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

reply to post by Animal

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".

Clearly we have read this thread in different lights. I see it as more a warning to not get too excited and to remember that, while we should indeed continue to supplement with wind and solar, we must be aware that every action has consequences. To date, the prevailing layman's opinion of wind and solar power is that it has absolutely no effect on the planet, thanks to the mass media's excitement in covering it. That is simply not true. It has an effect. Everything has an effect.

I don't think I ever used the word 'catastrophic' in this thread. I haven't exactly checked every post I made, though, so forgive me if I did.

I also like the idea of developing new energy sources from outside the planetary ecological system. That could only be a good thing, just as developing wind/solar technologies would have been an even better thing had it been developed sooner.

It seems that, even though we were debating different sides of this argument, we do share a lot in common relating to it.

That's a good thing as well.

TheRedneck

reply to post by nixie_nox

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.

Interesting. That's the same thing people said about oil use back when it was new.

If you put solar panels on your roof, you reduce the amount of heat on the roof from sunlight. That may well be an advantage, but it is an effect nonetheless. There could be disadvantages of a similar nature waiting should we breach the level of energy the wind and thermal systems can afford to lose.

As I explained to Animal, don't get so comfortable with wind or solar power that you ignore future, better possibilities.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Oil is an infinite resource, the sun shouldn't be running out of juice anytime soon.

As for the roof thing, roofs are not a natural part of the ecosystem to begin with. Your replacing woods or desert or(insert natural terrain here) and putting a big black reflecting, absorbing square or triangle.

Foliage would absorbe sunlight. So would solar panels.

As I explained to Animal, don't get so comfortable with wind or solar power that you ignore future, better possibilities.

You have a good point there. But the environment field is relatively new in teh scheme of things. Solar and wind are just transitional technologies. They are not an end all means. But they were certainly provide a decent band aid till we figure out what we really need. And technology is given more time to improve.

I think we have depended on oil too long. And I think at this point it is actually inhibiting us from progressing.

There is not going to be a one size fits all solution. I believe it should be garnared to fit the area. The desert and south, solar. The north, wind. The shores, wave power. Those who don't have resources, nuclear.And so on.

Why does it have to be a one size fits all form of energy? Why can't people just provide their own local energy? Power plants are individaul. There isn't a national power plant. Yet we insist on a few basic supplies. None of which are good for us.



[edit on 27-8-2009 by nixie_nox]

reply to post by nixie_nox

Oil is an infinite resource, the sun shouldn't be running out of juice anytime soon.

I think you meant oil was a finite resource.

The energy of the sun is also finite. The sun is putting out radiation at a fairly regular pace, and the amount of sunlight we receive is based on the size of the planet. Now unless you have figured out a way to make the sun work overtime, so to speak, or a way to change the size of the planet, the amount of solar radiation received during one particular time period is indeed finite.

As for the roof thing, roofs are not a natural part of the ecosystem to begin with. Your replacing woods or desert or(insert natural terrain here) and putting a big black reflecting, absorbing square or triangle.

And that house by its very existence has an effect on the ecology of the planet. Take a look at Chicago, the "windy city". The wind that it is so renowned for is primarily the result of man-made structures that tend to channel the natural winds into gale force gusts.

That house also contributes something to the environment, however. That roof heats up during the day, adding the heat energy to the environment. Now, if you cover it with solar panels, you are using some of that heat energy as electrical energy instead. Will that affect the environment? YES! Will it affect the environment substantially? We really don't know. Will it affect the environment negatively? We don't know that either.

Imagine this: back during the Industrial revolution, when oil use was expanding rapidly, what would have been the result if people had expressed a concern for investigating what effects oil usage on a large scale would have on the ecology? In all probability, it would have led to an earlier introduction of wind and solar power, and earlier emphasis on efficiency when oil was used. I'm sure you will agree this would have been wonderful.

