle efficiently.

 

Wind, while very clean needs a LOT of land, which generally comes with needing to destroy forests for the type of land they work best on, current recommendations sit at 60 acres of land per megawatt.

Comparing that to the Fukushima Daiichi's 860 acres, A wind farm of that size could output 14MW

the smallest single reactor could output 460MW a 3000% increase for that one reactor.

 

Or if we go with the entire plant for those 860 acres 5306 MW or a 37800% increase. Wind is great, but it's not efficient for the space it requires. and is certainly not as reliable.

 

 

Hyrdo and Geothermal: very few places have the geographical landmarks for this to be viable at a large scale.

As a source of renewable energy for both power and heating, geothermal has the potential to meet 3-5% of global demand by 2050

Hydroelectricity is the biggest hydropower application. Hydroelectricity generates about 15% of global electricity

 

 

Also a Nuclear plant would be in operation for significantly longer than solar or wind before decommissioning is even a factor

 

Solar: 25-30 year life span

Wind: 20-25 year life span

Nuclear: 60+ years

 

 

Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are great, but they should supplement nuclear, not the other way around if we're wanting to go fully green and shut down the coal and oil power plants.

[suicidalfranco]

8 minutes ago, Arika S said:

elaborate?

 

In terms of overall impacts, nuclear is still the least impactful green energy source we have access to especially when you look at what it's output can be.

 

Solar panels create magnitudes (multiple hundred times) more toxic waste than nuclear plants and are essentially impossible to recycle efficiently.

 

Wind, while very clean needs a LOT of land, which generally comes with needing to destroy forests for the type of land they work best on, current recommendations sit at 60 acres of land per megawatt.

Comparing that to the Fukushima Daiichi's 860 acres, A wind farm of that size could output 14MW

the smallest single reactor could output 460MW a 3000% increase for that one reactor.

 

Or if we go with the entire plant for those 860 acres 5306 MW or a 37800% increase. Wind is great, but it's not efficient for the space it requires. and is certainly not as reliable.

 

 

Hyrdo and Geothermal: very few places have the geographical landmarks for this to be viable at a large scale.

As a source of renewable energy for both power and heating, geothermal has the potential to meet 3-5% of global demand by 2050

Hydroelectricity is the biggest hydropower application. Hydroelectricity generates about 15% of global electricity

 

 

Also a Nuclear plant would be in operation for significantly longer than solar or wind before decommissioning is even a factor

 

Solar: 25-30 year life span

Wind: 20-25 year life span

Nuclear: 60+ years

 

 

Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are great, but they should supplement nuclear, not the other way around if we're wanting to go fully green and shut down the coal and oil power plants.

Nah m8, lets shut down all our nuclear plants and replace it with gas that we'll purchase from a neighbouring country... oh! Hi Russia got some gas for us?

 

Europe circa 20 years ago.

[mr moose]

38 minutes ago, Lairlair said:

I kind of agree, but let's also not downplay the inherent problems linked with nuclear, one of which is the waste caused by the operation of the plant and the dismantling.

There is no such thing as nuclear waste anymore.  All current nuclear waste (which occupies the same area as a football field) is safely contained and there have been no accidents with it nor has it posed a threat to the environment. 

38 minutes ago, Lairlair said:

Again, I kind of agree... But Chernobyl is succession of human mistakes, and if we're honest, there's nothing preventing us that it would happen again. That said, risks are inherent to any energy source. Hydro caused more deaths than nuclear and for now there's more risks letting the CO₂ escape into the atmosphere so...

 

 

Gen 3+ and reactor designs cannot meltdown like Chernobyl did,  you would literally have to get everyone working on the reactor to purposely over ride every safety measure and intentionally bring on a meltdown which would simply result in the reactor shutting down and dumping it's core into a containment reservoir under the reactor were the reaction stops immediately. 

 

There have been literally hundreds of radioactive accidents since the 60's,  the thing is they are incredibly localized (the danger zone is literally within meters of the accident) and usually have been so small of an accident that more people die from installing solar on the roof or from falling from a wind turbine than from radioactivity.

