Green Energy increases CO2 in atmosphere

[mdn2000]

Sadly its true, the solution to Global Warming is destroying the earth, from polluting the rivers to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

there is no such thing as Green Energy, its a marketing gimmick, nothing more.

Converting plants to ethanol releases massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc...CO2 Carbon Dioxide Properties, Uses, Applications* -* Recovery from Industrial Sources - Concentration in Air

The most common operations from which commercially-produced carbon dioxide is recovered are industrial plants which produce hydrogen or ammonia from natural gas, coal, or other hydrocarbon feedstock, and large-volume fermentation operations in which plant products are made into ethanol for human consumption, automotive fuel or industrial use. Breweries producing beer from various grain products are a traditional source. Corn-to-ethanol plants have been the most rapidly growing source of feed gas for CO2 recovery

Everything told to us about alternative energy's greatness is a crock of shit. It will never live up to the hype.

The biggest bitch about it is its a law, its not a choice, there was no debate, its simply you will pay more for green energy, you will pay taxes we will give to Chevron, you will pay more for the electricity every month, its mandated by law.

Green Energy is owning five cars to drive 10 miles.

 

[loosecannon]

How about the foundations for the world's largest wind farm, Roscoe, Texas. Its pretty hard to find any detailed information about the place. Still, over 600 wind turbines, 500-1000 tons of concrete per foundation, 6 million tons of concrete, that is at least 6 million tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere during the manufacture of the concrete. A conservative estimate.

Next we can talk about the 100's of tons of steel.

Environmental Building News - Cement and Concrete: Environmental Considerations

CO2 Emissions

There are two very different sources of carbon dioxide emissions during cement production. Combustion of fossil fuels to operate the rotary kiln is the largest source: approximately 3/4 tons of CO2 per ton of cement. But the chemical process of calcining limestone into lime in the cement kiln also produces CO2: CaCO3 ' CaO + CO2limestone ' lime + carbon dioxide This chemical process is responsible for roughly 1/2 ton of COCO2 per ton of cement, according to researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Combining these two sources, for every ton of cement produced, 1.25 tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere (Table 4). In the United States, cement production accounts for approximately 100 million tons of CO2 emissions, or just under 2% of our total human-generated CO2. Worldwide, cement production now accounts for more than 1.6 billion tons of CO2--over 8% of total CO2 emissions from all human activities

Gee you are cute. You spent two pages denying that a CA cement plant was shutting down because it's CO2 output surpassed standards set by CA emissions laws, furiously projecting from mid air delusions about how rising electrical rates were forcing the plant to shutter.

 

[loosecannon]

That's only half the equation. What about the CO2 saved by running the turbines? That should be easily recovered in the first years of operation.

How much more CO2 is saved driving the same turbines with steam from a nuclear or fossil fuel plant.

aren't you going to calculate the immense volumes of concrete involved in building a nuclear plant?

A nuclear plant drive its turbine at around 1800 rpm.

A wind turbine is 5-20 rpm.

LMAO!!!@ it simply makes no difference how fast the turbines turn, dummy! The wind turbine has far, far more torque and they gear the drive up to whatever rpm is required to serve the alternator.

A wind turbine is impossible to predict how much it will operate, lets be generous and state 50% of the year it operates. So what is the ratio of power produced to C02 produced.

Nuclear power easily smokes Wind energy.

Wind turbines are the least efficient solution.

You must compare the CO2 with other forms of energy. You want to save the climate by reducing CO2 yet Wind turbines create more C02 than fossil or nuclear. Your putting more CO2 into the climate and expect us to accept this.

Yes why don't you figure out the actual CO2 footprint of nuclear power and get back to us, dum dum.

 

[mdn2000]

How about the foundations for the world's largest wind farm, Roscoe, Texas. Its pretty hard to find any detailed information about the place. Still, over 600 wind turbines, 500-1000 tons of concrete per foundation, 6 million tons of concrete, that is at least 6 million tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere during the manufacture of the concrete. A conservative estimate.

Next we can talk about the 100's of tons of steel.

