Green Energy....

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 2:21 PM GMT
    So I am in favor of the switch to the use of "green energy". I am watching the tour de France right now and all of the windmills that the french use to get power are........guess......NOT MOVING. Last time I checked, they need to be spinning to create power.

    I feel that we need to used ALL type of power creation. Specifically Natural gas, nuclear and OFF shore windmills.

    Why are you opinions on this issue AND would you be opposed to Nuclear power?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 3:58 PM GMT
    Wind powered generators are a pretty clean source of electricty. Though they take some significant resources to create, once they are built they will only require routine maintenance, though you are correct, they only generate electricity if there is wind.
    Natural gas must be burned to run electric generators, which only adds to the large number of unnatural gasses in the atmosphere. Though it may generate electricity, its only going to compund other problems.
    I think nuclear energy is a really cool idea, but what do we do with the nuclear waste? I think right now its just being stored in concrete tanks. Also, events like Chernobyl remind us how dangerous this kind of power generation can be.

    Personally, I think the concept of green energy is misleading and incorrect. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it has to come from somewhere and it has to go somewhere. The green energy debate only talks about where we are taking this energy from, but I think we also need to look at where it's going.
    In my opinion, almost everyone wastes electrical power on a daily basis- I do it all the time, though I'm trying to get better icon_smile.gif If we all changed our lifestyles a bit, maybe we could get by on the energy generators we already have. I feel that the green energy initiative is using extra resources and emitting extra pollution to get rid of the resource using and pollution creating energy sources we already have.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 4:05 PM GMT
    Zoom12010 saidSo I am in favor of the switch to the use of "green energy". I am watching the tour de France right now and all of the windmills that the french use to get power are........guess......NOT MOVING. Last time I checked, they need to be spinning to create power.

    I feel that we need to used ALL type of power creation. Specifically Natural gas, nuclear and OFF shore windmills.

    Why are you opinions on this issue AND would you be opposed to Nuclear power?


    LOL, natural gas isnt green mate, sorry... though it gives off less soot than gasoline, its still a greenhouse-gas source (those are what create global warming)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 4:42 PM GMT
    Nuclear power is awesome in that it produces energy without GHG emissions. Sounds like the miracle fix, but there are several negatives to nuclear power.

    There are huge start up costs to building nuclear power plants

    Plants that are built have an estimated 20 year life before they should be dismantled, which again would have a large cost.

    Issues of terrorism and national safety are a concern. Although the concrete around the reactor is supposedly strong enough to withstand an aircraft flying into it, and we probably have sophisticated science to avoid the mistakes of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, these plants could still be a target of a hostile attack.

    We still don't have a good solution for storing nuclear waste. Some power plants have sealed it away under the earth while some just leave it in what are essentially large swimming pools on the facility, loosely guarded. An expensive facility in the mountains in the southwest somewhere (maybe Nevada?) was built to store waste from several plants, but NIMBYs opposed it. No one wants this stuff around them.

    The location for a new nuclear power plant is built is based upon where there is little chance it will be destroyed by mother nature. That means not in earthquake, hurricane, or any other big natural disaster zones. Where are "they" eye-ing up the next potential location for a power plant? Northern Wisconsin. Depending on the location chosen, if a push is made to build one here, the opposition would probably be big. Environmentalists would fear pollutants being seeped into the water (which may lead back into Lake Michigan) and the changing of the wildlife and habitat. Liberals would probably point to the dangers associated with one of these plants. Conservatives would scoff at the high price tag associated with a nuclear power plant.

    Unless they find a good way to deal with the waste, I don't see nuclear being a large part of the energy fix. Which is a shame.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 4:56 PM GMT
    Agreed, solar will play a large large part in the energy solution. Thermal sources have potential too.

    Now that businesses are being convinced that being "green" or having a sustainable company can positively impact their bottom line, I believe in the next 5 years we will see a big shift in the way businesses operate. Being sustainable will hopefully soon be seen as an essential step for corporate survival.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 4:58 PM GMT
    uwbadgerdude saidNuclear power is awesome in that it produces energy without GHG emissions. Sounds like the miracle fix, but there are several negatives to nuclear power.

    There are huge start up costs to building nuclear power plants

    Plants that are built have an estimated 20 year life before they should be dismantled, which again would have a large cost.

    Issues of terrorism and national safety are a concern. Although the concrete around the reactor is supposedly strong enough to withstand an aircraft flying into it, and we probably have sophisticated science to avoid the mistakes of Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, these plants could still be a target of a hostile attack.

