It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:41 PM
so you guys think that generating solar power is going to have more of an effect on the sun / earth interaction than human development already has?

we know that the build human environment has already had a massive impact on the albedo of the planet and the main impact of this in an increase in temperature. this increase is due to trapping solar energy within the earth rather than radiating it back into space.

likewise, you think that the creation of wind farms is going to cause more of a disturbance than say all of the cities we have built int he world?

if so i think your all either willfully being daft or you simply are confused.

sure taking too much geothermal will decrease the earths inner temperature. such a plant was shut down near me for having this impact.

burning too much biomass could use up too much and cause problems. damning rivers can and does cause problems as well. but solar power and wind having negative impacts on the planet is very very hard to swallow.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 08:43 PM

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
So you do not believe that the amount of energy on the earth is in a certain balance and that taking that energy from the environment could have negative effects that ripple out from each other?

You are still thinking inside the box. Why should we not be trying to find energy outside of our planet?

The human race has this crazy idea that there is not enough energy on this planet to carry on for to long.

Its completely wrong, there is more energy than you could possibly image just waiting to be used. We just don't have all the answers on how to harness that energy... yet.

As for will going greener harm the planet, no. How could it, us reducing our impact on the planet is nothing but a good thing from natures point of view. Things will slowly return to a natural state the bigger changes we make.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by Animal

I'm not saying that it would affect the planet more than we already have, I'm saying it will affect the planet in different ways. The result could be possibly no change in outcome, or a positive outcome for human and animal habitability, or a negative outcome for the same.

We simply don't know without some multiple variable simulation, or by actually implementing widespread solar conversion and seeing what happens. It's pretty much a given that we will do the latter, fossil fuels are getting harder to find and/or less desirable due to environmental issues.

There is the possibilty that solar conversion may have issues also, just not necessarily the same as fossil fuels. As TheRedneck said, there is no free lunch. You can have different lunch, but it WILL have an affect. Just remains to be seen if it will be good for Earth's inhabitants, or bad, or neutral.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:27 PM
reply to post by refuse_orders

The point you are missing, is that we will not be reducing the impact, we will be making a different impact. Whether it will make the planet better for the creatures that live here or not is the crux of the OP's questions.

There is more energy than we could ever use, but some of it is not usable in an efficient manner with current technology. Some ways of utilizing it are more destructive to the current ecosystem than others.

What it all boils down to is that you can't cheat the laws of physics.

Even the OP's suggestion of bringing in energy from space based systems is flawed on a certain level. We would be bringing in energy that otherwise would not be available in our closed loop sytem. And since energy can never be lost, only converted to different forms, we would have to remove an equal amount of energy to maintain the earth as we know it. Energy that would be otherwise not present in Earth's atmosphere would build up. The more the build up, the more changes we would see. Basically the same premise as climate change/global warming.

Anytime humans interact with the system, the system changes. We need to find the most efficient ways to use the energy we convert, and to minimize our converted energy use.

On the surface, it seems like converting energy without burning the Earth (fossil fuel) is a good thing, but to really know the threshholds that this will hold true at, requires an experiment or a damn good simulation. Any type of energy conversion could make the planet inhospitable for us, if the scale was large enough, or the variables just right. If we went back to living without electricity, that would be the closest thing to natural balance we could get. So minimizing electrical use would be the first and foremost responsible thing we could do.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by hotrodturbo7]

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
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?

If we collect energy from space, we bring it into Earth's closed loop cycle. That energy is not "used", simply converted into another form. Using sunlight IS collecting energy from space.

Here's an example. If we took a desert, with light colored sand, which is basically useless to humans, and covered it completely with solar panels, we would convert a vast amount of sunlight into electricity. That would be good right?

The answer is maybe.

Some of the sunlight that is converted, would have originally been reflected off the light surface color of the desert back into space. Therefore, we are trapping energy in the system, that would otherwise be repelled back from whence it came.

Since energy cannot be used, only converted, and humans convert most electricity to heat, then we would be trapping HEAT in the closed loop system, possibly causing ambient temperature to rise. It all depends on how the Earth responds to balance this out. If we convert energy that is supposed to be outside the atmosphere, then we have to send some energy back out to maintain the balance that is favorable to life as we know it.

On a large enough scale, even solar energy could cause global warming, theoretically speaking. The proof will be in the pudding.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:20 PM
There is a great song called Dust in the Wind by the band Kansas.

You have Utopian ideas. Your argument is just as good as this,,,

"Since killing is bad, we must end all killing so there isn't anymore killing!"

While that sounds very nice, it will never happen, the means will never show themselves, etc etc.