So what's the problem with asking the same questions now? Are you worried someone may find a flaw with those turbines? Are you so short-sighted that you won't accept new ideas until the old ones are demonized fully? Or are you just so enamored with wind and solar power that you would 'protect' them at any cost?

No one here that I have seen, least of all me, is suggesting we abandon any means of alternate energy. All we're saying is that we should check it out lest we take a chance of making yet another mess.

Foliage would absorbe sunlight. So would solar panels.

Otherwise known as 'competition for resources'.

TheRedneck

reply to post by nixie_nox
OK, no fair adding another post while I am responding to the first one.

Solar and wind are just transitional technologies. They are not an end all means. But they were certainly provide a decent band aid till we figure out what we really need. And technology is given more time to improve.

You'll get no argument from me there. I would even go so far as to say that wind and solar will always have a unique niche in the energy industry. I also expect that oil will have the same.

I think we have depended on oil too long. And I think at this point it is actually inhibiting us from progressing.

Again, I agree.

There is not going to be a one size fits all solution. I believe it should be garnared to fit the area. The desert and south, solar. The north, wind. The shores, wave power. Those who don't have resources, nuclear.And so on.

Why does it have to be a one size fits all form of energy? Why can't people just provide their own local energy? Power plants are individaul. There isn't a national power plant. Yet we insist on a few basic supplies. None of which are good for us.

One of the problems is the global economy. Mass production requires that machinery be more or less standardized. That means a car sold in New Zealand needs the same type of fuel as an identical car sold in Maine. A toaster sold for use in Canada will need the same type of power source as the one like it sold in Florida. Standardization of machinery means some standardization of energy.

Today we have two basic fuels for use in transportation: gasoline and diesel, both products made from crude oil. As far as electricity is concerned, we have 240VAC dual-phase in either 60Hz or 50Hz for household and light industrial use, 440VAC three-phase power for heavy industry, and 12VDC for portable and automotive accessory use. These three types of electrical power cover over 95% of all the electrical energy used worldwide.

So all of the differing ways to produce energy must all culminate in a standard energy type. Technology will naturally favor one type or another of energy production based on ease of transforming it into one of the standards.

I wish I had a solution for this dilemma, but I do not. We will tend to use a one-size-fits-all solution wherever possible.

TheRedneck


[edit on 8/27/2009 by TheRedneck]

The amount of energy we receive from the sun in one hour could power the planet for one year if we ran entirely on solar power. We could never ever possibly abuse this source, especially since it's going to be around for a few million generations.

Of course, we do not run entirely on solar. But most of our solar fields are in desserts, where nobody lives and/or goes. Absorbing the sunlight there isn't hurting anyone.

Wind energy is actually my favorite, I think the wind towers look awesome when you drive past them. The more there are, the better the weather would be in my opinion, not worse. I think enough of them would probably interrupt winds enough to stop clashing of fronts to create tornadoes, which kill people, if i recall my lessons from 2nd grade correctly.

Of course, I'm not meteorologist, so i'm not going to pretend to know any facts about it. Thats just what seems kinda logical to me about it.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Your completely right, there is no solution at this point in time. Our resources are depleting faster than alternative methods are being deployed, I think this will create much more hardship for us in the near future than we really know. Its not a situation we can be in for much longer though, firstly resources will run dry (oil) within our life times at the current rate of consumption, environmental catastrophe could deliver the final blow because of the impact we are having.

Part of me thinks damn, we really should of hung JP Morgan for saying "How can we meter it" when Tesla proposed free energy... Whether Tesla was right or wrong in what he was proposing is not the issue, it would of set the cogs in motion 100 years earlier than actually happened in the search for an alternative, a clean and plenty full source of energy.

I have faith though that we are really not to far away from a huge technological jump, if we are to keep living with the luxury we have then its required. Slowly people are waking up to the fact, we need to get this sorted and soon, still most people are in a comfortable bubble and are not bothered about the future. Luckily through out time its not been large numbers of people who are to busy not thinking who advance our knowledge. Its dedicated individuals who wont stop until they have invented/designed/built or succeeded in doing something revolutionary and understanding its relevance. We just need to start protecting these people and listening to what they say, our future depends on it.