    We still don't have a good solution for storing nuclear waste. Some power plants have sealed it away under the earth while some just leave it in what are essentially large swimming pools on the facility, loosely guarded. An expensive facility in the mountains in the southwest somewhere (maybe Nevada?) was built to store waste from several plants, but NIMBYs opposed it. No one wants this stuff around them.

    The location for a new nuclear power plant is built is based upon where there is little chance it will be destroyed by mother nature. That means not in earthquake, hurricane, or any other big natural disaster zones. Where are "they" eye-ing up the next potential location for a power plant? Northern Wisconsin. Depending on the location chosen, if a push is made to build one here, the opposition would probably be big. Environmentalists would fear pollutants being seeped into the water (which may lead back into Lake Michigan) and the changing of the wildlife and habitat. Liberals would probably point to the dangers associated with one of these plants. Conservatives would scoff at the high price tag associated with a nuclear power plant.

    Unless they find a good way to deal with the waste, I don't see nuclear being a large part of the energy fix. Which is a shame.



    Wow you sure do know a lot about nuclear power plants.
  • NerdLifter

    Posts: 1509

    Jul 07, 2010 5:09 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidA solar panel on every home's roof. Even if that home is in the north or an area that is usually cloudy, by introducing solar panels on a massive scale, it would make a huge difference in how we generate electricity.

    This is the kind of "stimulus" that, if the federal government was smart enough to realize, would have made a real difference in our current economic weakness, and have the added benefit of building a true 21st century infrastructure.


    I always envisioned precisely this when it came to our future energy infrastructure. However the sheer power of certain lobbyists who don't want to see cleaner energy solutions happen can be depressing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 5:19 PM GMT
    amar_m said
    Zoom12010 saidSo I am in favor of the switch to the use of "green energy". I am watching the tour de France right now and all of the windmills that the french use to get power are........guess......NOT MOVING. Last time I checked, they need to be spinning to create power.

    I feel that we need to used ALL type of power creation. Specifically Natural gas, nuclear and OFF shore windmills.

    Why are you opinions on this issue AND would you be opposed to Nuclear power?


    LOL, natural gas isnt green mate, sorry... though it gives off less soot than gasoline, its still a greenhouse-gas source (those are what create global warming)



    I wasn't saying that NG is a green energy source. It is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. I was trying to say that we need to use all kinds of power generation for our needs.

    @southbeach - Solar panels are nice, however they require a large amount of heavy metals which have to be mined. kinda like how hybrid cars are a "green" joke.

    @uwbadgerdude I think TMI has be operating for more than 20 years.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 5:25 PM GMT
    BlackLabSD said
    uwbadgerdude said

    Wow you sure do know a lot about nuclear power plants.



    Sorry actually you don’t…not that what you say isn’t true, just suggest you take a look at what France is doing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:03 PM GMT
    I think a huge issue is the way Americans are all spread out, urban planning at its worse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:25 PM GMT
    The whole green energy thing is a pipe dream, smoke and mirrors (so to speak).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:25 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidI think a huge issue is the way Americans are all spread out, urban planning at its worse.


    Nonsense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:29 PM GMT
    JackBlair said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidI think a huge issue is the way Americans are all spread out, urban planning at its worse.


    Nonsense.


    America is an incredibly pedestrian unfriendly country. Unless you live in a big city you are screwed unless you have a car.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:31 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JackBlair said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidI think a huge issue is the way Americans are all spread out, urban planning at its worse.


    Nonsense.


    America is an incredibly pedestrian unfriendly country. Unless you live in a big city you are screwed unless you have a car.


    So what? If you don;t like driving, then move to a city where you can walk all the time. No one's stopping you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:34 PM GMT
    JackBlair said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JackBlair said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidI think a huge issue is the way Americans are all spread out, urban planning at its worse.


    Nonsense.


    America is an incredibly pedestrian unfriendly country. Unless you live in a big city you are screwed unless you have a car.


    So what? If you don;t like driving, then move to a city where you can walk all the time. No one's stopping you.


    Your over simplified answers to everything are pretty disturbing. Not everyone can afford to do something like that, or can find work in their field if they move, there are an infinite number of reasons of why everything you just said right now is just plain ignorant.

    Making America more pedestrian/bike friendly would help with lowering obesity, limit carbon emissions, and get hummers off the road.