 

 

The thing about the nuclear debate is that when people spread their fear of nuclear and argue against it, they are literally using arguments that if they were in the medical field would sound like this:  Don't go to the hospital, they reused syringes in 1920 and you might get an infection if they have to give you a needle.  Or in the automotive industry,  don't put brakes on your car, the pads used to contain asbestos and so if you breath in the dust from the new ones you might get an asbestos related cancer.

[Lairlair]

24 minutes ago, Arika S said:

elaborate?

 

In terms of overall impacts, nuclear is still the least impactful green energy source we have access to especially when you look at what it's output can be.

 

Solar panels create magnitudes (multiple hundred times) more toxic waste than nuclear plants and are essentially impossible to recycle efficiently.

 

Wind, while very clean needs a LOT of land, which generally comes with needing to destroy forests for the type of land they work best on, current recommendations sit at 60 acres of land per megawatt.

Comparing that to the Fukushima Daiichi's 860 acres, A wind farm of that size could output 14MW

the smallest single reactor could output 460MW a 3000% increase for that one reactor.

 

Or if we go with the entire plant for those 860 acres 5306 MW or a 37800% increase. Wind is great, but it's not efficient for the space it requires. and is certainly not as reliable.

 

 

Hyrdo and Geothermal: very few places have the geographical landmarks for this to be viable at a large scale.

As a source of renewable energy for both power and heating, geothermal has the potential to meet 3-5% of global demand by 2050

Hydroelectricity is the biggest hydropower application. Hydroelectricity generates about 15% of global electricity

 

 

Also a Nuclear plant would be in operation for significantly longer than solar or wind before decommissioning is even a factor

 

Solar: 25-30 year life span

Wind: 20-25 year life span

Nuclear: 60+ years

 

 

Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are great, but they should supplement nuclear, not the other way around if we're wanting to go fully green and shut down the coal and oil power plants.

Oh definitely. I think in general people oppose renewable energies (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) with fossil ones (gas, coal, petrol, nuclear) because of the fuel / source of the energy, by that I mean the actual fuel powering the plant / panel etc. But as you pointed out, some renewable use non renewable materials too so we're just moving the problem around. I think it's a lot more relevant to look for solutions that make sense locally instead of silver bullets or ideological postures. No energy comes for free, and I'll say it again, but nuclear waste is not easy to dispose of. The most radioactive waste is small in volume but extremely toxic for an extremely long time. All things considered, burying it deep is a good solution IMO but let's not pretend it's easy.

 

17 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

lets shut down all our nuclear plants and replace it with gas that we'll purchase from a neighbouring country.

Yeah... I mean I'm the first one to be critical about that too, but there's also no uranium in Europe. Kazakhstan supplies a part of it. Being part of the former URSS, it's easy to imagine that if nuclear power had been more prominent in Europe, the geo political situation could very well be just as problematic as it is now with the gas.

[Lairlair]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Gen 3+ and reactor designs cannot meltdown like Chernobyl did

Interesting. I'll go back to inform myself about all that. As for the waste, the containment solutions in pools is slowly reaching its max capacity in Europe so we need to address that. Besides, they can't stay in there forever, it's just a transitory solution.

[Sauron]

26 minutes ago, Lairlair said:

But whether they like it or not, there's always a moment the average Joe shakes hands with Exxon when they tank their car.

A lot of people don't have a choice. Not to mention a lot of that goes into supply lines to produce consumer goods that people need where no effort is made to be environmentally friendly because it's more expensive.

[Elijah Kamski]

On 10/12/2022 at 7:47 PM, Lairlair said:

In the last few years I've increasingly looked into the ins and outs of the ecological crisis. And it probably doesn't come as a surprise but the tech industry isn't the cleanest. To mention a few things: all the minerals needed require a lot of mining on different continents, which needs a lot of transport, which needs a lot of packaging, and needs a lot energy. So lots of pollution, waste, and CO₂ emissions. Plus the energy costs of using these devices which likely become obsolete and are dumped in a landfill. Not to mention the poor conditions many workers have to endure to produce all that. I know there's worse and I'm not here to guilt trip you. If anything I'm just as guilty as you with my Ryzen 9 5900x. I guess I want to share these thoughts feeling trapped between the excitement for technical progress, and thinking it's all useless crap created by companies to fill a need they also created, just so they can maximize their profits. On the other hand, I really like video games and I think they have an intrinsic value as entertainment, cultural piece or art, and all that is enabled by accessible and innovative tech. But when I see the awful floods in Pakistan, or the terrible droughts and heatwaves we've had here in Europe, I can't help but wonder: is it all worth it? Do we really need raytracing or is it time to stop here and now before we are forced to?

