What is Your Definition of "Green" vs "Sustainable"

you can think of solar mass as renewable. All of the elements in our solar system were recycled from a previous solar system, otherwise there'd be nothing about but hydrogen. When the sun collapses in a few hundred years, it will shed great gouts of heavy metals along with planet stuff like silicates and aluminum salts, oxygen, carbon, and so on. These things will fly apart for a period of time until they find a massive object around which they can coalesce. If they don't find anything, they'll eventually be drawn back to the vicinity of the current sun, create a new accretion disk, develop a case of planets, and begin fusion again (engineers have been assuring me for over 50 years that fusion is only a decade or two away, so by the time the sun coalesces, it might be a good time for fusion engineers.

that's what they want you to believe--that we're halfway through a roughly 10 billion year lifespan of the sun. The problem is that this 10 billion year lifespan includes its phases as a red giant (which begins in roughly 3000) in which the sun begins fusing helium to make heavier substances, resulting in much lower density, and an expansion of the solar surface to include the orbits of mercury, venus, earth, and mars. In fact, it's likely to lap at the asteroid belt and perhaps jupiter as well. We'll all be blackened except a few who have colonized triton, titan, and the pluto planetary system (it has several moons, none much smaller than pluto. These colonies will be blessed with a ready supply of water, arable soil, and the warmth of New Delhi on a summer afternoon. Those who are able to survive the novalike expansion of gases and particles in deep underground tunnels may continue the human race. Or, it's possible that the idea of the loss of their home planet will be too much for these colonists, who will commit mass murder or suicide by remaining on the surfaces of their moons and planetoids. In any case, 100 years before we're all charred remains feeding the atomic furnace at the center of the sun. Talk about global warming! See you there!

"When the sun collapses in a few hundred years......"

Been reading those trashy supermarket magazines?

No, just doing some math.

I regret to inform you that you flunked.

I can't blame you for living in denial of the obvious. Without denial, many people couldn't drag themselves through their lives. I don't want to interfere with that--you know what you need to maintain your sanity and I have never even met you. Since I have provided my reasons for reaching my conclusion and you have not provided a shred of evidence that it's untrue, one can only deduce that you have none. Therefore, I generously and graciously accept your concession. You are wise not to pick a fight you know you cannot win. Now close your eyes and breathe deeply. Repeat after me: "five billion years. five billion years. five billion years." I take no pleasure in being correct--how could I? I have children and grandchildren. It's too late to take even the most drastic steps to avoid our fate.

Evidence, what evidence have you presented? Absolutely none!

Read This Link if you want to have some insight on the process. It is an easy read.

Or Here

Or Here

Or how about NASA? Can they be trusted? This Link is helpfull.

Oh, by the way, it is not up to me to prove you wrong (although I graciously have provide plenty of evidence). It is your claim and you are the one that has to back it up.

So far the number of scholarly links you have provided is exactly... umm... zero.

to be honest, I was just jerking your chain, which seemed patently jerkable. but for a moment, imagine that you were the lead scientist in a group who, through observing mature, small g-type stars, came to realize that there was a breakdown of spectrum that could give you the age of the star along its timeline from forming to going red giant (our sun is virtually alone among its sister stars that would have formed at the same time in the same cluster in having not made this transition--look it up). Imagine that you came to realize that you held in your hand the death warrant for seven billion souls, not counting the wildebeestes. What would you do with that information? Send the globe into a death spiral of murder and suicide, war and panic, starvation and infestation for the next hundred years or so? Or would you sit on it? Alter it? Make it appear that everything would be fine for another five billion years? I think you would do the latter--I would. Not trust NASA? How about not trusting NOAA? Is the climate changing? Can it be turned around? Is it due to carbon dioxide or a mixture of solar change and pollution? Before you answer, remember that the atmosphere of any other circumsolar object that HAS an atmosphere has demonstrated an increase in energy absorption--Jupiter has an additional permanent hurricane besides the red spot. Mars is warmer (granted, it's at apohelion right now). Venus, always so freaking hot, may be hotter still. Well, let's agree to let this die. In 100 years, we'll be dead and our children will be dead and our grandchildren will be senescent or dead and whoever is left won't remember us anyway, whether they are slowly becoming extra crispy buckets or running around on nude beaches on the north slope. I wonder about India. Will they even notice global warming? Typically it's 120 degrees in the afternoons in New Delhi. The Empty Quarter will become emptier. The Great Sandy Desert will be deserted. The Gobi and the Sahara will meet in central asia. Have a beautiful day while it lasts.

