Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Green Energy Naysayers

Page 3 of 7 [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 May 2012, 8:23 am

AspieRogue wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Tequila wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Please tell me this is sarcasm?


Do tell me what happens when it gets a bit gusty, won't you? Oh, yes, that's right - they blow up. And they don't work when it's too windy, either. God save us all.


not taking the amount of turbines in the world into account and the new generation turbines jsut as i told you the last time you started down this road

@snapcap
Quote:
Scientists say that, even with the increased radioactivity, the levels in the tuna are still within the limits of what is safe to eat.


just because you detect it does not make it dangerous, you have several radioactive materials in your body right now and most of it natural.
fruit is radioactive, especially bananas and brazil nuts, they will even set off some on site radiation detectors when they screen the workers at the start of each day.

all this shows is that we need more education and training, it shows little about the actual technology.
besides what alternatives do people have if they dont want green or nuclear energy in the future?, oil is finite and is becoming more and more expensive, not only because of demand but also because of increasing cost of extraction.
ethanol? that would require we use some land for farming it, on a planet where we even today are having trouble feeding people, even in the west, though much of that is down to greed and ego.



Sustained winds over a long period of time has shown to cause the speed brakes to fail. The amount of current generated is directly proportional to the rotational speed. Since the electrical conductors inside the turbine have resistance, part of the energy transduced into electricity is dissipated as heat. Too much current produces excess heat which causes the metallic components to catch fire in the presence of oxygen. So there you go.


the speed break on modern turbines are aerodynamic and not by friction, what can fail?
if powert is cut they automatically become aerodynamically inert using hydraulic accumulators.

so please show me some of these new generation turbines where it happened.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


DC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,477

30 May 2012, 8:24 am

snapcap wrote:
If there was a death caused by cancer, how could you separate it from someone going to die from cancer anyway, even if the tsunami didn't occur?


Statistical monitoring after the event.

After three mile island did a million people die of cancer? No they didn't, cancer deaths were the norm.

After Chernobyl did millions die of cancer? No they didn't. There was a cluster of leukaemia that can be attributed to Chernobyl which is a cancer with a very high survival rate only a handful of people died. The default response of 'Soviets lie' to things that happened during the cold war doesn't apply in this case, there were international monitors present.

Despite all the media attention, zero deaths.

'Fukushima' has entered the global conciousness as a great disaster compare that to Sayano-Shushenskaya. Never heard of it?

Doesn't ring any bells or jog any memories?

74 people died when the dam turbine flooded, but no worldwide panic. That single event killed more people than have died because of all the nuclear accidents put together, get some perspective...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayan ... o_accident



Species5618
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 55

30 May 2012, 8:44 am

DC wrote:
snapcap wrote:
If there was a death caused by cancer, how could you separate it from someone going to die from cancer anyway, even if the tsunami didn't occur?


Statistical monitoring after the event.

After three mile island did a million people die of cancer? No they didn't, cancer deaths were the norm.

After Chernobyl did millions die of cancer? No they didn't. There was a cluster of leukaemia that can be attributed to Chernobyl which is a cancer with a very high survival rate only a handful of people died. The default response of 'Soviets lie' to things that happened during the cold war doesn't apply in this case, there were international monitors present.

Despite all the media attention, zero deaths.

'Fukushima' has entered the global conciousness as a great disaster compare that to Sayano-Shushenskaya. Never heard of it?

Doesn't ring any bells or jog any memories?

74 people died when the dam turbine flooded, but no worldwide panic. That single event killed more people than have died because of all the nuclear accidents put together, get some perspective...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayan ... o_accident


I strongly agree with your view that Fukushima was overhyped by the media.

It's an old plant that was already scheduled to be taken offline, it is decades behind modern safety standards. It was extremely close to the most severe natural disaster in Japans recorded history and other than some areas being evacuated as a precaution, nothing really happened.

If anything, Fukushima is a demonstration of the safety of nuclear power and not the dangers, as the media portrayed it.



WilliamWDelaney
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,201

30 May 2012, 8:55 am

Well, the problem with this "green energy" thing is that it might damage the ability of our oil and gas companies to create jobs for everyday Americans by expanding drilling and fracking operations. The liberals are using this "green energy" scheme as just another excuse for them to raise taxes on Americans who contribute the most to the economy by earning most money from it! If Obama doesn't learn to respect the real movers in our economy, they will have to increase their prices even more, and the American people will make sure that he is replaced with someone who knows who his real master is!



snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

30 May 2012, 12:50 pm

DC wrote:
After three mile island did a million people die of cancer? No they didn't, cancer deaths were the norm.

After Chernobyl did millions die of cancer? No they didn't. There was a cluster of leukaemia that can be attributed to Chernobyl which is a cancer with a very high survival rate only a handful of people died. The default response of 'Soviets lie' to things that happened during the cold war doesn't apply in this case, there were international monitors present.


People are still dying from the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan during WW2.

A difference between Fukushima and Chernobyl is that Fukushima wasn't encased because it wasn't deemed cool enough to do. In the mean time, what problems will be faced in the future?