Thoughts? What are you doing as an attempt to be eco friendly?

I use my desktop as a heater instead of having a dedicated heater

Does a good job, just gotta leave it on Cyberpunk or a very GPU intensive game, gets me those hours XD

[Lairlair]

28 minutes ago, Sauron said:

A lot of people don't have a choice

I grew up on the countryside so I know what it's like to rely on a car for any basic task. I don't mean that every car user is to blame, far from it. I'm just saying the issue is very intertwined and the situation isn't as easy as: nice normal people on one side and evil corporations on the other. (Sorry for the caricature) Let's face it, probably everyone on this forum has been benefiting from accessible fossil fuel, even if indirectly. So much so that it's become a necessity now. And that's what I think is important to question and act on where possible

[Sauron]

3 minutes ago, Lairlair said:

I grew up on the countryside so I know what it's like to rely on a car for any basic task. I don't mean that every car user is to blame, far from it. I'm just saying the issue is very intertwined and the situation isn't as easy as: nice normal people on one side and evil corporations on the other. (Sorry for the caricature) Let's face it, probably everyone on this forum has been benefiting from accessible fossil fuel, even if indirectly. So much so that it's become a necessity now. And that's what I think is important to question and act on where possible

There is a fundamental difference between you needing fossil fuel to navigate a society you had no hand in organizing this way and a giant corporation lobbying governments for decades to ensure things are like this. Our society could have moved away from fossil fuel a while ago; we just needed constant and dedicated investment in renewable infrastructure and more efficient methods of transportation. That's not something any number of individuals can achieve by just trying to consume less.

[Lairlair]

6 minutes ago, Sauron said:

There is a fundamental difference between you needing fossil fuel to navigate a society you had no hand in organizing this way and a giant corporation lobbying governments for decades to ensure things are like this. Our society could have moved away from fossil fuel a while ago; we just needed constant and dedicated investment in renewable infrastructure and more efficient methods of transportation. That's not something any number of individuals can achieve by just trying to consume less.

For sure but then what, do we wait for companies to realize they're jeopardizing our future? It's too late to change so damn it all? I agree with you that these companies have a huge responsibility in the shape our world is in. Lobbying has been a way for Exxon to keep doing its business, first by infusing doubt about the existence of climate change, then that it wasn't caused by humans, and now that everyone is realizing that their arguments are BS, they're benefiting from people behaving like a rabbits trapped in headlights with their eco anxiety, whataboutism and so on. I'd rather apply pressure where I can, and encourage others to do the same. Of course I don't have any leverage on my own, but that's only because individuals are not organized and companies are. It's all about power dynamics and collective movement IMO, which is a more political method than a consumer method, but they go hand in hand.

 

Also we can just agree to disagree

[Sarra]

1 hour ago, Lairlair said:

Interesting. I'll go back to inform myself about all that. As for the waste, the containment solutions in pools is slowly reaching its max capacity in Europe so we need to address that. Besides, they can't stay in there forever, it's just a transitory solution.

Nuclear waste is really not that big of a deal. There are known processes where additional energy can be extracted from most waste, while reducing it to a state where it is no longer extremely hazardous. What's holding us back? Money, politics, and misguided sentiments. I'd suggest looking at Thorium reactors, if you really want to self-educate on this.

[Sauron]

9 minutes ago, Lairlair said:

For sure but then what, do we wait for companies to realize they're jeopardizing our future?

No, we force them to stop through political action

[Neroon]

Yes, but at the same time I know there is more that I could do.

We've been recycling for years now, we've been cutting down on meat (though we still consume way more than is sustainable), especially with so many great alternatives coming out, and with gas and electricity prices as they are in Europe, we've definitely cut that down.

 

At the same time I don't drive very eco friendly, mind you it's not a diesel guzzling truck, but I could definitely do better, and no I'm not planning to do that, and I still do a ton of things that aren't helping.