Environmental Building News - Cement and Concrete: Environmental Considerations

CO2 Emissions

There are two very different sources of carbon dioxide emissions during cement production. Combustion of fossil fuels to operate the rotary kiln is the largest source: approximately 3/4 tons of CO2 per ton of cement. But the chemical process of calcining limestone into lime in the cement kiln also produces CO2: CaCO3 ' CaO + CO2limestone ' lime + carbon dioxide This chemical process is responsible for roughly 1/2 ton of COCO2 per ton of cement, according to researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Combining these two sources, for every ton of cement produced, 1.25 tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere (Table 4). In the United States, cement production accounts for approximately 100 million tons of CO2 emissions, or just under 2% of our total human-generated CO2. Worldwide, cement production now accounts for more than 1.6 billion tons of CO2--over 8% of total CO2 emissions from all human activities

Gee you are cute. You spent two pages denying that a CA cement plant was shutting down because it's CO2 output surpassed standards set by CA emissions laws, furiously projecting from mid air delusions about how rising electrical rates were forcing the plant to shutter.

Thats what the article said, now about electric rates, you full of shit, you wont accept an actual electric bill as proof.

Rates are not rising, you either dont pay your bill, you dont live in california, or your just a dumb ass.

Redistribution of wealth and see how the liberals sneer with glee.

Thats right folks, the liberals love higher taxes, higher electric rates, as long as they can fuck someone else they are happy lap dogs.

Why dont you just come into my house while I sleep to take my money, afraid you will get your ass kicked so you have the government do your dirty work.

 

[mdn2000]

How about the foundations for the world's largest wind farm, Roscoe, Texas. Its pretty hard to find any detailed information about the place. Still, over 600 wind turbines, 500-1000 tons of concrete per foundation, 6 million tons of concrete, that is at least 6 million tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere during the manufacture of the concrete. A conservative estimate.

Next we can talk about the 100's of tons of steel.

Environmental Building News - Cement and Concrete: Environmental Considerations

CO2 Emissions

There are two very different sources of carbon dioxide emissions during cement production. Combustion of fossil fuels to operate the rotary kiln is the largest source: approximately 3/4 tons of CO2 per ton of cement. But the chemical process of calcining limestone into lime in the cement kiln also produces CO2: CaCO3 ' CaO + CO2limestone ' lime + carbon dioxide This chemical process is responsible for roughly 1/2 ton of COCO2 per ton of cement, according to researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Combining these two sources, for every ton of cement produced, 1.25 tons of CO2 is released into the atmosphere (Table 4). In the United States, cement production accounts for approximately 100 million tons of CO2 emissions, or just under 2% of our total human-generated CO2. Worldwide, cement production now accounts for more than 1.6 billion tons of CO2--over 8% of total CO2 emissions from all human activities

Gee you are cute. You spent two pages denying that a CA cement plant was shutting down because it's CO2 output surpassed standards set by CA emissions laws, furiously projecting from mid air delusions about how rising electrical rates were forcing the plant to shutter.

Quote it, there is not one post or link that states what you just posted, you infer that this is said.

Further it was never stated that the cement company surpassed CO2 standards set in law.

Further dumb ass, the law concerning CO2, AB 32 has not taken effect as of the Cement company moving so you lied about the cement company "surpassed standards set by....".

And to close, the article stated electric rates specifically.

 

[daveman]

Biofuel Reality Check

In the quest for energy independence, politicians overlooked a few key details…

As farmers piled all their resources into growing corn for ethanol, just about every food made with corn rose in price.
Food producers then found themselves paying three to four times what they paid for corn just a few years before. And they did what any business does: passed the costs along to consumers.
Aid organizations cut food donations by 50% (more in some cases).
A Wall Street Journal editorial said: “Cornell’s David Pimental and Berkeley’s Ted Patzek found that it takes more than a gallon of fossil fuel to make one gallon of ethanol – 29% more. That’s because it takes enormous amounts of fossil fuel energy to grow corn (using fertilizer and irrigation), to transport the crops, and then turn that corn into ethanol.”