    I wont lie, I'm biased against hummers/SUVs, but only because they suck.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jul 07, 2010 6:38 PM GMT
    Wind turbines were intended to be used in association with solar panels, although the two ideas have been separated somewhat. The idea is that the wind is strongest when it is cloudy, and that it is generally less breezy during sunny periods. The concept is also that massive batteries be put in place to story energy, during the day and during windy periods. These would then be used similar to water reservoirs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:39 PM GMT
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JackBlair said
    DoomsDayAlpaca said
    JackBlair said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidI think a huge issue is the way Americans are all spread out, urban planning at its worse.


    Nonsense.


    America is an incredibly pedestrian unfriendly country. Unless you live in a big city you are screwed unless you have a car.


    So what? If you don;t like driving, then move to a city where you can walk all the time. No one's stopping you.


    Your over simplified answers to everything are pretty disturbing. Not everyone can afford to do something like that, or can find work in their field if they move, there are an infinite number of reasons of why everything you just said right now is just plain ignorant.

    Making America more pedestrian/bike friendly would help with lowering obesity, limit carbon emissions, and get hummers off the road.

    I wont lie, I'm biased against hummers/SUVs, but only because they suck.


    Economic realities prohibit your dreams of a pedestrian/cycling society.
  • DCEric

    Posts: 3713

    Jul 07, 2010 6:39 PM GMT
    JackBlair saidThe whole green energy thing is a pipe dream, smoke and mirrors (so to speak).


    Yeah, I mean because the concept of endless oil, coal and natural gas has been such a paradise on Earth.

    The%20Scarecrow%201.jpg
    Fitting in more ways than one.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 6:41 PM GMT
    Zoom12010 saidSo I am in favor of the switch to the use of "green energy". I am watching the tour de France right now and all of the windmills that the french use to get power are........guess......NOT MOVING. Last time I checked, they need to be spinning to create power.

    I feel that we need to used ALL type of power creation. Specifically Natural gas, nuclear and OFF shore windmills.

    Why are you opinions on this issue AND would you be opposed to Nuclear power?


    This thread contains a number of misconceptions, which I correct below:

    1) Nuclear energy can only be used to produce baseline power, because they cannot easily be switched off.

    2) The biggest problem with Nuclear is not the safety --- modern reactor designs do not suffer from the problems that helped to cause Chernobyl [and moreover Reactor 4 was being used in a really crazy way at the time of the accident] but rather disposal of the nuclear waster and the issue of proliferation of nuclear materials.

    3) France generates the majority of its power from nuclear.

    4) Solar and Wind are not intended to provide baseline but "on-demand" power as they have very rapid response times. This is why they compete with gas (because Wind and Solar plants can be switched on an off as quickly). To use them in other modalities, they have to be supplemented with some kind of storage solution e.g. hydroelectric reservoirs and pumping systems, or, potentially, hydrogen fuel cells.

    5) The biggest problem in the US is not the *means* of production but the very poor state of the transmission infrastructure. Many solutions are infeasible without upgrades to this, and presently there is considerable waste.

    there are more but that's all I have time for now...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 7:00 PM GMT
    I think everything should be done.

    Its easy to say "ride a bike" or "move" but its not very realistic, or even particle for many people in this country. The green energy thing is cool, but it needs to be perfected, because its useless to a lot of people in this country as is.

    Drilling ourselves would move us away from needing oil from other countries, some of which we aren't too friendly with. While this is being done, all of the green stuff can be perfected, making it better, cheaper, and easier for your average person to use. Doing it this way would create a lot of jobs for people which would be a very nice thing in the current state of the economy, and would slowly move us away from oil, and make us the leader in energy.

  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 07, 2010 7:47 PM GMT
    The biggest problem I see with nuclear energy is the nuclear waste. Where will it be stored? Who wants that in their town where it could possibly seep into your food and water supply?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 7:48 PM GMT
    this comment can be a response to several people but the information I posted was stuff that I was taught in an Environmental Risk Management course. I should be more up to date with learning about this kind of thing but I've fallen behind. Sorry if I've posted anything completely wrong!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 10:04 PM GMT
    JackBlair said
    DoomsDayAlpaca saidI think a huge issue is the way Americans are all spread out, urban planning at its worse.


    Nonsense.


    VERY CLEAR TROLLING. IGNORE
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 07, 2010 10:15 PM GMT
    I agree with you IHG84, we need to have a variety of solutions and diversify our energy portfolio. Just like putting all our eggs in the oil basket was a bad idea, we shouldn't just switch to wind, or corn-based gasoline or whatever.

    I think solar power is the least respected and has the most potential because it's practically limitless. The sun beams so much energy at us daily and yet it's relegated to the back burner for energy potential.