|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:01 pm
Fossil Fuels are running out fast. What do you think should be the next power source?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:03 pm
Although we shouldn't be using fossil fuels at all, do you think we should use the last of them to develope more renewable energy sources?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 10:50 am
I do not think we should just exhaust our supply of fossil fuels because it's there. Not only is it causing damage, but with that attitude of "we still have some left", nothing will change for the better. However, we'll probably suck it dry as humans tend to do because anything can be justified some in peoples minds.
I'm personally a fan of geothermal. It works well and may be pricey but it is environmentally friendly. Also wind energy, even though you need a large amount of area, it has great potential. If only we could find a good place where it wouldn't screw up the birds and bats. :/
I have a problem with solar energy when talking about harnessing it with solar panels. Using passive solar energy to heat you house or other things I'm all for! But those solar panels use hazardous chemicals and these chemicals start to break down and become less effective after only 3 years. Plus the amount of land needed and the low yield it gets... :/
And I could go on and on about some of the other sources you listed, but I don't think you want an essay response. =P
I know you didn't mention it but I'm not a big fan of biofuels and there is a lot of talk of it being one of the "the next big plans". On some farms it's great for the farmers because they can process a fuel for their machines (I have friends who do this. ^-^). However as a global source, I don't think it can be done without damaging more land and our food supply. As a main source of fuel, think about the shear amount of land needed to grow the crops. That would mean more agricultural fields, more fertilizers and pesticides, and more run off into our already damaged water ways.
*deep breath* I'll stop now. ^-^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:42 pm
We need to cut the crap and switch over to full renewable and stop pussyfooting around with baby steps. We need to turn our main energy production to wind, solar, and Hydro.
I am a member of the East Atlantic Electric Vehicle Association (EAEVA) and have been looking into this sort of thing for several years. There are major problems with quite a few of the selections that are called alternatives primarily because they aren't.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element on our planet, problem is it is always attached to other things like oxygen for example. Another problem is that the Hydrogen that is being endorsed by legislation and various organizations are actually from oil drilling and refining. Another problem is the fact that Hydrogen though magnificent in a controlled lab setting is far less reliable as you remove it from a highly controlled environment.
"Clean" coal is still Carbon. It produces fewer emissions but it still produces them and at a rate much higher then most renewables.
Nuclear Power ... um you do know what Nuclear is right? It is rods of metal so unstable that they heat up to thousands and even millions of degrees just to boil some water. Also everything that the rods touch are dangerously radioactive (if you touch it you are screwed) for ten-thousand to one hundred-thousand years. By the way, our most advanced radioactive storage containers are only rated for maybe five-thousand years max. I don't really think this should be an option for anyone anymore.
Geothermal is actually very good nice and clean and with modern technology we can do it almost anywhere. But if used irresponsibly (tragedy of the commons) you may overtax the hot spot causing it to cool and basically running your local geo-battery down.
Solar is something that is going to be available to us a few billion more years so I don't think we have to worry too much about running out. We can't overuse sunlight because we aren't drawing it out, it’s already hitting the earth, and finally as time progresses photovoltaics cost less to make and they last longer.
Hydroelectric power is not just damns it is simply the conversion of water movement (gravity) into electricity. Methods of conversion include wave generators, tidal generators, damns, and waterwheels. It is also emission free.
Wind energy is not on your poll but it is the easiest to capture. Windmills have existed since early civilization and it’s a resource that is everywhere. Some places like mountain regions and flatlands cause lots of movement in wind currents creating an inexhaustibly energy source.
My area of knowledge is primarily in vehicle fuels so here are a few things you might see or hear about. So just to keep everyone informed:
"Clean" diesel is being marketed as a cleaner alternative to diesel and an alternative to gasoline. Sadly all it is is diesel without sulfur everything else is the same. The EPA forced oil companies to remove sulfur from gasoline years ago so diesel is simply catching up. Diesel produces particulates that aggravate respiratory ailments.