Please accept my apology, the title should read:

What is your definition of "Green" vs "Renewable"

No need. I think you should have included all three terms in your thread title.

It's an unfortunate fact that the dreaded media and marketing goons have hijacked the word "green" and used it to sell products to a gullible public. I once tried a "citrus based oven cleaner" which was touted as "green." I had my suspicions, and I was right - it was utterly useless. It it doesn't have caustic soda as the active ingredient, then it won't do the job.

As regards the CNG Honda: It still emits CO2 in the exhaust, although about 45% less than gasoline. I would suggest that it's only a "very pale green."

I have found citrus cleaners to work extremely well....and quite a pleasant fragrance too...oven cleaner? never used any....

I think I cleaned an oven once when I was a student. It taught me something.

Ok,

You posts made me laugh out loud.

I think I understand, "Green" has been tarnished but at the end of the day if something emits less pollutants saying it is "Green" while a very relative term may be correct - again as long as it's use pollutes less?

I know of people who have tapped their septic tanks and are heating their homes and cooking with the gas produced from their own waste.

Is it green? Maybe brown would be more applicable. Hee hee hee.

at least they have lowered their dependence of oil and coal or at least supplemented their use of it.

energyconversion and kramarat have adequately described "green"

"renewable" is a misnomer, and like "green", deliberately so.

With the exception of geothermal and nuclear, all of the energy use on planet Earth comes from the sun.

Uranium is thought to have arrived here from a 6 billion year old supernova, and geothermal is self describing.

When we burn coal, oil, or wood, we are burning stored energy from the sun. While we can replant some trees to burn, we have not renewed the tree. We have used a natural indigenous system that will capture additional energy from the sun.

Is the sun renewable...no. Is it green...no. Is is sustainable...it is for our purposes, although it will burn out eventually.

I therefore submit that "sustainable" is the only applicable, technically correct and non political term being discussed here.

In reality...

Green = Politicly Correct

Sustainable = Ability to maintain status quo of believers

Renewable = Ability to reconvert former believers.

First, there is no hard definition for these terms. They are simply political rhetoric that means whatever the author wants, but they all have a central theme about ecology.

That may seem a little pragmatic, but the "green movement" is yet another good idea that has been hijacked for political purposes, mainly for power and control.

Another thought provoker on the population question: Logan's Run

Yeah, lots of movies on that theme. Soylant Green was an old favourite but I don't know why now. I recently caught the movie In Time where everyone used time as a currency instead of cash. So the objective would be to earn more time than you spent. You were genetically modified at birth with an expiry date of one year after your 25th birthday. You could add additional credits by adding time to your expiry date. There was only so much time going around, so if you added time onto your expiry meant someone lost time. The rich were immortal or near to it as long as they did not accidentally die. And you stayed looking like a 25 year old. 3/5

Great movie, BTW!

Green is the sub sect of Sustainability domain.

Green means it doesn't pollute. Lots of renewable resources will pollute the air or water around them, so just because it is renewable doesn't make it green. Where the problem comes in might well be in your definition of pollution compared to MY definition of pollution. I think those smelly sticks of incense are pollution, but my wife thinks they are fragrant. I think smoked hams are fragrant, and my wife thinks they are covered in creosote crud. (shrug)

Sustainable means it will renew as fast or faster as it is destroyed. For instance, cutting down redwood forests to get firewood is not sustainable, though theoretically, they will renew themselves. Eventually. If we continue to harvest something in an unsustainable fashion, we will drive it into extinction. Passenger pigeons and dodo birds come to mind, as does mesquite, cocobolo, mahogany and ebony woods.