A University of Minnesota study in 2008 was even more sobering: “Converting forests, peat lands, savannas, or grasslands to produce food-based biofuels in Brazil, Southeast Asia, and the United States creates a huge biofuel carbon debt. When land-use changes are taken into account, 17 to 420 times more CO2 is released than the reductions gained when these biofuels displace fossil fuels.”​

And growing corn for biofuel is killing the Gulf of Mexico.

 

[mdn2000]

That's only half the equation. What about the CO2 saved by running the turbines? That should be easily recovered in the first years of operation.

How much more CO2 is saved driving the same turbines with steam from a nuclear or fossil fuel plant.

aren't you going to calculate the immense volumes of concrete involved in building a nuclear plant?

A nuclear plant drive its turbine at around 1800 rpm.

A wind turbine is 5-20 rpm.

LMAO!!!@ it simply makes no difference how fast the turbines turn, dummy! The wind turbine has far, far more torque and they gear the drive up to whatever rpm is required to serve the alternator.

A wind turbine is impossible to predict how much it will operate, lets be generous and state 50% of the year it operates. So what is the ratio of power produced to C02 produced.

Nuclear power easily smokes Wind energy.

Wind turbines are the least efficient solution.

You must compare the CO2 with other forms of energy. You want to save the climate by reducing CO2 yet Wind turbines create more C02 than fossil or nuclear. Your putting more CO2 into the climate and expect us to accept this.

Yes why don't you figure out the actual CO2 footprint of nuclear power and get back to us, dum dum.

it simply makes no difference how fast the turbines turn, dummy! The wind turbine has far, far more torque and they gear the drive up to whatever rpm is required to serve the alternator.

Gearboxes in the Nacelle do not connect to an alternator, I make mistakes, I admit my mistakes, you on the other hand just showed you have less of an education on this subject than I.

The gearbox connects to the generator. Ratio of about 50:1 or better.

So now you have stated that one wind turbine has far, far, more torque, so why does it take over a thousand wind turbines to equal the output of one Nuclear Reactor (a small reactor).

One wind turbine has as much power/torque as one nuclear reactor. That is delusional.

See how easy it is to point out lies, maybe this person has no idea, he read the headline in USA today, who knows, maybe he will be man enough to admit he knows nothing of what he speaks and tell us if he figured that one out on his own.

I was wrong, I forgot about the gearbox in my zeal, I admit I am learning as I go, still, I do know much more than the average person. Its part of my job, I inspect nuclear reactors, that puts just about everyone else at a disadvantage.

Far, far, more torque than a nuclear reactor, watch out, you could destroy a complete city with one wind turbine. So powerful.

I guess we should of just blew wind at the Japanese, destroying Nagasaki like the big bad wolf, we could huff and puff.

Yes, far, far, more power than a nuclear reaction.

 

[Big Fitz]

i guess we should of just blew wind at the japanese, destroying nagasaki like the big bad wolf, we could huff and puff.

banzaaaiiiiiiii!!!!!! Ahhhhh kamikazeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!

Huh, more appropriate than I thought. The greenies are in a suicide dive. But I was meaning the historical aspect of the word.

 

[mdn2000]

i guess we should of just blew wind at the japanese, destroying nagasaki like the big bad wolf, we could huff and puff.

banzaaaiiiiiiii!!!!!! Ahhhhh kamikazeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!

Huh, more appropriate than I thought. The greenies are in a suicide dive. But I was meaning the historical aspect of the word.

The guy has got to be making jokes, think of how pathetic it would be if he was not.

 

[westwall]

10 years ago, they were almost all near zero. Would that I had an investment that grew at that rate. Now solar grew at 37% from 2008 to 2009. And wind has been growing at nearly an equal rate. Unless someone successfully harnesses fusion power, Solar, Wind, and Geothermal will grow at similiar rates for the coming decade, at least.

Oh but you are investing in them olfraud, you are! All of those tax subsidies that pay for them come out of your pocket and every other American. So don't worry you are investing in them...you just won't get any benefit from them...but some rich people thank you for your ignorance Way to go champ! Or is that chump? Well, either way,... way to go!

