Even prominent skeptics now agree, the earth is warming, and the effect is man-made.

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Vast LWC, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    ok...gotcha...I agree with you on the geothermal....let's go back to biomass. Yes, it produces the same after effects as any other fossil fuel source. however would it not be a solution to the degrading issue of landfills and the myriad of problems they have(leeching toxic drainage into water supply, vaporization onto the air from contaminated soil...plus the contaminated soil itself)

    although, burning the stuff for fuel isn't exactly what you would call "green", it seems to me that it's the lesser of two evils when you look at the big picture.
     
  2. ScienceRocks
    Online

    ScienceRocks Blue dog all the way!

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2010
    Messages:
    56,463
    Thanks Received:
    5,518
    Trophy Points:
    1,885
    Location:
    The Good insane United states of America
    Ratings:
    +21,726
    I agree with renewable energy as long as the operating cost don't hurt people as it's already expensive enough. Honestly, renewables have a few major weaknesses with solar and wind that nuclear and fossil fuels don't suffer. Outside of wave energy they're not reliable at all times...

    It's understandable the fear of nuclear, but if you want to go green, that's the way to do it and fast. My position has weakened in the last few years and will likely weaken more on renewables as they become more advanced and economical. Raising prices through the roof isn't moral and shutting down coal plants before their replacement doesn't make much sense. Shooting energy prices through the roof is evil as people are already choosing between food and energy.:mad:

    How about a massive solar array on the moon? :eusa_boohoo: May seem insane, but it would take away that limitation. We could put 60 gw or more.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  3. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    I don't know that anyone is talking about a large scale replacement of coal, etc. I have very little fear of nuclear energy in and of itself. The spent fuel rods, however are worrisome.

    Truthfully, if we upgraded our grid system...which I've read wastes 60% of the electricity our power plants produce....it would mean less strain on the system, less consumables used, and less energy generated....all of which would....or perhaps a more appropriate word is SHOULD decrease cost to the consumer. This is something we could start implementing immediately...The grid is part of our national infrastructure and is just one area where we are relying on severely outdated technology to meet our modern needs.
     
  4. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    38,934
    Thanks Received:
    6,197
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +20,609
    No -- it's not Green... And there's a worse fiction that's it's zero net carbon if you plant stuff just to burn it.. That's assuming there wasn't a constant crop of CO2 sinking material THERE in the 1st place! LEAVING it as corn or switchgrass or trees STILL produces less CO2 than burning for fuel.

    There's been massive bait and switches on Biomass. G.Britain enviro orgs are FURIOUS that they were duped into believing that these plants would be burning crops DESIGNED for low emissions and instead govt there has green lighted making these into TRASH incinerators that are BLESSED as green (our EPA has done the same).

    If you can BURN this stuff without problems -- how come COAL cannot be burned? Same type of plant construction.. In fact, you can switch a coal plant to burning trees and brush pretty easily.. It's hypocrital..

    AND -- if you use landfill, you will end up with a CONCENTRATED toxic ash and remnants that STILL have to be properly disposed of.. It's bunk and fraud perpetrated on a public that DESPARATELY wants to be green, but doesn't understand the diff between burning trees and burning coal...

    The combustion chambers on coal plants are EXTREMELY radioactive. That's because all the concentrated ash contains LARGE amounts of trace radioactive materials. This USED to go up the smokestack and some still does.. Most folks aren't capable of weighing all these practicalities so the debate becomes emotional and not practical. Bigger radioactive footprint from COAL than the total release from ALL nuclear plants in the entire history of USA nuclear power..
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  5. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,301
    Thanks Received:
    5,694
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,763
    No one on the right opposes renewables.

    What we oppose is legislating out of existence the use of fossil fuels BEFORE the renewables are practical, scalable, and economical.

    You want to shut down all the coal plants? Fine. Give me something that will come on line the second you shut down the coal plants. The power produced has to be comparable in price to that generated by coal.

    And bear in mind that you have to replace HALF the nation's electricity currently provided by coal.

    So...what have you got?
    Or you could read what I actually write. There's an idea.
     
  6. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    Hummer..where did I say anything like what you said?

