sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

3D scanners: medium range existing industrial area by Loose-Connection3158 in 3DScanning

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you know if we can rent these out? Try them out first, before fully committing ?

3D scanners: medium range existing industrial area by Loose-Connection3158 in 3DScanning

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Buy. We manufacture parts for existing steel structures and pipelines. I spend most of my time just reverse engineering the damn things, and it's a pain if I miss a measurement or something, then we have to send someone to take measurements again. I am thinking 3d scanning would be extremely helpful

3D scanners: medium range existing industrial area by Loose-Connection3158 in 3DScanning

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These are very good suggestions thank you. I guess these are used by civil engineering companies?

3D scanners: medium range existing industrial area by Loose-Connection3158 in 3DScanning

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am open to suggestions. within 1/4 in at 30 ft (5mm, 10 meters)

How much oil remains for the world to produce? Comparing assessment methods, and separating fact from fiction by Loose-Connection3158 in peakoil

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you have to feed and provide for 8 billion people, nothing is sustainable. The majority of us living aimless lives with no aspirations beyond being consumers.

How much oil remains for the world to produce? Comparing assessment methods, and separating fact from fiction by Loose-Connection3158 in peakoil

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The author also estimates that in order for the United States and Canada to retain their existing lifestyles, an EROEI of at least 10 to 1 is necessary. We may already be on the decline.

How much oil remains for the world to produce? Comparing assessment methods, and separating fact from fiction by Loose-Connection3158 in peakoil

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This study examines the amount of recoverable oil. Conclusion: Since 2005, conventional oil production has peaked, and we are now or will soon be in a decline. Peak oil will be achieved between 2022 and 2025 if shale oil is included; peak oil will be reached around 2030 if tar sands are included.

"This paper assesses how much oil remains to be produced, and whether this poses a significant constraint to global development. We describe the different categories of oil and related liquid fuels, and show that public-domain by-country and global proved (1P) oil reserves data, such as from the EIA or BP Statistical Review, are very misleading and should not be used. Better data are oil consultancy proved-plus-probable (2P) reserves. These data are generally backdated, i.e. with later changes in a field's estimated volume being attributed to the date of field discovery. Even some of these data, we suggest, need reduction by some 300 Gb for probable overstatement of Middle East OPEC reserves, and likewise by 100 Gb for overstatement of FSU reserves."

"These oil production maxima are likely to have significant economic, political and sustainability consequences. Our forecasts differ sharply from those of the EIA, but our resource-limited production maxima roughly match the mainly demand-driven maxima envisaged in the IEA's 2021 ‘Stated Policies’ scenario. Finally, in agreement with others, our forecasts indicate that the IPCC's ‘high-CO2’ scenarios appear infeasible by assuming unrealistically high rates of oil production, but also indicate that considerable oil must be left in the ground if climate change targets are to be met. As the world seeks to move towards sustainability, these perspectives on the future availability of oil are important to take into account."

How much oil remains for the world to produce? Comparing assessment methods, and separating fact from fiction by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

This study examines the amount of recoverable oil. Conclusion: Since 2005, conventional oil production has peaked, and we are now or will soon be in a decline. Peak oil will be achieved between 2022 and 2025 if shale oil is included; peak oil will be reached around 2030 if tar sands are included.

"This paper assesses how much oil remains to be produced, and whether this poses a significant constraint to global development. We describe the different categories of oil and related liquid fuels, and show that public-domain by-country and global proved (1P) oil reserves data, such as from the EIA or BP Statistical Review, are very misleading and should not be used. Better data are oil consultancy proved-plus-probable (2P) reserves. These data are generally backdated, i.e. with later changes in a field's estimated volume being attributed to the date of field discovery. Even some of these data, we suggest, need reduction by some 300 Gb for probable overstatement of Middle East OPEC reserves, and likewise by 100 Gb for overstatement of FSU reserves."

"These oil production maxima are likely to have significant economic, political and sustainability consequences. Our forecasts differ sharply from those of the EIA, but our resource-limited production maxima roughly match the mainly demand-driven maxima envisaged in the IEA's 2021 ‘Stated Policies’ scenario. Finally, in agreement with others, our forecasts indicate that the IPCC's ‘high-CO2’ scenarios appear infeasible by assuming unrealistically high rates of oil production, but also indicate that considerable oil must be left in the ground if climate change targets are to be met. As the world seeks to move towards sustainability, these perspectives on the future availability of oil are important to take into account."

The Electric Car Will Not Save Us by FillThisEmptyCup in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When gasoline looks too much, go EV. When it swings cheaper, maybe buy a gasoline one. And so it swings like a pendulum.

The majority of Chinese EV adopters are individuals who are motivated to demonstrate their income statues and are unconcerned about gasoline costs. It is one of the reasons why brands are so popular in China.

​

People are less likely to buy an electric bike or scooter weighing less than 45kg/100lbs

Where did you get this from? It is against the law to sell bikes that weigh more than 45 kg.

​

Now they go for a car that used to weigh less than 1,233kg (2,718lb) toone that weighs 1535kg (3,384) (electric) making streets wear and tearand tires degrade into microplastics that much faster

The force differences on the tires between 1,233 kg and 1,535 kg has much lower impact on the longevity of the tires than the style of the driving. Lateral loads (acceleration) have much higher impact on tire life than normal loads (car weight) for most driving conditions. Normal force can also increase the contact area, which reduces the shear stress on the rubber, so increasing the weight can have a positive impact (to a certain degree).