 

[mdn2000]

Biofuel has been discovered to increase CO2 in the atmosphere. Europe is destroying jungle in Africa and South America, clear cutting to plant sugar cane and corn to meet government mandated green energy mandates and laws.

 

[Care4all]

Sadly its true, the solution to Global Warming is destroying the earth, from polluting the rivers to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

there is no such thing as Green Energy, its a marketing gimmick, nothing more.

Converting plants to ethanol releases massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc...CO2 Carbon Dioxide Properties, Uses, Applications* -* Recovery from Industrial Sources - Concentration in Air

The most common operations from which commercially-produced carbon dioxide is recovered are industrial plants which produce hydrogen or ammonia from natural gas, coal, or other hydrocarbon feedstock, and large-volume fermentation operations in which plant products are made into ethanol for human consumption, automotive fuel or industrial use. Breweries producing beer from various grain products are a traditional source. Corn-to-ethanol plants have been the most rapidly growing source of feed gas for CO2 recovery

Fossil fuel/oil costs us TRILLIONS in the military defense budget with wars and pollutants being released.

Oil keeps us tied to the middle east....and keeps us in bed with the Saudi's and others....15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis.

the amount of money and pollutants put out just because of our need for oil, can not even be counted it is so vast.

Do you really want to continue down this road and not pursue other means to energize this country and not become self sufficient as a country?

Do you really want to wait around another 10 years when gasoline or heating oil hits $15 bucks a gallon?

I think it is time to get off the oil tit for our own country's security.

regardless of global warming or not.

 

[mdn2000]

Sadly its true, the solution to Global Warming is destroying the earth, from polluting the rivers to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

there is no such thing as Green Energy, its a marketing gimmick, nothing more.

Converting plants to ethanol releases massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc...CO2 Carbon Dioxide Properties, Uses, Applications* -* Recovery from Industrial Sources - Concentration in Air

The most common operations from which commercially-produced carbon dioxide is recovered are industrial plants which produce hydrogen or ammonia from natural gas, coal, or other hydrocarbon feedstock, and large-volume fermentation operations in which plant products are made into ethanol for human consumption, automotive fuel or industrial use. Breweries producing beer from various grain products are a traditional source. Corn-to-ethanol plants have been the most rapidly growing source of feed gas for CO2 recovery

Fossil fuel/oil costs us TRILLIONS in the military defense budget with wars and pollutants being released.

Oil keeps us tied to the middle east....and keeps us in bed with the Saudi's and others....15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis.

the amount of money and pollutants put out just because of our need for oil, can not even be counted it is so vast.

Do you really want to continue down this road and not pursue other means to energize this country and not become self sufficient as a country?

Do you really want to wait around another 10 years when gasoline or heating oil hits $15 bucks a gallon?

I think it is time to get off the oil tit for our own country's security.

regardless of global warming or not.

If I concede your correct on all your political and science points you still lose the argument I make. That green energy uses the resources you wish to quit using, green energy consumes these resources at a higher rate of consumption than traditional energy.

If we quit using oil today how would you make fiberglass, you need the chemicals from oil to make wind turbines, you need the chemical from oil to make solar panels. You need more of these chemicals today than we used yesterday, we will use more oil tomorrow, and more the next day, to build the world's largest industrial complexes built are wind farms and now solar plants, you must evaluate the system in its totality, not just the end product.

Walk through the manufacturer of Green Energy and you see the increase in demand on petrol-chemicals, increase in demand increases production. Increased production is an increase in CO2.

Your solution increases CO2

 

[Care4all]

Sadly its true, the solution to Global Warming is destroying the earth, from polluting the rivers to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.

there is no such thing as Green Energy, its a marketing gimmick, nothing more.

Converting plants to ethanol releases massive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Universal Industrial Gases, Inc...CO2 Carbon Dioxide Properties, Uses, Applications* -* Recovery from Industrial Sources - Concentration in Air

Fossil fuel/oil costs us TRILLIONS in the military defense budget with wars and pollutants being released.