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress

Knowing that the amount of radiant sunlight in the environment directly affects the growth of plants, weather, and moods of people and animals, wouldn't absorbing alot of sunlight via solar technology directly impact these things by reducing the amount of ambient sunlight in the environment?

The transfer of energy production from fossil fuels to solar/wind /tidal etc , would actually have the net effect of increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface.
Particulates released from burning fossil fuels actually shield the Earth from the suns rays, reflecting it back into space.
And in a Machiavellian twist , they now apparently protect us from further warming of the planet .
(see documentary linked below for more details )

Aircraft contrails have also been shown to effect surface temperature range .

Sept 11-14 2001 study.contrails/ U.S grounded aircraft.
Global Dimming- Part 4 / Utube video 10min

Full google documentary Global Dimming

This link provided by Animal (below) shows the relatively minuscule amount of the suns energy we require to perhaps stabilise our civilisation . If only we could cease our current destructive scramble for cheap energy . Perhaps then we could be in a better position to repair some of the damage caused by our dirty learning curve.

We get the astonishingly huge amount of 400 trillion trillion watts. To put this into a crazy context, every second the sun produces the same energy as about a trillion 1 megaton bombs! In one second, our sun produces enough energy for almost 500,000 years of the current needs of our so-called civilization.


Regarding the sourcing of energy off planet.

Our current means of lifting heavy loads into space requires fossil fuels , a massive rockets worth of fuel to propel the little payload into space.

The Moons abundance of Helium 3 has been the subject of threads on ATS , ..... open cast mining off planet , are we "at it again" ?
Would this operation i.e removal of regolith , effect the luninousity of the moon as seen from Earth , which could theoretically, effect plant and animal species which use it to spawn / flower , hunt etc. (yes i said flower :lol

As novel as the human race appears to be , we are still natural , a product of our environment . And crucially ....... as dependant as any other earth bound organism, on the energy from the sun .

I share your trepidation regarding any proposed engineering of weather systems on a global scale etc And hydro electric clearly has an impact on river health etc.
But the one thing you must remind yourselve of , is that we are currently causing damage, we are in no doubt of that .So a movement to a less polluting/or disruptive system of energy production, with a potential risk will have to suffise for now IMHO.

Its good to challenge any large infrastructal projects , no harm trying to trouble-shoot , and probe for weakness & head off potential catastrophes . It engages people , and thats not a bad thing.

[edit on 26-8-2009 by UmbraSumus]

posted on Aug, 26 2009 @ 10:50 PM
reply to post by Animal

so you guys think that generating solar power is going to have more of an effect on the sun / earth interaction than human development already has?

Come on Animal... I have spoken with you long enough to know you are smarter than that.

No one is saying we should stop producing wind power or solar power. But just as burning a tank of fuel in my car has practically a zero effect on the overall ecology of the planet, yet millions of cars on the road daily burning gasoline does have an impact, so could it be with wind or solar.

I feel certain that we have not come close to that tipping point I mentioned earlier... yet. The OP is simply asking where that tipping point is, and what kind of effect may occur should we reach it. We have learned an important lesson with fossil fuels: too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. Should we not now apply that reasoning to other similar situations? Is that not the mark of intelligence?

I agree with hotrodturbo7: this question would make an excellent thesis subject for a grad student somewhere. Who knows; my son will be starting college in a few years, and he seems drawn to engineering... so maybe.

Take a deep breath my friend, and think long and hard... if you take energy away, you affect the energy level. Surely you cannot reasonably try to dispute that?


posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:20 AM
I, for one, agree with the OP's idea of looking for extra-planetary sources of energy/resources. There's TRILLIONS to be had digging the rings of Saturn. I'd do it.

Earth first! Then all the rest!

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:25 AM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Animal

so you guys think that generating solar power is going to have more of an effect on the sun / earth interaction than human development already has?

Come on Animal... I have spoken with you long enough to know you are smarter than that.

sorry mate the title of this thread is "Going green will still kill our planet. Only one solution see inside." not 'green technologies will have some impacts, good or bad, maybe a little of both we really don't know for sure'....

the title of this thread clearly states that green techs are going to kill the planet, based on no clear logic and no rational basis what so ever.

sure everything we do will have an impact of some kind but there is NO proof harnessing wind energy or solar energy is going to destroy the planet.

if there were evidence to support such a claim i would listen nut here is not.

redneck i know YOUR too smart to agree with this statement as well.

by the way what IS the one and only solution?

[edit on 27-8-2009 by Animal]

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:39 AM
Geo-Thermal. Why is this rarely mentioned or thought about? I am sorry if this has been mentioned, as I did not read each and every post, but I do realize people scream for nuclear rather than think of GEO-THERMAL.

Geo-thermal is non invasive and available anywhere, depending of course how far you must drill.

