It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Going green will still kill our planet. Only one solution see inside.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


An interesting concept, but no, it will not kill our planet, and here are the reasons why.

If we are collecting the Sun's rays in let's say Arizona, in a wide panel array of 2 kilometers, we aren't stealing the sunlight that's falling in NY now are we?

Same for wind mills, we aren't changing any of the weather patterns, we are simply using them to our advantage.

There is no way you can "change" weather patterns by strategically placing technology that makes use of the ones already in place.

~Keeper




posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Your examples are only in micro environments like a farm. I am talking globally. There is a huge difference. The fact of the matter is that there are other forms of energy ouside of our planet that we can harvest without damaging our very unique planet. Why should we take any energy from the Earth if we do not need to? We do not know the damage the widespread "green" energy practices will cause.

The arguments you give are the same ones that the oil companies give when asked about a shrinking supply of oil.

Once again why use the Earth's energy and take away from it's energy when we can get energy else where?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


The sun's energy, is from SPACE, it's from THE SUN.

These are Renewable energies, don't you understand that?

They do not GO away. It isn't harming the planet to harness things that go on for millions and millions of years unchanged.

You don't need to have an extensive system in order to power the earth, it's not like we would have solar and wind farms everywhere you looked, overtaking the mountains and valleys.

What other form of energy would you consider using? That would not polute our Ozone and cause harm to our planet?

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


How could you say that absorbing ambient sunlight in one area will not affect another? Weather patterns are based on the overall exposure of sunlight to the entire planet. Therefore if you take a large amount of energy from one area it will affect the weather in another. Windmills will change the flow and path of winds. This is not a disputable fact. Granted sky scrapers and urban sprawl do also by the difference would be that the cities are somewhat contained. The windmills are spead in heavy clusters across areas that the normal wind currents flow with force and affect weather patterns. On a grand scale the globe will be adversly affected.

Peoples argument that there is plenty of energy is not that solid. To say that would be to say that the planet would become to abundant with energy if left alone. It is a closed loop cycle that we are corrupting. We have to bring energy into the cycle to stop the damage.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


That is correct but once that sunlight enters our atmosphere it becomes part of the earths needs. Needs that the planet will correct on it's own when needed.

Your on the right track though. The fact that it comes from space is key. Now how about we start collecting it from space instead of from the earths closed loop cycle?



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Look, if you set up a solar array, you are only absorbing the energy that falls ON the solar array, not the entire area.

Were not keeping it from hitting the ground and illuminating/heating the earth are we? We are collecting the UV rays to make energy from them.

There is no, changing that goes along, it's like building another house under the sun, exept this house converts the UV rays into energy.

I will agree that windmills change pattern, but there is NO evidence that states it would be detrimental to our planet. Furthermore, if we could keep the ammount of C02 in our atmosphere to a minimum, more sunlight would therefore be reflected back into space, preventing any harm.

We can't work with what we don't have friend. Sure we could use magnets to power everything clean and without by products, but the government don't want us using magnets since it's their primary source of power for their anti gravity things and what not.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


It's not that closed, and no you don't have to harness it from Space and transport it to Earth, because the Sun shines on atleast half the planet 24hours a day every day.

You'd have to stop the sun from shining the change the ammount of ambient light being given, and that's not possible.

NOTHING changes when you collect solar energy.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


No, the atomosphere and earths position in correlation to the sun controls the amount of sunlight being allowed into the planets closed system. The planet if over burdened with sunlight will try to correct itself in several ways. Any change in the natural order of energy will affect the planet's cycles.

Yes, if put a solar array out it will absorb a given amount of energy thus taking it out of the cycle.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
as a person of small witt , and little understanding , I see a few things that make me wonder .

I have noted that in a wheat feild , corn feild , over citys you have great thermal winds lifting and risings .

over evergreen forests , you tend to have thermal wind sinks .

could the changes in weather be the result of organized crop
farming .

if you look at statistical weather , there is a cooling after great polution , and organized crop distruction .

if you have ever flown a small plane over large feilds of a monoculture , you notice the heat raised , and the same being true of " green energy farming "

the real problem of the green solution , first they have the answer they want... then they add or ignore the data that is needed to support the action which is desired .



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Seems you are more informed on the subject than I am, so I'll give it to you friend.

However, I still think that it's better than what we are doing now, and if we use a combination of wind, solar and geothermal, I'm sure we could prevent any serious adverse affects from taking place.

~Keeper



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by readerone
 


Thank you. These are the exact types of things that I am talking about. Our manipulation and constant changing of the earths structure and energy levels is the key problem.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I agree that the "green" movement is better than what we have been doing. I just do not think that it is enough. I think we need to utilizing our time better and focusing more on the future.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Taking the current topic, I see a correlation to be made with virtually all technology. Man is limited in thought by his next idea that is put into action. Computers and programs are an example of this. The company researches a new program, ponders the idea, and begins making that idea a reality. In the process of making this idea come to life we notice the problems it has. We calculate if the problems are detrimental to the overall idea. If not then we proceed to complete the less than perfect product. Once implemented, people purchasing the product notice the flaws but are glad something new has come out that is better than the previous. What the people using the product don't know is these problems were already realized and the new and improved product is already being developed.