Oil keeps us tied to the middle east....and keeps us in bed with the Saudi's and others....15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis.

the amount of money and pollutants put out just because of our need for oil, can not even be counted it is so vast.

Do you really want to continue down this road and not pursue other means to energize this country and not become self sufficient as a country?

Do you really want to wait around another 10 years when gasoline or heating oil hits $15 bucks a gallon?

I think it is time to get off the oil tit for our own country's security.

regardless of global warming or not.

If I concede your correct on all your political and science points you still lose the argument I make. That green energy uses the resources you wish to quit using, green energy consumes these resources at a higher rate of consumption than traditional energy.

If we quit using oil today how would you make fiberglass, you need the chemicals from oil to make wind turbines, you need the chemical from oil to make solar panels. You need more of these chemicals today than we used yesterday, we will use more oil tomorrow, and more the next day, to build the world's largest industrial complexes built are wind farms and now solar plants, you must evaluate the system in its totality, not just the end product.

Walk through the manufacturer of Green Energy and you see the increase in demand on petrol-chemicals, increase in demand increases production. Increased production is an increase in CO2.

Your solution increases CO2

I don't think we should quit oil TODAY.....but I do think it is time for alternatives to worm their way in.

for starters, I think we should make every effort we can, to not need the middle east for oil....we can still get it from Canada and Mexico and ourselves.

I don't know if your figures are correct on windmills and the concrete/energy needed to put them up etc....but there is still an advantage of the self sufficiency, once they are produced.

Nuclear is also an option that I would not turn away from.

 

[mdn2000]

Fossil fuel/oil costs us TRILLIONS in the military defense budget with wars and pollutants being released.

Oil keeps us tied to the middle east....and keeps us in bed with the Saudi's and others....15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis.

the amount of money and pollutants put out just because of our need for oil, can not even be counted it is so vast.

Do you really want to continue down this road and not pursue other means to energize this country and not become self sufficient as a country?

Do you really want to wait around another 10 years when gasoline or heating oil hits $15 bucks a gallon?

I think it is time to get off the oil tit for our own country's security.

regardless of global warming or not.

If I concede your correct on all your political and science points you still lose the argument I make. That green energy uses the resources you wish to quit using, green energy consumes these resources at a higher rate of consumption than traditional energy.

If we quit using oil today how would you make fiberglass, you need the chemicals from oil to make wind turbines, you need the chemical from oil to make solar panels. You need more of these chemicals today than we used yesterday, we will use more oil tomorrow, and more the next day, to build the world's largest industrial complexes built are wind farms and now solar plants, you must evaluate the system in its totality, not just the end product.

Walk through the manufacturer of Green Energy and you see the increase in demand on petrol-chemicals, increase in demand increases production. Increased production is an increase in CO2.

Your solution increases CO2

I don't think we should quit oil TODAY.....but I do think it is time for alternatives to worm their way in.

for starters, I think we should make every effort we can, to not need the middle east for oil....we can still get it from Canada and Mexico and ourselves.

I don't know if your figures are correct on windmills and the concrete/energy needed to put them up etc....but there is still an advantage of the self sufficiency, once they are produced.

Nuclear is also an option that I would not turn away from.

Sorry, there is no advantage to windmills, I have looked into this considerably, I have all kinds of stuff, I try not and bore people with endless links and am simply trying to get people to think for themselves and maybe do their own research. Research being on occasion looking up a story or two.

The secret about Middle Eastern oil is two fold, the first and foremost is cost, its the cheapest to refine making it the most profitable, that is why we use Middle Eastern oil, the second fact is its Europe and Britain that cannot do without Middle Eastern oil, this oil rebuilt Europe after World War II. I am the first to admit its the profit in oil that drives people and politics.

Once windmills are produced they have lifespan less than fossil power plants and nuclear.

Still you are still speaking of using more resources to make a weaker energy source, more for less, its as simple as that.

We should develop oil to its fullest in the USA, research, production, refining. We should expand and use the profits for research and development.

Windmills and Solar, by far proven they cannot even provide 1% of the world's needs

I do agree with you, we need to develop the solution for the future.