 

 

The whole problem is that we pretty much only do things for selfish reasons, or if it's little to no trouble. I recycle plastic because why not, we have a container for plastics that gets emptied every few weeks, veggie meat alternatives taste great, so I don't care about cutting down. But I don't want to drive a car that's more eco friendly, at least not by sacrificing the things I want.

 

Without going political, this is something where politics can have a big impact. For example emission standards force us to drive more eco friendly cars, and if they were to raise say taxes on meat (or force less meat production), we will look for alternatives more.

 

And this is something that is going on in my country (Netherlands), cattle farmers are basically forced to lower pollution by having less animals, we have local governments changing our waste tax system, where before we paid per household (based on how many live there), whereas now we will need to pay per bag (we have underground containers that need cards to open them), which in turn they hope more people will recycle plastics, paper etc appropriately, because recycling is free. And of course laws are happening forcing car manufacturers to go greener, including a cut off where all cars have to be electric. (and no, I don't think electric is all that - I generally prefer hybrids)

 

Why governments? Because most people don't do things unless it directly affects them. And to be clear, I fully understand why people don't want them to interfere, just stating how they CAN play a big role in it.

[Rocketdog2112]

On 10/13/2022 at 2:57 AM, Roswell said:

Whatever stance you take on causation, global warming still exists, takes 2 seconds to Google a graph showing the trend… 

My guess, along with every other climate science body in existence, is co2:

 

 

[Rocketdog2112]

9 hours ago, Sauron said:

No, we force them to stop through political action

You mean the same politicians who have their hands in the pockets of the large corporations?

[Roswell]

2 hours ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

 

That cartoon is ironically incorrect.
 

Weather is the state of conditions at a given place and moment.

 

Global warming is the term used to describe the upward trend in global temperature over the last 170 years. Climate change is a term used to indicate a changing climate over time.

 

Not that difficult of a concept to grasp, yes? 

[Sarra]

59 minutes ago, Roswell said:

 

That cartoon is ironically incorrect.
 

Weather is the state of conditions at a given place and moment.

 

Global warming is the term used to describe the upward trend in global temperature over the last 170 years. Climate change is a term used to indicate a changing climate over time.

 

Not that difficult of a concept to grasp, yes? 

 

Were I the child in that image you are reacting to, I would have written 'Mother Nature's Revenge', instead. :3

[Rocketdog2112]

1 hour ago, Roswell said:

 

That cartoon is ironically incorrect.
 

Weather is the state of conditions at a given place and moment.

 

Global warming is the term used to describe the upward trend in global temperature over the last 170 years. Climate change is a term used to indicate a changing climate over time.

 

Not that difficult of a concept to grasp, yes? 

Patato patoto.

 

I still remember back in the 70's when the world was going to end due to a oncoming New Ice Age.

 

Then there was the hole in the ozone that was going to cause the Earth to go up in a ball of flames.

 

Nothing but lies to promote an agenda and stuff one's pockets with cash.

[Roswell]

10 minutes ago, Rocketdog2112 said:

Patato patoto.

 

I still remember back in the 70's when the world was going to end due to a oncoming New Ice Age.

 

Then there was the hole in the ozone that was going to cause the Earth to go up in a ball of flames.

 

Nothing but lies to promote an agenda and stuff one's pockets with cash.

What?! Ozone hole denial is a new one for me…

 

The reason you don’t hear about the hole any longer is because despite people like you pedaling false information, the rest of the world’s governments lead a gargantuan effort to severely limit CFCs from entering the atmosphere. The hole still forms every year, luckily over uninhabited space, but it’s slowly healing.

 

Again, you can debate causation all you want, but 150 years of temperature recordings don’t lie. Global warming is a thing whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

 

[Rocketdog2112]

8 minutes ago, Roswell said:

What?! Ozone hole denial is a new one for me…

 

The reason you don’t hear about the hole any longer is because despite people like you pedaling false information, the rest of the world’s governments lead a gargantuan effort to severely limit CFCs from entering the atmosphere. The hole still forms every year, luckily over uninhabited space, but it’s slowly healing.

 

Again, you can debate causation all you want, but 150 years of temperature recordings don’t lie. Global warming is a thing whether you like it or not.

 

 

 

 

Then I suspect you will give up your home and automobile AC systems since they supposedly contribute to your global warming?

[Spotty]

Thread locked since this has just turned in to a climate change debate.