Please people, think about it.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 01:55 AM
reply to post by frivolouschick

Last I heard geothermal was the most cost efficient and unlimited supply of energy available.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:17 AM
Ah, well I do certainly see where you are coming from here.

But you don't take into account the increasing photo-voltaic efficiency in solar cells, which make them able to capture a lot more energy in a much smaller space.

I do see what you are saying. You are saying that with a larger number of wind turbines, solar arrays, and hydro dams there will be an increased effect on the environment as our population increases and more supposed 'green' power plants are constructed.

I believe once we begin to perfect and improve manufacturing processes in relation to these 'green energy' sources (specifically solar, wind, and hydro) we will have a much smaller impact on the environment.

You should also note that the amount of radiant sunlight that would be absorbed from the environment is so insignificantly small that it wouldn't really have a large impact. Also, when the efficiency of solar panels reaches much higher levels, as in the conversion from received sunlight to transmitted electricity, you will be able to pack much more power generation into a much smaller area.

The best approach then would be to place these panels in desert areas where they wouldn't have as much an effect on plant or animal life. An area such as the Sonoran Desert in North America, or in the Outback of Australia might be a good spot.

Wind I'm not so sure about. I know that there will certainly be many improvements in this area, but it might have a larger impact than solar on the environment.

What you are saying might be true if we were to build massive amounts of wind generators at lower levels, basically a hundred feet of the ground or so. If we built enough of them, as in millions, or even billions we might impact the environment. But I think once serious money is poured into research and development we will begin to see massive improvements in efficiency, thereby reducing the number of required wind turbines to produce a said amount of electricity.

I might also add that there are new wind turbines in development that act as large kites, rocking back and forth to generate power at much higher elevations. These would have far less of an environmental impact that low-level turbines.

I see what you are saying, but it isn't very likely that it would happen that way. We would build, then breakthroughs would happen, greatly increasing our electricity production capacity and reducing our environmental impact.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 02:30 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Knowing that the amount of radiant sunlight in the environment directly affects the growth of plants, weather, and moods of people and animals, wouldn't absorbing alot of sunlight via solar technology directly impact these things by reducing the amount of ambient sunlight in the environment?

I'm not sure I understand this question.

Sunlight is not a solid matter and cannot be "absorbed" to detract from the whole. You're not blocking out anything. It's not going to be "used up" in any way.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Knowing that wind farms interrupt wind flow accross the terrain, wouldn't too many greatly affect the wind dynamics globally and thus further impact our global weather?

I don't think the interruption caused by a turbine is enough to greatly influence climate. If that were the case, begin to feel guilty every time you move, because if you throw a ball that turbulence could create a tornado somewhere else.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
Knowing that the currents of oceans and quantity of water flowing down streams and flow dynamics greatly affect the water tables and natural errosion and replenishment of minerals in flood plain areas, wouldnl't interruption of their natural flow on a grand scale directly impact our environment?

You mean, like dams already do?
There is evidence that such obstructions cause changes in the local climate. It's obvious fact. But by using the water movement in more efficient ways (i.e. not creating solid dams and instead using the existing current for energy creation) the damage and impact is vastly minimised.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
The main question would be 20 years from now will we be trying to find the new green after finding out that no matter what source of energy we pillage from the environment, finding out that in the end they all have huge environmental impacts?

Everything we do has an impact on the environment.
But, just as we've seen and evidenced the improvement in air quality, light and general health since cleaner cars were introduced, the words "cleaner energy" are key here.
Yes, some methods might cause some damage or disruption, but the fact is they cause far LESS damage than current methods.

I have long believed that the climate issue is a natural phenomena, possibly exacerbated by human industrial activity, but still a natural event or process.
But I also believe that we are damaging the planet needlessly and damaging our own health along with it.

For me the issue is not really whether we are hurting the planet (the planet will continue, with different life, we are only making it inhospitable for us), the issue is making the planet a nice place for Humans to live while we are here. And I completely believe that moving toward greener, less destructive methods of creating energy is simply respectful of life, and improving our own air, water and general quality of existence.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 05:32 AM

They have not reduced CO2 emissions in any country in the world

It is very true that wind power is incapable of sustaining a base load. Power demand does not disappear when there is no wind. That being said, when there is wind, wind power will generate partial amount of the energy required - and then the coal plant can decrease its output. This does save on CO2. Of course, since wind power has such a low output, it will take 229.21 square miles (3 times the size of Washington D.C) to reach the capacity of a single Nuclear power plant. Any gains wind will bring are minuscule. Even if we use solar panels that are 100% efficient, the same story is told, and again, solar is incapable of providing a base load.