As far as the Middle Eastern oil, as it is, I would not trust the Arab's with that money nor would I trust Europe, besides we need the profits to pay for the Middle Eastern refugees in the USA, they have a right to benefits of Middle Eastern oil, just like the royalty and tyrants do, or dont.

 

[Care4all]

If I concede your correct on all your political and science points you still lose the argument I make. That green energy uses the resources you wish to quit using, green energy consumes these resources at a higher rate of consumption than traditional energy.

If we quit using oil today how would you make fiberglass, you need the chemicals from oil to make wind turbines, you need the chemical from oil to make solar panels. You need more of these chemicals today than we used yesterday, we will use more oil tomorrow, and more the next day, to build the world's largest industrial complexes built are wind farms and now solar plants, you must evaluate the system in its totality, not just the end product.

Walk through the manufacturer of Green Energy and you see the increase in demand on petrol-chemicals, increase in demand increases production. Increased production is an increase in CO2.

Your solution increases CO2

I don't think we should quit oil TODAY.....but I do think it is time for alternatives to worm their way in.

for starters, I think we should make every effort we can, to not need the middle east for oil....we can still get it from Canada and Mexico and ourselves.

I don't know if your figures are correct on windmills and the concrete/energy needed to put them up etc....but there is still an advantage of the self sufficiency, once they are produced.

Nuclear is also an option that I would not turn away from.

Sorry, there is no advantage to windmills, I have looked into this considerably, I have all kinds of stuff, I try not and bore people with endless links and am simply trying to get people to think for themselves and maybe do their own research. Research being on occasion looking up a story or two.

The secret about Middle Eastern oil is two fold, the first and foremost is cost, its the cheapest to refine making it the most profitable, that is why we use Middle Eastern oil, the second fact is its Europe and Britain that cannot do without Middle Eastern oil, this oil rebuilt Europe after World War II. I am the first to admit its the profit in oil that drives people and politics.

Once windmills are produced they have lifespan less than fossil power plants and nuclear.

Still you are still speaking of using more resources to make a weaker energy source, more for less, its as simple as that.

We should develop oil to its fullest in the USA, research, production, refining. We should expand and use the profits for research and development.

Windmills and Solar, by far proven they cannot even provide 1% of the world's needs

I do agree with you, we need to develop the solution for the future.

As far as the Middle Eastern oil, as it is, I would not trust the Arab's with that money nor would I trust Europe, besides we need the profits to pay for the Middle Eastern refugees in the USA, they have a right to benefits of Middle Eastern oil, just like the royalty and tyrants do, or dont.

Are there differences in windmill efficiency....like the ones on land verses ones offshore?

is geothermal efficient energy worth pursuing?

i honestly do not know enough about this kind of stuff to make any kind of intelligent response....

but what i do know is that it is time to find another energy source to run this country for the next 200 years, and i hope the scientists and engineers and those in 'the know' are figuring it out....

i just don't think we should be held on a string by the middle east, time to let go....and stop making them rich.

 

[mdn2000]

I have worked at the Geothermal plant in Calipatria California, a very violent, dangerous, polluting source of power, they use the same platform to drill the wells as the oil industry uses thus that cost is the same as drilling for oil, the wells must constantly be moved so they constantly drill, 10,000 ft deep.

This is on top of the San Andreas fault, where a pool of water sits on a pool of lava, the water is a brine, around 440 degree. The well head shakes violently, a couple of feet up and down, the well being up two miles away from the power plant, this violent shaking is transmitted up the 48" pipes, concrete lined Iron, a 48" pipe weighs a thousand pounds a foot, imagine two miles of this pipe. The shaking is pure stress, resulting in the continue replacement of pipe.

So this brings brine to the surface to the plant where in a process it is flashed to steam.

Brine, or the water they bring to the surface from a molten pool of lava weighs 10 pounds a gallon, regular water around 8 pounds. That is 2 pounds of extra heavy toxic metals and poison. Arsenic, Cobalt 60 (radioactive) Cesium (radioactive), Strontium (radioactive), when the pipes break, and they do break, I have no link, I could find one, but that said I have done ultrasonic thickness gauging on the pipes to determine the thickness of the material, so I can attest that they do break and spill that nasty brine all over the asparagus fields of the Imperial Valley as well as on the Pacific Flyway for the waterfowl that migrate south and north each year.

