InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

boston745

01/16/24 9:15 PM

#84264 RE: la-tsla-fan #84262

A better way to look at it is lifetime energy input vs output. If output is estimated to exceed input, then from that perspective its better. Then examine life cycle to determine the level of pollution to create and recycle or destroy the product. Solar panels are supposed to be quite toxic if left in landfills if I recall, as are batteries. I am not aware of the level of energy needed to recycle but this energy is not likely sourced from solar. Point is the tech is far from benign. I do use them and used Tesla battery cells for my DIY solar/wind system for living offgrid. I do so knowing the Tesla cells could spontaneously combust.

I wish things were different because I like the idea of Tesla just not the reality. I was bullish Cybertruck before I better understood the Hutchison Effect and EM hypersensitivity.

Chklington is right, energy mix is essential and thus a goal to electrify all transport and heating/cooking are bad ideas as this makes us dependent on 1 source which doesnt work during blackouts and increases the likelihood of them as the grid isnt ready for such increase in draw.
icon url

TheRealMrPirate

01/16/24 10:13 PM

#84267 RE: la-tsla-fan #84262

Whilst you are technically correct, the push for "renewables" are sold to the general public as green / environmentally friendly / cut out fossil fuels.
It is nothing more than a narrative on all 3 points, pure fiction.
Wind turbines / solar panels / battery production all require fossil fuels through out their production and in the final product.
"Green" energy is factually increasing the dependence & usage of fossil fuels.