Comments by "Winnetou17" (@Winnetou17) on "Undecided with Matt Ferrell"
channel.
-
34
-
23
-
12
-
@MichaelZenkay That is a good argument, but the numbers still matter a lot. Using more energy for something does, in the end, mean more pollution, since the energy itself, even if solar or wind, pollutes (from manufacturing, repairing and then replacing). But how much more pollution is to be seen. Like mjc0961 said, the difference might be easily offset by simply reusing the bottle. If it's something like reusing 2, 3, 5 or 10 times, then I'd say it's the better option. 10 to 20 I'd say it's questionable, and it would depend on context if it's feasible or not. Higher need of reusing means that yes, just using plastic is actually better (and also more convenient)
7
-
@barongerhardt There are times where you normally use feet but have other things being expressed as "half a mile". Which is 2640 feet in length. Oh yeah, I forgot about yards. Those I haven't used or was forced to use much.
Anyway, the age is not exactly an argument. I was using more as mocking, like neatherthal = uses foot, contemporary man = uses meters.
First, using "foot" as a measure does come from around the Bronze age. Of course it wasn't the exact foot we have now. But the idea is the same, just that now we have tools and conventions, so it's the same everywhere (well, almost everywhere, that's how "International foot" got to be a thing).
The meter is still superior in that it was designed from the start to not be something so subjective like a human foot or cubit or anything else human-related. First it was based on Earth's size, and quite soon a reference bar was created.
But to get back on in, ft, yd, miles, pounds, ounces, gallons and the rest, the real benefit of the metric system is indeed that it's all in base of 10. You might barely, if ever need to care about mm in the same sentence as Mm (1000 km), but it does matter immensily. Because you use small units there, which interacts with medium units elsewhere, which eventually matter for big units somewhere else. Not having headaches in converting is very useful, both in time and in chances of mistakes. Basically the context will never matter, since it's so easy to convert from one size to another.
Lastly, indeed, our current languages aren't neccessarily better because they are newer. On that, I do regret many new things because a lot of time they shed some old, useful things, just because they feel they won't need them or because they're expensive (like having a phone that can be used for 50 years, not what we have now with smartphones).
However, I do have to point that using NAMES in latin has nothing to do with the language being good. Speaking in latin is an ENTIRELY different thing. And, no, basically nobody (including scientists) is speaking latin, which I think you could say that it is counter-productive. I understand your argument, but your example here is really not good.
5
-
5
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wait, that math section at the beginning sounds/looks pretty wrong. First, the theoretical maximum says 1.36kW/m^2, which, if I'm not mistaken is the solar power that hits the top of the atmosphere. On the ground it's more like 1000-1120 W/m^2, of course in very good scenarios. The computation of how much a solar panel would make doesn't include the solar panel efficiency. So, if we multiply that by 25% efficiency, it's something like 300 W/m^2
Next, in the more realistic scenario, 340 W/m^2 THEN multiplied by 55% irradiance (where is that figure from ? I guess that it's the average for the whole day, since the sun can't be at zenith the whole day. That's why the average daily energy taken at sea level is 6200 Wh, which would be only 6 hours of sunlight, but it's actually more hours, but most with reduced efficiency) THEN multiplied by the panel efficiency ? From what I know, usually the figures are around that 340W per panel, which usually are 1.7 square meters, so with an average of 20% efficiency, assuming 1000 W / m^2. I mean, that's what most people have, 300-400W per panel, at around 200 W/m^2 output, not that measily 37.4 W/m^2. If we're taking averages around the day, then it shouldn't be something expressed in hours.
All in all, seems it's comparing seeds to apples.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sooo, if it loses 1% the first year and "minimal degrade" (forgot the exact words) after .... I'm not THAT optimistic, so let's say it loses 1% of the current value each year.
So after 25 years, it will be at 0.99^25 = 0.778 aka 77.8% of initial output. From a base of 25% efficiency, adding the degradation to 77.8% of that, we get to a net efficiency of 19.45%.
The "normal" highend solar panel, if it has 22% efficiency, and the grade of deteoration is 8%, that means that in the end it will be at 22 * 0.92 = 20.24% efficiency.
In other words, what the perovskite wins in the first years, the normal solar panel makes up in the later years. Ok, maybe not to the full extent, but to a good one. If we add that the perovskite is more expensive (though I don't know, maybe it won't) and/or requires more maintenance, then ... it feels kind of a moot point. I hope I'm proven wrong though.
But it feels that it will be at least 5 years until the perovskites are out, proven, mature and at a good price. Those who can/want to buy solar panels now, shouldn't wait for perovskites.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1