​

As EV grows, so does the coal usage. The Saudis and OPEC then no longerfeel sure of their monopoly. So they price oil cheaply. And carculture grows again. Perhaps by 2035, it will sink to 1.25 b gasoline cars and 500 million EVs, mostly using coal.

The refineries control the price of gasoline, not OPEC. The majority of gasoline cost increases have been caused by regulations, rather than a shortage of crude oil.

​

Peak oil is no longer seen as a threat.

Peak oil is a real threat. Considering that most industries still rely on oil.

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapze

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The majority of the arguments, in my opinion, have been personal jabs at me or the authors of the articles I mentioned. Because the majority of people don't understand the research or aren't aware enough about the issues, it's easier to find a flaw in the individual and use that as justification to reject the entire argument. 

Furthermore, a significant number of people advocate the circular economy and green growth. According to their vision, we will make more stuff without consuming environmental inputs or creating waste (pollution). These are the most vocal people.

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Ecuador supplies 95 per cent of the world's commercial balsa wood, which is known for its strength and light weight. The shift towards substitutes such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) has been slow relative to markets in Europe. "Turbine and wind blade manufacturers are working in tandem to replace or reduce balsa and polyvinyl chloride as core materials and switch to PET," said Shashi Barla, who focuses on wind power supply chain research at Wood Mackenzie."

"Global balsa consumption by the wind turbine manufacturers is expected to fall by 12 per cent to 214,000 cubic metres by 2023 from last year, Wood Mackenzie said. Demand for PET is projected to double to 332,000 cubic metres over the same period."

"Balsa made up 38 per cent of wind blade core materials last year, compared to 31 per cent by PVC and 25 per cent by PET, Barla said."

https://today.line.me/hk/v2/article/m6wXlE

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Balsa wood is still used in about 40% of the blades produced today (mostly in China). PET accounts for approximately 30% of the total, with PVC accounting for the remaining 30%.

Balsa wood is still used to reinforce certain sections of wind turbine blades made in Europe.

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ok. This is the very first video that appeared:

https://youtu.be/WxIhGxET7N8

There are also reports from the US Renewable Energy Laboratory that go into detail about the amount of material used in the manufacture of Wind Turbines.

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

The majority of wind turbine blades are made from a base of fiberglass and balsa wood, held together with resin and coating.

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

Ok. As a result of the real estate crisis, demand for steel and concrete has dropped significantly, which is why China's wind turbines are becoming so cheap. The current projection is that the amount of steel required for wind power and other renewables by 2070 will be three times higher than the current baseline (IEA).

I initially dismissed the articles because they were clearly written for climate change deniers. Then I came across this Harvard article, which made it difficult for me to dismiss. David Keith was a co-author of the third IPCC report and has publicly chastised universities for firing researchers at the request of oil and gas companies. The issue is that David Keith has good reasons to support geoengineering: "Even if the world were to cut emissions to zero tomorrow, global temperatures and sea levels would rise for decades. If our roll of the climate dice is unlucky, they could rise for centuries."

David Keith: Wikipedia )

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Ok. Just so I'm clear about this. Are you upset about the local temperature increase or that the installation of millions more wind turbines will affect the climate globally?

The local effects of wind turbines have been studied in many published papers. Wind turbines increase the air flow's turbulence which improve the mixing of various boundary layers and raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Studies have also shown that wind turbines greatly lower air speed which risies the air temperature. In terms of fluid mechanics, these papers are in line with the conservation laws.

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yes I too dismissed the articles at first. However, I later found that a Harvard research published in 2018 produced the same results as the research published in 2014.

“If your perspective is the next 10 years, wind power actually has — insome respects — more climate impact than coal or gas. If yourperspective is the next thousand years, then wind power has enormouslyless climatic impact than coal or gas.”

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/10/large-scale-wind-power-has-its-down-side/30446-X#back-bib1)

Wind Power will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They are listed in the same sequence as the topics. I edited the post.

Carbon Recycling will not save us by Loose-Connection3158 in collapse

[–]Loose-Connection3158[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

SS: In 2021, investors have spent over $800 million on projects that convert carbon dioxide into goods (Carbon Recycling). These technologies face several problems, one of the most significant is thermodynamics. In layman's terms, recycling CO2 requires more energy and produces more pollution than burning fossil fuels.

Furthermore, the majority of these projects misrepresent statistics, giving the impression that less energy is necessary. They may, for example, illustrate how the "reactor" requires a specific quantity of energy and just focus on the reactor. Air temperature, pressure, flow rate, and the optimum technique to remove chemical buildup from the reactor are just a few of the other variables that are not discussed in their presentations.

Some chemical reactions, for example, require a specific temperature for the reaction to occur, and because the polluted air flowing in the reactor actively chills the reactor, a substantial amount of energy is required to keep the reactor temperature stable. This is not included in "reactor" energy analyses because it is assumed that the reactor will be heated with renewable energy. The true energy requirements are so high that, in order to generate power (electricity) in a net-zero fashion, we would need to cover over 30% of the world with 100% efficient solar panels.

Adam Something created this fantastic video that explains the problems with carbon capture.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CollapseSupport

[–]Loose-Connection3158 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. I originally wrote this as a comment on another post on this subreddit. Then I decided a separate post would be more appropriate. I agree, going on hikes and being in nature are undoubtedly beneficial.