The price of trying to go green.

[Betonov]

The problem with green is, that it's a dirty road to get there.

Our company, beside the nautics, makes windmill blade models for Denmark.
Nothing green, nothing clean. Fiberglass, chemicals and a lot of wood. Al imported by diesel drinking trucks all milled by a CNC machine that has the electricity demand of a small village

We made the model for this monster last year

[The Enigma]

Why is nobody questioning what our current means of energy really do cost?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by The Enigma

Why is nobody questioning what our current means of energy really do cost?

The government does regulate the energy companies.

[mako88sb]

Originally Posted by Betonov

The problem with green is, that it's a dirty road to get there.

Our company, beside the nautics, makes windmill blade models for Denmark.
Nothing green, nothing clean. Fiberglass, chemicals and a lot of wood. Al imported by diesel drinking trucks all milled by a CNC machine that has the electricity demand of a small village

We made the model for this monster last year

Excellent point. Plus the unintended consequences resulting from the amount of birds and bats that are killed each year by windmills.

http://www.voanews.com/content/wind-...s/1524387.html

How many more insect pest related problems are the end result of this? I'm sure it's not a trivial number. Plus, how long does each windmill have to operate producing clean energy to offset the conventional energy costs of building, installing and maintaining them. Then of course the conventional costs of building, installing, running and maintaining the back-up generators that are pretty well a requirement. How long can one reasonably expect these to operate? I'd really love to see a detailed breakdown of the economics to determine if these things are even remotely feasible in the long run.

[The Enigma]

@mako88sb
Did you ever wonder how much harm is done and will be done by nuclear power not only to birds but to all life on earth?

[mako88sb]

Originally Posted by The Enigma

@mako88sb
Did you ever wonder how much harm is done and will be done by nuclear power not only to birds but to all life on earth?

Yes I did. I had to do a study on the subject back when I was taking engineering drafting and initially I was pro-nuclear. It didn't take long for me to change my opinion though after a bit of research. However, my understanding is that the Thorium reactor is much less of a problem. In theory anyway. It would be great to get some input from those that have a better understanding of them.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by The Enigma

@mako88sb
Did you ever wonder how much harm is done and will be done by nuclear power not only to birds but to all life on earth?

No idea really.

A link to a reputable source would be nice.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

No idea really.

A link to a reputable source would be nice.

THere's one at Chernobyl

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by The Enigma

@mako88sb
Did you ever wonder how much harm is done and will be done by nuclear power not only to birds but to all life on earth?

There are some great sources of green energy - but unfortunately they are significantly ignored by most eco-treehuggers. The two most popular with the general "green crowd" - solar and wind - are NOT eco friendly. Lets take a look.

Solar? Take a look at what is involved in MAKING a solar power panel. The manufacturing of the panels use all kinds of toxic chemicals, silicon, and creates a LOT of "greenhouse gases". Solar also requires batteries to store energy for non-light time usage - and batteries are BAD, ecologically speaking.

Wind? The average wind turbine is made of significantly large amounts of carbon fiber reinforced plastic. While about 5x stronger than steel - it also is extremely difficult to recycle, is very ecologically unfriendly to manufacture (because its partially PLASTIC) and then you have to factor in the reality that wind turbines kill lots of flying animals. Oh - and since wind isn't constant - neither is the energy generation provided. So it lacks efficiency and also - like solar - requires some way to store the energy it makes - when it actually makes some.....

So - what kinds of green energy is there that we need to seriously consider expanding our usage of?

Hydro-electric - using gravity and water to make da juice in da wires. Its been around for a long time, is often minimally ecologically intrusive and is very reliable (as gravity does not significantly fluctuate for the use of energy production).

Nuclear - yes our current generation of nuclear plants are wasteful. However, our reactors are old - newer reactors can actually reprocess the waste we have created in the last 50+ years and gain up to 95% of the energy still contained within it. Talk about clean - we are talking about using what was waste and making it into energy. The problem - say nuclear energy to a "greenie" and watch them have a fit that closely resembles one brought on by epilepsy. To many ecologically devout, "nuclear" = "dirty", but when you look at what we could do simply by cleaning up the mess of the last half century, it is foolish to refuse to consider this power source. Not to mention that most objections to nuclear power are based off of worst case scenario fears that reference bad engineering and known flaws that were not addressed - such as in places like Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yet they fail to note these documented shortcomings, instead claiming that it proves nuclear energy isn't safe.

There are some other sources of energy that are classified as "green". Lets examine them...

Tidal and Wave turbines - an adaptation on hydro-electric, the use of tides, currents and waves to create energy make use of existing, fairly consistent natural phenomena to make electricity. Unfortunately, this does suffer from the issue of "wildlife kills" and subsequent damage to equipment. Also - manufacturing is similar to that of wind turbines, with all the flaws of that system.

Biomass - Biological mass, meaning something that was alive but isn't now - used to generate electricity. Anything from algae to grass clippings to dead bodies of animals and potentially - even humans. Need I even point out why this is a bad idea?

CNG (Compressed Natural Gas) - Its clean during usage compared to other fossil fuels, but it still creates ecological "waste" through post-combustion gases. Add in that its not ecologically friendly during production (though it is again cleaner than existing gasoline production) and its merely a step in the right direction, but is not the end of the road.

The "ultimate" answer to our energy problems - at least for non-motive usage, is probably "Radiant Energy" - IF there could be found a way to access it in the vast amounts needed. At 1% the cost of "standard" electrical generation and no significant ecological impact in accessing it, the only issues are those of scope and education. Few people have ever even heard of radiant energy, much less understand that it can be used to accomplish things at such a significant cost reduction and no known natural impact. Until Radiant energy is generally accessible, using new technology to reprocess and clean up our nuclear mess while creating energy at the same time is the best available option for the massive and growing energy needs of society.

That does not answer energy for motive operations. Neither nuclear nor radiant energy can do that right now - nor can any other major "green" energy sources. The only real improvement overall for motive energy needs is CNG.