Sure, let's go outside the box! I can see a line of tankers from Titan shipping crude to Earth.

The problem is management, or how we treat the resources and wastes. Even more, keeping an eye toward the bottom line and furthering political careers are ill conceived incentives that do not help the ordinary Joe get off the grid.

reply to post by TheRedneck


Thank you for the civil intellectual debate Red! This is what ATS is about.

Now what was I going to say?

oh yea!

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by nixie_nox
OK, no fair adding another post while I am responding to the first one.

.

Sorry! I always think of stuff afterwards anda take a long time to edit.

Solar and wind are just transitional technologies. They are not an end all means. But they were certainly provide a decent band aid till we figure out what we really need. And technology is given more time to improve.

You'll get no argument from me there. I would even go so far as to say that wind and solar will always have a unique niche in the energy industry. I also expect that oil will have the same.

So you have hope enough we will beat our oil addiction?

I think we have depended on oil too long. And I think at this point it is actually inhibiting us from progressingAgain, I agree..

There is not going to be a one size fits all solution. I believe it should be garnared to fit the area. The desert and south, solar. The north, wind. The shores, wave power. Those who don't have resources, nuclear.And so on.

Why does it have to be a one size fits all form of energy? Why can't people just provide their own local energy? Power plants are individaul. There isn't a national power plant. Yet we insist on a few basic supplies. None of which are good for us.

One of the problems is the global economy. Mass production requires that machinery be more or less standardized. That means a car sold in New Zealand needs the same type of fuel as an identical car sold in Maine. A toaster sold for use in Canada will need the same type of power source as the one like it sold in Florida. Standardization of machinery means some standardization of energy.

Good point. But I also have hopes that someone will come up with portable energy. Taht is where solar still comes in handy. Doesn't matter your location or climate, you can use solar. In fact, the country that uses it the most is pretty far north.

Today we have two basic fuels for use in transportation: gasoline and diesel, both products made from crude oil. As far as electricity is concerned, we have 240VAC dual-phase in either 60Hz or 50Hz for household and light industrial use, 440VAC three-phase power for heavy industry, and 12VDC for portable and automotive accessory use. These three types of electrical power cover over 95% of all the electrical energy used worldwide..

Now your just speaking electro geek.

So all of the differing ways to produce energy must all culminate in a standard energy type. Technology will naturally favor one type or another of energy production based on ease of transforming it into one of the standards.

I wish I had a solution for this dilemma, but I do not. We will tend to use a one-size-fits-all solution wherever possible.

..

Which I also think is inhibitive. and humans need to stop think that there is only one answer to anything. But it could be many.

reply to post by nixie_nox

Sorry! I always think of stuff afterwards anda take a long time to edit.

NP, just felt that a friendly jab was in order.

So you have hope enough we will beat our oil addiction?

Yes, I do indeed! I don't expect it to be tomorrow because we will need a new infrastructure to support new technologies. Nor do I expect oil to ever completely be obsolete; for some purposes, it is perfect. It makes a cheap and yet good quality lubricant, the heaviest elements of crude are used as a bonding agent in asphalt, and most plastics owe their very existence to crude oil. As other types of energy replace the lighter components used for gasoline and diesel, these fuels will eventually become dirt cheap and will therefore find a niche. But to the extent we now use oil? Yes, that time is finite.

Good point. But I also have hopes that someone will come up with portable energy. Taht is where solar still comes in handy. Doesn't matter your location or climate, you can use solar. In fact, the country that uses it the most is pretty far north.

I agree, solar energy is probably the most portable power source we have right now. Too bad it isn't capable of producing the amounts of concentrated power we have come to expect in our everyday lives. Sunlight is spread out over the globe, and thus that awesome power supply is thereby rendered impotent in all but the most efficient operations.

