Base solar panel = 14% effecient x 1000 = 14,000% effecient. The only way the math works is if the new panels are 100% efficient and they are referencing a rock as a standard solar panel. I'm calling BS.
BlackJerseyGiant
joined 1 year ago
Well, you can stuff your wounds with the silky smooth sand and shards institutional toilet paper, me, I'll be looking like a Yeti with all those tampon strings....Damn!
You are right. However, with policy changes, we also need a tenable plan for a hydrogen economy that is physically and economically possible. The tech to produce and handle hydrogen on that scale does not exist, and much like carbon capture and storage, they are likely to remain a pipe dream; numbers don't add up. We've spent a century building infrastructure that has no use other than extracting and processing fossil fuels. That we have enough resources to make the transition to a clean economy is in serious doubt at this time.
It does make a nice talking point to make everyone feel better about technology saving us from ourselves in the future, though. It's certainly much more palatable than talking about the overshoot of the human population.
Yes it is. Haber-Bosch process is where all our ammonia comes from, and it's fed via petrochemical stocks. No oil = no food.
Weeds aren't a problem, but typically the fertilizers for hydro are petroleum based, and therefore not sustainable.
Today I learned nothing. Bad link.
I'm hoping for Weird AL.
How many times do we have to say it: Please stop naming your baby hippos, "Jeffery Dahmer".
What's that? Is it the sound of Energy Cost of Energy knocking at the door? Oh, and look at this, they've left a pamphlet titled "The bell tolls for thee, intensive input agricultural base, it tolls for thee"
Save you some reading time: None of your damn business. Health care is between a doctor and patient and ain't our concern.
I lost my best friend to Hastags in 'Nam. Keep em off my lawn!!!
view more: next ›
Add a disk and migrate to raid 6.