All you would need is one Airborne Wind Turbine attached to one of these.

Yay! Landfill and Oil problem solved.

>> ^joop:
But the plastic originally comes from oil... To turn it back into oil requires energy, which is typically the burning of other oil/petroleum products.

You'd surely end up with a net negative outcome from all this.

>> ^Shepppard:

>> ^bmacs27:
My guess is that the issue is what would we do with the oil? If we were just going to make plastic with it again, it's probably cheaper to recycle by conventional means. Since we are still making plastic with virgin oil anyway, I see no reason to spend more energy turning plastic back into oil only to spend energy making plastic again. You might as well just melt it and pour it back into a mold.

The plastic, once turned into oil, can be refined in to Gasoline, Diesel, and Kerosene.
Anyway, keep this up, I'm quite enjoying reading this discussion.


But the plastic originally comes from oil... To turn it back into oil requires energy, which is typically the burning of other oil/petroleum products.

You'd surely end up with a net negative outcome from all this.

You'd probably be spending more energy to go back to a petroleum product than in their original manufacture, otherwise this would have already been done before. And not by just one bloke.

@GeeSussFreeK

Yes, I understand it's a difficult subject for the layman...hell, I'M a layman when it comes to climate science, but I know how to learn and sift through information to determine what's bullshit. I do my own learning and I don't rely on hearsay. A subject being difficult doesn't excuse terrible logic and belief in misinformation.

How can you remain "cautiously agnostic" after statements like the following? Massive conspiracy of scientists?

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change."


Even the petroleum geologists finally acknowledged it...y'know, the guys who work for the oil industry...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists#Global_warming_controversy

Just because some ozone depleting chemicals have a greenhouse effect doesn't mean that the ozone hole getting better means there can't be global warming. It's that whole if A implies B then B implies A logic people incorrectly use all the time. Also, the ozone hole over the Antarctic is expected to continue for decades, even if it is "getting better". AND, there is an expectation that as the ozone hole in the Antarctic gets better, it will actually increase the speed of warming in that area:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html

The point is, "it's complicated" should lead one to "man, I'd better find out what the deal is" not, "man, I'll never understand that so I'm gonna wait for someone else to tell me what the deal is." Nor should it lead people to take small bits of evidence that logically connect to a positive outcome and then assume the outcome for the entire situation will be positive. That's exactly what the problem is with "ozone repair => no global warming" logic.

Ozone-depleting chemicals are constantly being phased out of use where possible (some are used as fire suppressants and are therefore bottled up most of the time, etc). The general public recognizes ozone-depleting chemicals as bad, and there's no political problem with discontinuing them.

On the other hand, there's a political problem with discontinuing the use of oil, so we see lots of misinformation related to climate change. Millions if not billions of people have a direct stake in oil production, refining, distribution, and consumption. That should probably lead you to believe all the controversy is generated as opposed to existing on its own as a result of collected empirical data.

>> ^laura:

He is saying "propanediol" & propylene glycol...
A quick wiki search tells me that propanediol can be formed by "Conversion from glycerol (a by-product of biodiesel production) using Clostridium diolis bacteria."
...so could bacteria be breaking down components of the oil into propanediol/propylene glycol? ...not necessarily that it had to have come from the Corexit? Just wondering....


"In response to public pressure, the EPA and Nalco released the list of the six ingredients in Corexit 9500, revealing constituents including sorbitan, butanedioic acid, and petroleum distillates.[3] Corexit EC9500A is mainly comprised of hydrotreated light petroleum distillates, propylene glycol and a proprietary organic sulfonate.[16] Environmentalists also pressured Nalco to reveal to the public what concentrations of each chemical are in the product; Nalco considers that information to be a trade secret, but has shared it with the EPA.[17] Propylene glycol is a chemical commonly used as a solvent or moisturizer in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, and is of relatively low toxicity. An organic sulfonate (or organic sulfonic acid salt) is a synthetic chemical detergent, that acts as a surfactant to emulsify oil and allow its dispersion into water. The identity of the sulfonate used in both forms of Corexit was disclosed to the EPA in June 2010, as dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate.[18]" wiki

>> ^JiggaJonson:

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say are you sure it's raining oil? I used to see that same sheen on the rainy streets of Pasadena growing up and it was just the surface oil from cars being washed off the street. I'm not saying it's not raining oil, but I need more conclusive proof than this, ie. timelapse of a rain gauge that shows an oily slick on top.

That doesn't explain the oil on the grass.


The video doesn't actually show oil in the grass.

Some total crackpot pointing a video camera at some (petroleum based) blacktop is proof of nothing. The sides of roads is where cars park. Oil leaks from cars. Rain falls from clouds. Rain mixes with oil from cars on the pavement. Rainbow sheen appears. Happens every time it rains, on every part of the planet where cars park.