Brine, the heavy metals precipitate out of the water, in an attempt to keep them suspended the brines chemistry is changed using sulphuric acid to keep the particles of toxic metals suspended. They than supposedly re-inject the toxic brine into a well'

Toxic metals do precipitate out of the brine and are found in the components, this is all mostly unregulated or unsupervised, during plant maintenance components are removed, such as valves, pipes, heat exchangers, some of this is blown in the air, some is cleaned, some just part of the environment, they do vacuum the toxic metals, even in the driveway to the plant, the maintenance roads, they even purchase asparagus fields when these become polluted, what they cannot control are the millions of crickets who at night walk through the plant, tracking toxins into the fields, where these crickets are ate by the migratory fowl.

I am sure the levels are tiny, I have walked through the plant and am not concerned but once when we inspected a component the water below was killing every cricket that attempted to walk through the water, we also measured radiation coming from a 55 gallon drum of the toxin removed during maintenance.

Geothermal is very specific to the site, what I state here applies only at the Salton Sea, maybe another source is similar, most sites for geothermal are very different geologically speaking, as different as the soil of the grand canyon and the farmland of Iowa.

Finding another source is always good, Solar energy has been researched for fifty years or more, what is the effect of covering thousands of square miles with solar, it will generate heat, water will be needed to clean the panels, and the life span is half of nuclear power plants.

Just the sheer size of solar compared to nuclear, one hundred square miles of solar panels equals one nuclear power plant. Solar is that weak.

Expensive, in raw materials, can we afford to waste our dwindling resources on wind and solar for such a low return.

 

[IanC]

thanks for the personal insight into geothermal mdn2000.

all power sources seem to have drawbacks when you look into it. especially when you ramp up production to a significant size.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't think we should quit oil TODAY.....but I do think it is time for alternatives to worm their way in.

for starters, I think we should make every effort we can, to not need the middle east for oil....we can still get it from Canada and Mexico and ourselves.

I don't know if your figures are correct on windmills and the concrete/energy needed to put them up etc....but there is still an advantage of the self sufficiency, once they are produced.

Nuclear is also an option that I would not turn away from.

Sorry, there is no advantage to windmills, I have looked into this considerably, I have all kinds of stuff, I try not and bore people with endless links and am simply trying to get people to think for themselves and maybe do their own research. Research being on occasion looking up a story or two.

The secret about Middle Eastern oil is two fold, the first and foremost is cost, its the cheapest to refine making it the most profitable, that is why we use Middle Eastern oil, the second fact is its Europe and Britain that cannot do without Middle Eastern oil, this oil rebuilt Europe after World War II. I am the first to admit its the profit in oil that drives people and politics.

Once windmills are produced they have lifespan less than fossil power plants and nuclear.

Still you are still speaking of using more resources to make a weaker energy source, more for less, its as simple as that.

We should develop oil to its fullest in the USA, research, production, refining. We should expand and use the profits for research and development.

Windmills and Solar, by far proven they cannot even provide 1% of the world's needs

I do agree with you, we need to develop the solution for the future.

As far as the Middle Eastern oil, as it is, I would not trust the Arab's with that money nor would I trust Europe, besides we need the profits to pay for the Middle Eastern refugees in the USA, they have a right to benefits of Middle Eastern oil, just like the royalty and tyrants do, or dont.

Are there differences in windmill efficiency....like the ones on land verses ones offshore?

is geothermal efficient energy worth pursuing?

i honestly do not know enough about this kind of stuff to make any kind of intelligent response....

but what i do know is that it is time to find another energy source to run this country for the next 200 years, and i hope the scientists and engineers and those in 'the know' are figuring it out....

i just don't think we should be held on a string by the middle east, time to let go....and stop making them rich.