    As far as what I got...read the discussion between flacaltenn(sp?) and I.
    Tenn brings up good points and I agree with him on most of it. I still think burning our own garbage as fuel is a good way to go. Disposal of the ash is an issue though, and I concede the point. But I don't concede the concept...burning our waste as fuel instead of dumping it in a landfill still makes sense

    There are things we as individuals can do too. Like I said, my wife and I were talking about central air...a co-worker told my wife about how her and her husband went with a geothermal system that significantly reduced their electricity usage in the Summer and their fuel oil usage in the winter and they had a oil/hot air system. We have oil/hot water, which holds it's heat longer. There are, like Tenn said, solar arrays that heat your water and helps.

    I think we need to stop looking at things like this as black vs. white and embrace what we can now, implement the things that aren't quite ready when they are, and never give up on things like fusion.

    photovoltaics will become more efficient, most of hydrogen's carbon footprint is in the power required to produce it(which I think what I proposed would eliminate most of), and who knows what will be discovered or invented in the future.

    Heck, I read an article in popular science about an 14 year old who built a fusion reactors....it's small scale and it's application is to scan ships coming into port for nuclear weapons...he was only the 32nd person in the world to build a working fusion reactor. What we don't know is a heck of a lot more than what we do.
     
  7. Vidi
    Offline

    Vidi CDZ prohibited

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    2,869
    Thanks Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    Ratings:
    +343


    Yes this!


    Our infrastructure needs to be upgraded. That alone would increase the efficiency of our current system and thus reuire LESS overall fossil fuel usage.


    is it going to fix the entire issue? No. But I believe we can nickel and dime our way to a permanent solution. One BIG quick fix is not in the cards.
     
  8. daveman
    Offline

    daveman Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Messages:
    51,301
    Thanks Received:
    5,694
    Trophy Points:
    1,775
    Location:
    On the way to the Dark Tower.
    Ratings:
    +5,763
    Where did I say I opposed renewables?

    You were speaking generally. Incorrectly, but generally.

    I was speaking generally, too. Only I was right. Obama said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry, and he's using the EPA to do just that.

    What's going to replace that lost generating capacity? There's nothing in the wings that can do what coal does.
    There's an alternative: Thermal depolymerization - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
    I love the idea of geothermal heat pumps. When I buy my own house, I'd love to install a system. Got some ideas about solar heat, too, and thermal mass to store the heat harvested.
    I agree completely.
    People are amazingly inventive and imaginative. We need to encourage that where we can, and minimize the obstacles to their creativity.
    The Boy Who Played With Fusion | Popular Science

    Damn. Just...damn.

    Like the guy said, I'm glad that kid's on our side.
     
  9. flacaltenn
    Offline

    flacaltenn USMB Mod Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Messages:
    38,934
    Thanks Received:
    6,197
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
    Ratings:
    +20,609
    150 new nuclear plants would lower our CO2 emissions, address REAL pollution issues, allow us to tear down some dams, free the salmon, and charge some EVs.

    Not a fan of making electricity RARE and EXPENSIVE.. That's the goal of conservation in truth. And as an electronics/electrical engineer -- you gotta be careful about numbers like the Grid is 60% inefficient. We could spend a lot of money to change that number to 40% short of getting SUPERconducting grid components. A lot of that waste is counted because plants HAVE to operate above current grid demand to be available, "power factor" losses due to heavy machinery that kicks back current out of phase with the grid, and just plain long transmission hauls because Primadonnas like California don't want Generators of ANY kind in their state.

    And the public is gonna damage themselves adopting this "Smart Grid" stuff. Just like the G.B. greenies were co-opted as tools of "Big Biomass". Smart Grid is largely designed so the power/transmission companies can maximize their profit and they can operate the grid dangerously close to disaster, and for govts to have control over your daily usage. In Germany, HUGE FINES are levied anytime you even go over limits of usage. And where does that money go? --- to govt.. So they can shut down more generation and plan Germany's power structure on Hope and Fairies.


    Best to stop fantasizing about nebulous "alternatives" and figure out how important it is to HAVE Electric Cars and Low CO2 emissions. You gotta ask yourself if you're more scared of nuclear power OR Global warming. Because nuclear at this point is the primary way to fix Global Warming (assuming of course that CO2 is the Primary cause -- :eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:)

    0.7 ounces of nuclear waste per household per year.. We can handle that...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012
  10. Bill Angel
    Offline

    Bill Angel Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,112
    Thanks Received:
    161
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Baltimore Maryland
    Ratings:
    +245
    One could use solar energy to cook one's food.
    There are now even solar powered air conditioners .
    See Small-Scale Solar Powered Air Conditioning Is Here (in Spain, Anyways) : TreeHugger
     

Share This Page