Solar and wind technology is an old technology. The problems with it have already been realized. It is expensive. Like your thread we must come up with alternatives, and they are already out there but do not have big money backing them. I live up the road from an Algae plant that can make tons of algae by running water through plastic bags in 24 hours. Algae is then converted into fuel. So we can make our own fuel in less than 24 hours, but this little plant couldn't be able to produce enough fuel for everyone. So there are alternatives out there, but the money isn't behind any of these alternatives as there is no profit to be made and no jobs if all that is needed is water going through a plastic bag.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   
There is a tipping point.

Solar power uses sunlight that would otherwise be converted into heat energy.

Wind turbines use the pressure of moving air to spin the turbines. The more turbine blades that are spinning, the more resistance to air flow. I have already heard of one lawsuit wherein the plaintiff complained that the construction of a new wind farm just upwind from him was decreasing the output of his wind farm.

You cannot get energy out of a closed system without decreasing the amount of energy in that system. That has been true since it was first proposed and is now considered a fundamental law of physics. The planet is a closed system. Energy comes in on a regular basis via sunlight, and leaves via heat and reflection. Decrease the amount of available sunlight and you may make a difference in weather conditions that operate due to this balance. Decrease the speed of the upper level winds, and you may change the weather patterns that rely on them.

The question is not whether the continual large-scale use of wind and solar energy will affect the planet, but rather to what extent and how much can we safely use before incurring drastic change?

I think the OP has a good point. This needs to be discussed.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I do not think that most people realize that the planet's energy is in a controled closed loop system. Once that realization becomes the norm, maybe then, people will start leading the way to new technologies instead of just accepting the technologies the the governments and corporations give us.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Okay, I spell it out for you then.


Absorbing sunlight doesn't prevent anything around the absorber from also getting sunlight. Unless of course it's in the shadow of (under) your solar panel or whatever.

I thought this was obvious just from the nature of light you see every day. It's like claiming your black shirt sucks sunlight from the environment. It's hilarious.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

You appear to be more of an optimist than I.

Every day I see people who will argue that taking energy from wind does not affect the wind, then turn right around and in the same breath declare that you can't get something for nothing.
I fear that science is becoming so confounded and convoluted in the minds of the average person we may be heading into another Dark Ages.

There are ways to power the planet without either oil or wind or solar. I'm working on a couple right now. It just seems so disheartening when I find myself explaining basic physical laws over and over and over and over and over and.... one begins to wonder why they even try...

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress
 


Okay, I spell it out for you then.


Absorbing sunlight doesn't prevent anything around the absorber from also getting sunlight. Unless of course it's in the shadow of (under) your solar panel or whatever.

I thought this was obvious just from the nature of light you see every day. It's like claiming your black shirt sucks sunlight from the environment. It's hilarious.


It is being spelled out to you how that is a flawed theory. Read through threads.



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I tend to agree with TheRedneck on this, let me put a elementary physics slant on it.

Think of the law of conservation of energy.

Anytime you introduce another variable into a system, something else has to change in the system.

The physical properties of a solar panel are different than the properties of the Earth's surface. Therefore, when you cover up ground with a solar panel, you are changing the dynamic of how the sunlight interacts within the system. The amount of sunlight is not changed, but is converted into a different form of energy(electrical vs. thermal).

Likewise, with the wind generator, (functionally solar as well, since wind is generated by thermal effects of sunlight), if you remove energy from the windstream, and convert it to electricity, you are changing the winds interaction with the system right there.

The amount of solar energy that is cast on the Earth is determined by the conditions of our atmosphere and the structure of our solar system. The Sun does not "make more" because we turn some of it into electricity.

As far as geothermal, there is thermal energy within the Earth, if you removed enough of it to the outside, the core would cool. Do we even have the capabilty to remove that much heat from the core? Not now, but maybe someday.

So are we changing the system with renewable energy sources? YES. Is the change measurable? Sounds like a good doctoral thesis project for someone.

We need an uber geek with a few Cray supercomputers to model the solar interaction of the Earth with varying levels of solar energy converted to electrical energy. In theory, it would be possible to functionally stop all weather on the planet, since the Sun creates the weather through thermal energy transfer and conversion.

But will that happen, practically? We may find out someday in the far off future. The offsets from cleaner atmospheric conditions may negate a lot of the increased electrical conversion. Also, most of the things we do with electricity convert it right back into heat. Your computer, tv, light bulbs, electric range, coffe maker, all heaters.

The point of this whole schpiel is that we won't know until some very high-level simulations are done, and know even more when we do implement widespread solar conversion.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]



posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


It's amazing the number of peeps that can say e=mc², but that have no idea what it means.

2nd...



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join