The windmills offshore can be built bigger, and the wind is more predictable. The cost is greater initially because of have to build a base in salt water. However, for places like the Oregon coast, this could be a twofer, because of the wave energy also available.

Geothermal may well be the cheapest and most dependable source of energy. Here is where you can find a precis of a study done by MIT on geothermal, and a link to the full article resulting from the study;
MIT-led panel backs 'heat mining' as key U.S. energy source

We have the ability to go completely off of oil and coal in a decade, should we decide to do so. Wind, solar, geothermal, and nuclear are all advanced enough, as is, to get us there. When you look at the developments being made in solar, and in the batteries, you can see where the future lies.
Optics.org - JDSU unveils high-efficiency solar cell

JDSU, the company best known for supplying components, modules and test gear to the optical communications industry, has launched a high-efficiency solar cell.

The Californian firm, which had indicated that it was making a move into the concentrating photovoltaics (CPV) sector in its recent quarterly financial report, is already shipping cells to a lead customer, and stated that several other potential customers are engaged in supply discussions.

The triple-junction cells, developed by JDSU in-house and to a proprietary design, offer a minimum average conversion efficiency of 38.5 percent at present. This means that they are already competitive in terms of performance with those available from the incumbent suppliers Emcore and Boeing subsidiary Spectrolab.

As an existing high-volume manufacturer of similar compound semiconductor components such as laser diodes, JDSU will have a capacity advantage over smaller rivals, meaning that it ought to be able to produce the cells at a competitive price.

Company spokesman Noël Bilodeau told optics.org that the JDSU cells have been designed “specifically for mass production

And a recent test run shows where we are at on batteries. Not only do we already have this battery, but people are presently working on a Lithium-Air battery that would have three times, or more, the energy density of DBM's Lithium Polymer.

Sufiy.: Lithium Metal Polymer Battery from DBM Energy - Secret of The World Record With Electric Car Revealed tnr.v, rm.v, lmr.v, alk.ax, tsla, sqm, fmc, roc, lit, li.v, wlc.v, clq.v, res.v, ree, avl.to, nsany, f, gm, rno.pa, dai, byddf, hev, aone, v

Over 300 Wh/kg - to put it in perspective - Nissan Leaf 24 kWh battery will be in this case 80 kg! Now weight of the battery pack for Nissan Leaf is 300kg. Renault Fluence 22 kWh battery weight is 250 kg.

Lifetime of 2500 Charge cycles without degradation - if you drive 200km every day and have to charge this battery every 3 days - you have 20 years of lifespan of this battery! Everything with a solid 10 year warranty will work for Electric Cars mass market. Solution so far was 8 year warranty by GM Volt and Nissan Leaf and Renault actually announced that they will lease the lithium batteries - we called it the breakthrough for EV mass market at the time.

6 min charge time for 100 kWh - it is important to know with what kind of a fast charger it was done, but in anyway - if battery can sustain 2500 cycles with this kind of fast charger - it is another breakthrough. Question will in Charging Infrastructure, but it is 6 min for 100 kWh - too good to be true.

and it is ... LMP Lithium Metal Polymer!

We have the technology. Do we have the will to become energy independent? I doubt it, too many shills for the energy corperations.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geysers

Welcome to The Geysers

In the Mayacamas Mountains, located north of San Francisco, naturally occurring steam field reservoirs below the earth's surface are being harnessed by Calpine to make clean, green, renewable energy for homes and businesses across Northern California.

The Geysers, comprising 45 square miles along the Sonoma and Lake County border, is the largest complex of geothermal power plants in the world. Calpine, the largest geothermal power producer in the U.S., owns and operates 15 power plants at The Geysers with a net generating capacity of about 725 megawatts of electricity - enough to power 725,000 homes, or a city the size of San Francisco.

The Geysers meets the typical power needs of Sonoma, Lake, and Mendocino counties, as well a portion of the power needs of Marin and Napa counties. In fact, The Geysers satisfies nearly 60 percent of the average electricity demand in the North Coast region from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Oregon border. The Geysers is one of the most reliable energy sources in California delivering extremely high availability and on-line performance and accounts for one-fifth of the green power produced in California.