Going "GREEN" means we drastically reduce the amount energy available to us, and will cost living standards around the world. WE can barely afford solar and wind - how the hell can 3rd would countries? I'm not worried about any environmental issues "green" power might bring - they are set to be minuscule, and furthermore, green power is such a failure it will never become an issue.

Furthermore, it's not as if we're building solar panels over rain forest. Why does it matter if we steal solar energy so it's not wasted heating the desert sands of Arizona or, getting reflected back into space? Because it affects wind flows? Your home interrupts wind flows, as does every structure built by humanity, and including all the deforestation we have done. My point is not that it will not have an affect - but that it will be a TINY effect. And furthermore ALL your arguments apply to ANY form of energy. With fossil fuels we are introducing heat and chemicals into the atmosphere. With space based energy we are introducing energy into the Earths atmosphere. Braking with a car heats up the atmosphere. Running electronics puts heat into the atmosphere. BREATHING puts heat into the atmosphere. But that doesn't mean we should stop using all forms of energy then exterminate mankind.

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

Space technology is still many decades away from becoming advanced enough to get energy from space. And that's an optimistic view - bodies like NASA do not have the leadership, technology, or funding, to develop these technologies quickly. It's nothing more than a fantasy at this moment in time - but I agree that every effort should be made for the commercialization of space.

By the way, getting energy from space would upset the Earths supposed "closed cycle" system (even though by definition it is not).

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.

We have demolished huge amounts of forest, and build over huge areas of natural land with cities. Excluding CO2, what effect has this had? Very little, infact.

On a grand scale the globe will be adversly affected.

Blatant claptrap. Hyperbole doesn't work, LeaderOfProgress.

[edit on 27/8/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 07:23 AM
reply to post by Animal

sorry mate the title of this thread is "Going green will still kill our planet. Only one solution see inside." not 'green technologies will have some impacts, good or bad, maybe a little of both we really don't know for sure'....

OK, I'll grant you that the title is a bit over dramatic and misleading. I am referring to the posts and their content. I learned long ago not to judge a book by its cover.

Title notwithstanding, the OP has made some good points IMO, points I have voiced on occasion in other energy-related threads. It is those points I am arguing, not the title. I would assume the same for you, since you have made multiple replies in this thread.


posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by TheRedneck

yes i do have a number of posts int his thread and if you read them you will clearly see that i have stated that these alternative energies will undoubtedly have 'impacts' i highly doubt their impacts will do great damage.

this thread is clearly about the unsuitability of alternative energy sources as we know them today. the only argument put forth is: "come on, it SO logical, if we make any change in 'energy' there will be catastrophic consequences".

the use of this argument 'seems' sound but in reality there is no basis to assume that we could use enough solar energy to deprive the Earth's planetary systems of the solar energy they need. also, we have built MASSIVE cities who undoubtedly have altered wind patterns more than building 'wind farms' ever will and we have not seen a collapse of our planetary systems as a result.

then on comparison i noted that near me here in new mexico, at the ville grande caldera outside of jemez springs once had a geo-thermal power generator that was closed down due to its depletion of geo-thermal heat. people around these parts love the hot-springs in the jemez mountains for soaking and they were beginning to run cool, this was the initial tip off that led to the site being shut down. so in the case of geo-thermal i know first hand it can have impacts on planetary systems and i admitted it.

i also made the concession that the overuse of bio-mass generators could potentially over use resources as well leading to a detrimental impact on the environment. oh and i also conceded that building dams can negatively impact the Earth as well.

so its not so easy to label me as a critic of this hypothesis only parts of it. not surprisingly it is the parts that have absolutely nothing to support them other than so called 'common sense', which humorously is contrary to the 'common sense' of specialists who are highly trained to understand the issues raised.

redneck i do not post this or anything else to mess with you, i like you and think your a stand up 'guy' and i appreciate having the opportunity to debate with you. however in this instance i simply think your a it, or more , off base.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:01 PM
Considering that all the forest that were chopped down did blocked a great deal more wind than wind mills will ever block, there is very little chance that these wind mills are going to mess up weather patterns.

I would think that cars, trucks, and trains moving around everywhere would create more turbulence than windmills.

Maybe some level of regulation will have to be put into place to control how many occupy a certain space, but that would be manageable. Europe is already ahead of us in expanding windmill technology, and they haven't encountered any such problems yet.

A better solution to humanities impact on our planets environment would be to stop population growth, possibly even allow it to decline.

posted on Aug, 27 2009 @ 12:15 PM
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

As oppossed to dozens of square miles of high rises, stories of interstate overpasses? Bridges? Turbines are the least of your worries.

consider the amount of energy the sun puts out, we could never "use" it all. It is not like water. We put solar panels on roofs. It is not interfering in anything and has everything to gain.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in