The real obstacle to changing over to solar completely is industry. The power that a manufacturing plant uses on average is absolutely awesome... far far beyond the ability of any reasonably-sized array to even hope to supply. I have hope though that other sources are forthcoming.

Which I also think is inhibitive. and humans need to stop think that there is only one answer to anything. But it could be many.

Humans perhaps should, but will they? I really don't hold out mush hope for this part. The economics of modern society and the inherent greed of humanity in general will not allow it.

I also want to say that I agree this is an excellent debate! The very reason I joined ATS.

TheRedneck

reply to post by Schmidt1989

Of course, we do not run entirely on solar. But most of our solar fields are in desserts, where nobody lives and/or goes. Absorbing the sunlight there isn't hurting anyone.

Again, I present the obvious: even though there is no flora in the desert to absorb sunlight for photosynthesis, the sunlight does have an effect on the ecology of the globe: it turns into heat. That heat is part of the energy cycle of the planet. Affecting the amount of sunlight converted naturally into photosynthetic energy or heat will have an effect; the only question is what effect it will be and at which point will it become noticeable?

TheRedneck

reply to post by refuse_orders

firstly resources will run dry (oil) within our life times at the current rate of consumption

I understand this is a popular belief, but I tend to side with the concept that oil is an inherent byproduct of the earth's crust. Oil is a hydrocarbon, composed of (what else?) hydrogen and carbon, two of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust. Add in the fact that several abandoned oil wells thought to be dry and useless have later been found to be again filled with the black gold.

Part of me thinks damn, we really should of hung JP Morgan for saying "How can we meter it" when Tesla proposed free energy...

Actually, that is another misconception. Tesla's proposal was to use capacitive reaction and transformers to distribute power without wires... nothing in the Colorado Springs project had to do with producing energy form alternate sources. The entire thing was really nothing more than an advanced and massive transmitter for ultra-high-voltage, high-frequency power. The power it transmitted was to be supplied from a more mundane power plant.

JP Morgan was indeed a snake, if for nothing else than the way he crushed Tesla's spirit. I can understand the concern that anyone could retrieve their power without paying for it (think how long satellite TV would be in business if anyone could stick an antenna into the ground and watch anything they wanted for free), but that fact should have been patently obvious from the start. I often wonder if Morgan was working for the government when he allowed Tesla to build the tower; he certainly lost a tremendous amount of money on a lack of foresight, something Morgan was definitely not known for.

Anyway, back on subject...

Its dedicated individuals who wont stop until they have invented/designed/built or succeeded in doing something revolutionary and understanding its relevance. We just need to start protecting these people and listening to what they say, our future depends on it.

AMEN AMEN AMEN!

It will not be the large power companies who provide the answer we are all looking for; they have no incentive to do so. It will be the small inventors who finally overload the ability of these conglomerates to suppress the technology they have created.

The problem right now is that no one with money to invest has any interest in anything new. Even researchers who have financial contacts already are finding it difficult to launch new projects. The money is there, it's just harder to get anyone to turn it loose.

And that's experience talking.

TheRedneck

Going green is not the answer. There's not enough power in going green.

The answer is Nuclear Power which will eventually lead to Nuclear Fusion.

The Sun puts out enough energy in 1 second to power the earth for millions of years. If we could harness that power through Nuclear Fusion that would be great.

Then we can work on extracting and using Vacuum energy which would be the ultimate discovery.

The problem will be governments and global corporations. Will they let the people have this cheap energy is the question.

There is a biodiesel that is not taken from food, and could be produced from the seeds, while the rest of this amazing agricultural plant is used for other very important products, like making cloth and paper, and this product does not require fertilizer, and grows well in the midwest.

In fact the diesel engine was designed originally to run on diesel made from this product.