This is reminiscent of that video where the lady is claiming a conspiracy when she notices a rainbow in her front yard water sprinkler.

http://videosift.com/video/Crazy-Sprinkler-Lady

Your video, American Petroleum Institute: Oil Makes Oysters Happy, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 2 Badge!

I am genuinely disgusted by this man, if you can call him that. I did some simple Googling, and I found this list of funds that he's received from lobbyists:

Oil & Gas $1,448,380
Electric Utilities $1,361,985
Health Professionals $1,102,804
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $797,738
Lawyers/Law Firms $556,415
TV/Movies/Music $503,349
Automotive $330,350
Chemical & Related Manufacturing $323,940
Lobbyists $323,000
Telephone Utilities $300,420
Insurance $282,199
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $259,490
Real Estate $240,450
Retail Sales $237,130
Hospitals/Nursing Homes $227,384
Retired $227,272
Securities & Investment $224,208
Defense Aerospace $220,550
Commercial Banks $214,810
Computers/Internet $204,474

Also, from Wikipedia:

"During his political career, the industries that have been Barton's largest contributors were oil and gas ($1.4 million donated), electric utilities ($1.3 million) and health professionals ($1.1 million)[33] He is ranked first among members of the House of Representatives for the most contributions received from the oil and gas industry, and number five among all members of Congress. His largest corporate contributor, Anadarko Petroleum, owns a 25 percent share in the Macondo Prospect, the site of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[34]"

As much as I like Zizek, his notions about ecology are bogus. They show a deep ignorance about biology and the natural world.

For instance, he asks us what kind of "unimaginable catastrophe" could have put petroleum in the deep strata of the earth. But petroleum is laid down precisely when there [i]aren't[/i] any catastrophes--nothing to disturb the layers of organic matter being deposited on the bed of the ocean or deep lake, no lava flows or the sediment collecting on top, no major earthquakes or other geological disturbances to break open the petroleum deposits and allow them to leak out, etc.

Nature [i]isn't[/i] just a series of catastrophes. Sure, they happen. But many species are so intricately interwoven with others through thousands of years of co-evolution that it's impossible to think that catastrophe conditions are the norm. And it is, indeed, human hubris that has caused so many devastating environmental problems today.

There is no establishment priority too banal for you to defend like a yapping poodle.

Solar panels are not more toxic than nuclear power, and their production would not cause ecologic disasters the likes of which we're seeing in the gulf. Yet another artless dodge on your part.

Every year we learn how to do more with less. The problem with solar energy now is that we really haven't spent that much time perfecting the science and production, but we are getting better.

And you're a lying sack of shit regarding nuclear going ten years without change. One nuclear plant creates thirty to forty tons of waste per year. That waste is deadly for tens of thousands of years. They have no where to put the stuff other than store it away and hope that nothing happens to it in the mean time. If something adverse does happen, then it's "Whoopsie! Not our problem any more!" and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill and the radioactivity.

Solar energy doesn't have to be "grid oriented." Every house has a refrigerator. Every house has a television, a computer, an HVAC unit, etc. Each house could have its own solar cells and supply its own energy.

You're as dense as QM. Your solution to any problem is no solution at all, just criticize anyone for offering an alternative.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

>> ^rougy:

You're still a fucking idiot.
The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.
The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.
Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.



Solar panels have more toxic materials in them than batteries, and generally include a large quantity of actual batteries as part of any installation as well. If you replace our entire grid with solar your going to have an enormous load of toxic waste to dispose of on a more regular basis than any nuclear plant(they can go decades between fuel loads depending on how you build them). Or do you somehow expect a solar mega-corp to be more responsible for some reason?

You're still a fucking idiot.

The solar industry isn't going to spill millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

The solar industry isn't going to leave radioactive waste piling up all over the place for generations to have to deal with in the future.

Why don't you go kick a Palestinian; you know it makes you feel better.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.

The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^rougy:
The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted. ...<snip>...
The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.


Your analogy isn't quite true. Unlike the solar industry, there is a concentration of power/production in the petroleum and nuclear industries which breaks your comparison continuation.

>> ^rougy:

The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.
That's the bottom line.
They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.
It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.
But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.


The solar power industry simply cannot be trusted.

That's the bottom line.

They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.

It's not that solar power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.

But I think... I question if you thought this post through. Unless you were trolling, in which case well done and you caught me, again.

The nuclear industry simply cannot be trusted.

That's the bottom line.

They'll be just like the petroleum industry and constantly demand less regulation, and where they can't do that, they'll infiltrate the regulating agencies with their own people, often former employees, and water down the oversight from that angle.

It's not that nuclear power doesn't have a use or doesn't have a place.

But I think, for the ubiquitous public-power perspective, there are cleaner alternatives well worth exploring and developing.