So as you can see, they are entirely different things, requiring entirely different approaches.

Yes.

"green" means emitting or reflecting energy with a wavelength of roughly 520-570 nanometers.

sustainable would mean a thing that exists in two or more subsequent time frames.

do I win?

My defination are

Green Energy: Energy produced without poisioning earth and earth atmosphere. Like manufacturing of wind energy if all components which is used to produced this power has not used toxic elements like leaded paint, or chromium steel or arsenic doped glass protective coating. Solar will be same if it does not have lead ribbon for current flow to battery, leaded glass in silver glass and silicon

Renewable energy: Only energy I know is renewable is of phtosynthsis using man made leaf which breaks down water to hydrogen and then hydrogen and hydrogen regenerates and give back power and water as by product. This is at very early stage at MIT and some other labs.

Any energy being created now by Sun is renewable. Time period of renewal is important. Some trees are renewable as they can planted and used up within an year. Some may take few years to use up but still come under renewable and green category.Fruit of some gives oil also comes under renewable. Ocean/Wind/wave are renewable but they can not be termed as Green. Green should be Trees/plants /algae etc.

Would you not consider tidal energy renewable ?

Sure, if we use too much of it for millions of years we might decay the orbit of the moon some. But hey...decayed enough, we would get a whole lot of energy all at once.

just some added insight to what Green means.

Green stands for something new as in a green horn is a new cowboy. Or he is still green meaning he is new at this. Not mature and so forth. Green can also mean sickly to be green under the gills.

So basically green technology is a new technology, not yet fully proven or a matured technology. The media unintentionally is telling us a green car is new technology that is not fully proven while at the same time saying it is eco friendly.

But how eco friendly are these green cars?

They roll on petroleum blended to natural rubber based tires, and the body made from petroleum and other chemical based plastic and metal alloy, or petroleum and other chemical based carpets, vinyl seat covers and foam. Or the petroleum and other chemical (MEK) based based in the laquer paints and so on and so forth to manufacture these so called green cars.

The joke is on all of us who think green technology is actually eco friendly

Ever watch steel being manufactured? I am trying to imagine anything made from steel being even remotely referred to as "green".

I fear that most CR4 denizens won't use the term "green", nor will they fall for it when they see it advertised in the new car showroom. It is not even a relative term...

A sisal and wood car pegged together that runs on alcohol or wood pellets "might" be "green". Clipper ships and horse drawn wagons come close as well. Before I get all misty eyed and look at technology through green coloured glasses, I really have to think about why we don't actually move goods across the ocean in clipper ships any more.

I wouldn't agree that the Honda is 100% green because it burns fossil fuel. It is just more green than gasoline. I wouldn't agree that it is 100% renewable because it will eventually run out in its naturally produced form.

I wouldn't even agree that people would buy the Honda primarily for either above reasons. They buy them because it is cheaper to run than a gas engine and they also hope that one day they will be cheaper to make or convert too!

Don't be fooled into thinking people who go for green or renewable are mostly in it for the environment or other people's health. They want to preserve their own health and wealth. I would be willing to wager that most people would call their first born a renewable and green product if they thought they could find a way to produce endless free energy from their body bits. They wouldn't care about Green or Renewable if it cost more than they had to spend and...Right now that is the case for most people of the world.

No wonder the people who tout it the loudest to the world are the ones with the money and avaiable land resources to utilize it. If you're a poor in wealth and resources it's still o.k. to promote it because it is easier to break into a under-utilized business model so, if you can literally sell people on the idea (more to the point, sell it to the people $$) then they you might be able to afford any green and renewable product for yourself some day.

Look at it this way, many people and businesses have all shown us the green, renewable solution to those rural, poor and starving villages in Africa and the rest of the third world. If it were so cheap and easily manufactured/produced then why are many people in the world still starving in the dark at night in those countries? Of course they blame politics but there isn't much to stop a determined villager once you give them the information. It must be something else stopping them........

As for me, I'm all for Climate change and DIY! Have you seen the free wind, solar and wave energy as of late? I mean there is a silver lining to heatwaves, hurricanes and torrential downpours!