Hydrogen in vehicles is simply horrendous. You need a huge fuel tank that is under extremely high pressure. Then the fuel sell can only handle hydrogen and oxygen and they tend to have difficulties with nitrogen infiltration and other bits that are in the air clogging the obscenely expensive fuel cell.
Methanol and Ethanol are alcohol based fuels that have a lower efficiency but also a lower rate of emissions.
Please PM me with any questions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:10 pm
Well I'm going to talk some more mrgreen Elbit Also wind energy, even though you need a large amount of area, it has great potential. If only we could find a good place where it wouldn't screw up the birds and bats. :/ I don't understand this whole land area thing? Wind mills are old as dust and they tend to only take about a foot or two of ground space. and there are several designs for wind turbines that don't have gaps that confuse bat sonar and cause them to loose their heads. sweatdrop Elbit I have a problem with solar energy when talking about harnessing it with solar panels... use hazardous chemicals and these chemicals start to break down and become less effective after only 3 years. Plus the amount of land needed and the low yield it gets... :/ Solar panels are made with Silicate Cristal (glass). the process to make them does include some chemicals that are toxic in high quantities but solar panels use them in trace amounts and they are trapped in the silicate. and glass tends to last a very long time. Modern panels are guaranteed for 25 years. Elbit ... I'm not a big fan of biofuels ... shear amount of land needed to grow the crops. That would mean more agricultural fields, more fertilizers and pesticides, and more run off into our already damaged water ways. Biofuels! I knew I missed something in my first post xd . Biofuels can be made from many different plants (even from algae), the US government pays farmers to not grow a certain amount of crops. So there are many solutions to all the issues with alternatives and many of the issues are blown out of proportions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:28 pm
Quote: Hydroelectric power is not just damns it is simply the conversion of water movement (gravity) into electricity. Methods of conversion include wave generators, tidal generators, damns, and waterwheels. It is also emission free. Hydroelectric power means creating a massive "damn". It puts a lot of strain on the local ecosystems. Strain is reallly an understatment. With fish like salmon and trout a dam can mean extinction for the species involved. Whilst I think that hydroelectric power is nice, it damages the biosphere too much to be a happy solution. The new idea with wind electricity it to put them out to sea, where they'll not only get more wind (generating more energy) they also (hopefully) won't affect the local wildlife as much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:50 pm
Ok, well I guess I have to be a little more specific.
The real problem is that we have to stop being reliant on just one source and utilize a variety of renewable and environmentally friendly sources available to us. Now there are pros and cons to everything, and I was talking about some of the cons of a few alternatives.
Ok, so I was specifically talking about wind turbines. They are a great source and can produce high yields of energy. But on land, they need to be spaced out for the best efficiency, and they do take up a lot of space (take wind farms for example). Even the modern ones are being debated on harming certain migration patterns of birds and other species as well as bats' sonars. I'm pretty sure they've figured out height levels to minimize accidental death to though. They are getting really close to perfecting them (as much as anyone humanly can), but there are still a lot of problems to work out.
For solar panels, yes the chemicals in them are not so bad after they are produced. However the emissions in producing the panels are and you can look it up. Also, solar panels need to store power in batteries since the sun doesn’t always shine. Just like all batteries, they wind up as toxic waste. Now, yes they last for 25 years, but they do loose their full effectiveness after 3 years. (go half-life!) Well, at least that was what I was taught by two different Profs. –shrug-
Now I can’t speak about all types of biofuels, but the ones I know of are not a full alternative. They are good for local uses. I was pointing out the fact that it would not be effective on a global scale. For instance lets look at ethanol. Not only is growing corn a long process, and as I said before it requires energy for harvest and transport as well as pesticides and fertilizers, but it will take a lot of corn to even put a dent in our fuel consumption. If we look at the world today, ethanol alone will not ease off our dependency on fossil fuels. An acre of corn can produce like 300 gal of ethanol. But with an annual consumption in just the US of more than 200 billion gal of petroleum products, we would need to dedicate ~675 million acres. I can’t speak about everywhere, but most farmers around here are loosing land due to urban sprawl and not having enough money coming in to hold onto land. Especially right now, since we’ve had a few bad years weather-wise. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t produce some biofuels, we need to ease off of fossil fuels, but we can’t solely rely on them. It’s going to be a combined effort of many resources and lifestyle changes to help.