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Jojoba
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 7 Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 260

30 May 2012, 12:58 pm

I think a clean environment is important, but at the same time so is the economy. Germany has come to the same realization as I recall the government there has decided to stop subsiding the solar industry. Factories are closing down.

"The Sun Is Setting on Eastern Germany’s Solar Industry"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -industry/

What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 May 2012, 1:16 pm

Jojoba wrote:
I think a clean environment is important, but at the same time so is the economy. Germany has come to the same realization as I recall the government there has decided to stop subsiding the solar industry. Factories are closing down.

"The Sun Is Setting on Eastern Germany’s Solar Industry"

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/ ... -industry/

What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.


natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 May 2012, 1:46 pm

snapcap wrote:

People are still dying from the effects of the bombs dropped on Japan during WW2.



There is a difference between a nuclear generator and a nuclear bomb. It has never been the case for a nuclear reactor to go critical. That is because there is not enough uranium in the plant to form a critical mass.

The Fukushima Daichi plants were shielded. Where they failed was the loss of secondary electric power to run the cooling pools. The Tsunami took out the diesel backups.

Three Mile Island was a totally shielded light water reactor and zero radioactivity made it out from the shielding to the outside air. More people died in Senator Ted Kennedy's car than from the TMI accident.

ruveyn



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,525
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

30 May 2012, 3:26 pm

Solar will be revolutionary energy tech once its fully cooked, however it still needs a good 5 to 10 years in the oven before it gets cheap enough to start powering most homes and businesses. Even then; the next challenge is making sure that we have batteries compact enough and powerful enough to make it practical to go full electric as opposed to hybrid.


_________________
The loneliest part of life: it's not just that no one is on your cloud, few can even see your cloud.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 May 2012, 3:39 pm

techstepgenr8tion wrote:
Solar will be revolutionary energy tech once its fully cooked, however it still needs a good 5 to 10 years in the oven before it gets cheap enough to start powering most homes and businesses. Even then; the next challenge is making sure that we have batteries compact enough and powerful enough to make it practical to go full electric as opposed to hybrid.


What solar and wind generators need is an economical battery that can hold vast amounts of energy. Then the intermmittant base line problem will be solved. Until then, Go Nuke! Zero carbon foot print. High energy density. No base line problem.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

30 May 2012, 3:46 pm

Green energy is the future, however in the present green energy is overly expensive, less effective and quite frankly an eyesore for the most part. Nuclear power is the most sensible way to ween humanity off fossil fuels. There are plenty of mountains that can be built within where the plant going boom (which is extremely unlikely based on statistics, google is your friend.) and it produces quite a bit of energy at a low level of waste.

Solar plants in the middle of the desert, wind turbines at sea or large tundra areas makes sense, solar and wind fields in agricultural land in a world with a food shortage is like selling your TV to buy a DVD player.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

30 May 2012, 4:13 pm

Oodain wrote:
Jojoba wrote:
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.


natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.

This ticks me off so much. Natural gas IS NOT GREEN! It still emits CO2. It is cleaner than oil and coal and as such it should be the last fossil fuel to be phased out for electricity production. But to call it environmentally friendly and act like it is the solution to climate change is perhaps the single worst case of greenwashing seen yet.



JWC
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

30 May 2012, 4:16 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Jojoba wrote:
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.


natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.

This ticks me off so much. Natural gas IS NOT GREEN! It still emits CO2. It is cleaner than oil and coal and as such it should be the last fossil fuel to be phased out for electricity production. But to call it environmentally friendly and act like it is the solution to climate change is perhaps the single worst case of greenwashing seen yet.


You still emit CO2. Therefore, no matter how hard you try; you will never be GREEN. Oh noes!!



Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

30 May 2012, 4:27 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
Oodain wrote:
Jojoba wrote:
What I believe is a more realistic energy driver, that is plentiful and decently clean, is natural gas.


natural gas is as much of a fossil fuel as coal is, in fact many european countries already use it as one of their primary power sources, probably elsewhere as well.

This ticks me off so much. Natural gas IS NOT GREEN! It still emits CO2. It is cleaner than oil and coal and as such it should be the last fossil fuel to be phased out for electricity production. But to call it environmentally friendly and act like it is the solution to climate change is perhaps the single worst case of greenwashing seen yet.


kind of my point,

its a fossil fuel.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

30 May 2012, 5:16 pm

Oodain wrote:

kind of my point,

its a fossil fuel.


If the CO2 can be sequestered economically it can still work out.

ruveyn



Senath
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 16 May 2012
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 357

30 May 2012, 5:34 pm

Vigilans wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
DC wrote:
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/05/28/climate-germany-solar-idINDEE84R0CY20120528

Germany managed to produce 35% of peak electricity demand from solar power on Friday and 50% of peak demand on Saturday.

You guys still think it so outrageous to abandon fossil fuels?

There is a sexy widget on this website that shows you the figures:

http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electri ... rmany.html


What do the Germans do at night?

Try generating solar power at night. See how successful you are.

ruveyn


Perhaps someday that will be a non-issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power


Oh God. Can you imagine if they installed one of those things and there was somehow an error with the wireless power transmission coordinates? :lol: We'd be lasered!