I love to debate these kinds of things because there is a 101 different ways to look at the pros and cons. ^-^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 7:47 pm
Clally Hydroelectric power means creating a massive "damn". It puts a lot of strain on the local ecosystems. Strain is really an understatement. With fish like salmon and trout a dam can mean extinction for the species involved. No! As I said Hydroelectric power is electricity made from natural water(rivers mostly) Dams are the most common method but water wheels, and tidal generators are used quite frequently. wave generators are rarer but they are used(they work like those flash lites you shake). About the fish, modern dams are built with fish ladders built in and older dams are retrofitted with ladders or other manners of allowing the fish to travel up stream. Granted dams cause a tremendous amount of turmoil to an ecosystem but lake ecosystems are a fairly basic biome and the local ecosystem is quite capable of rolling with the punches (we just don't want to bunch too often or too hard). Elbit ...[Wind Turbines] on land, need to be spaced out for the best efficiency, and they do take up a lot of space (take wind farms for example). Even the modern ones are being debated on harming certain migration patterns of birds and other species as well as bats' sonars. Wind turbines can be put in back yards, on top of and in between buildings in prairies, on mountains over the ocean, and floating in the sky. There are types of wind mills that are vertical so there are no blades to chop off a bird head or be missed by bat sonar. Most of the zero emission alternatives(solar, geo, and wind) loose their worth when used as a power plant(one place away from people) they are best used at site, per site. do you know how fast wind moves between sky scrapers? Really fast, so fast that if harnessed could probably power the sky scrapers that form the wind tunnel. Okay, I read hundreds of arguments daily that say, this alternative is simply not for everybody so we should keep looking/waiting for something that covers everyone! well I'm sorry to say this but there is no cure-all. The best advise I can give you is use what suits you best. if you own a farm power all your vehicles with methane or ethanol or biofuels and sell the extra to the grid. if you live in the suburbs get solar panels or a personal wind turbine for you back yard. cities are harder but talk to your city government and get clean alternatives funded and implemented in your city. Its all up to us and I think we can really make a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:36 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:52 am
A fish ladder is a small man made pass that lets the fish around the dam. they are often a series of man made water falls set up like steps letting fish like salmon continue up stream. I learned about these things in school and later saw a few in my travels. If you want to learn more I always feel it sticks in the noggin best if I read it myself so heres a wiki page on step ladders. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:23 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 11:46 am
I think that we should go to nuclear energy. Europe has been doing it for years, and they aren't growing extra body parts or turning green. Nuclear energy is completely clean. All of the accidents that occur where the result of carelessness. With proper guidlines, nuclear energy could be safer than fossil fuels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:45 pm
lorado666 I think that we should go to nuclear energy. Europe has been doing it for years, and they aren't growing extra body parts or turning green. Nuclear energy is completely clean. All of the accidents that occur where the result of carelessness. With proper guidlines, nuclear energy could be safer than fossil fuels.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONuclear is bad! Major bad! Radioactive waste from a nuclear reactor are deadly from simple proximity lasts over 10,000 years.(longer that the existence of human civilization) and the state of the art containers to store it all are rated for less then 5 thousand years. Okay. So yes it produces no CO2 or particulates. At least fossil fuels wont give you a 100% chance of cancer. Wind, Solar, Geo, and Hydro produce no exhaust or radiation. now if you arn't sold on the Nuclear is bad let's just head down to Chernobyl together and DIE. Very sorry if I sound a bit harsh but I've just spent the past few hours talking to a friend who is worried about the French reactors because of the heat wave they are having. i don't think a melt down is imminent I just think that the less chances of one the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:10 am
Much thanks to Bloogonis for explaining all the different energy alternatives. I think I like the wind/solar idea best because, in the end, it'll cut off almost everything. There are some areas with less wind/sun than others, of course, but there'll still be a massive amount of CO2 cut off from the atmosphere. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