Originally posted by TheRedneck

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

Errr I might not be all that smart, but Solar panels dont use heat to generate electrical current, they use the light to do so, heat is nothing but the result of the light hitting a surface.

Next time your near a solar panel on a nice sunny day stick your hand on it, it'll be nice and toasty. Heck your roof is a giant light wasting surface... i dont see you claiming its environmentally unfriendly (at least with a solar panel on it you'd be able to convert all that wasted sunlight into an energy source). While the earths systems are closed, in regards to what the Op is about it aint. We loose tons of heat and light back into space every day hell if we didnt this planet would be a hellish hell hole of flame and sand like Venus.

Why are people thinking that the Solar panels suck in light and refuse to spit it out.. if that was so they'd be an excellent way of making yourself invisible

Also using the OP's train of thought, lets ban all planting of non-naturally placed trees especially on high hills since this in turn is no different than sticking big old wind turbines up their to disrupt the wind flow.

reply to post by TheRedneck

I understand this is a popular belief, but I tend to side with the concept that oil is an inherent byproduct of the earth's crust. Oil is a hydrocarbon, composed of (what else?) hydrogen and carbon, two of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust. Add in the fact that several abandoned oil wells thought to be dry and useless have later been found to be again filled with the black gold.

I agree, oil is never going to "run dry" completely because its a naturally occurring substance the same as coal. The point i was trying to make was consumption and demand for oil if left to continue to rise we will get to a point where demand will out weigh supply. If we don't find alternative energy sources things will get pretty grim, that's without thinking about the environmental issues that would come with it.

Actually, that is another misconception. Tesla's proposal was to use capacitive reaction and transformers to distribute power without wires... nothing in the Colorado Springs project had to do with producing energy form alternate sources.

I understand how Wardenclyffe would have functioned, i realize there was no alternative power source either. I was trying to put across the idea that if Tesla had been able to prove it was possible to transmit power without wires and freely by completing the project, the knock on effect would have lead to many other areas of study and much greater research in to the possibilities of more efficient uses of energy. The impact it would of had on everyone would have enabled us to start digging deeper into the potential other uses 100 years ago, just think where we might be now if it had happened. I certainly think that we would not be panicking about the future now and facing an oil crisis.

The greed of men like Morgan is what has put us in this position now, in my opinion he held back our technological development just by that one act.

The problem right now is that no one with money to invest has any interest in anything new. Even researchers who have financial contacts already are finding it difficult to launch new projects. The money is there, it's just harder to get anyone to turn it loose.

Too true, this is the biggest problem facing any independent research now. I think though with pure determination people who have set out to solve these kind of problems like alternative energy will. We as the public need to start supporting these independent projects, its within our best interests to. We all know we cant trust the corporations to be working in the best interests of the human race and its future. Profit over progress is the rule they work by and just like how Morgan did all that time ago they are stifling our development once again.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by refuse_orders

firstly resources will run dry (oil) within our life times at the current rate of consumption

I understand this is a popular belief, but I tend to side with the concept that oil is an inherent byproduct of the earth's crust. Oil is a hydrocarbon, composed of (what else?) hydrogen and carbon, two of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust. Add in the fact that several abandoned oil wells thought to be dry and useless have later been found to be again filled with the black gold.

sorry but that isn't true, abionic oil has been debunked for years, petrologists have found that the oil later found in oil wells thought dry came from the earths crust shifting and allowing that oil to be located.
oil and coal is entirely bionic

reply to post by demongoat

The theory that petroleum is derived from biogenic processes is held by the overwhelming majority of petroleum geologists.[123] Abiogenic theorists however, such as the late professor of astronomy Thomas Gold at Cornell University, assert that the source of oil may not be a limited supply of “fossil fuels”, but instead an abiotic process. They theorize that if abiogenic petroleum sources are found to be abundant, Earth would contain vast reserves of untapped petroleum.[124] The abiogenic origin hypothesis lacks scientific support, and all current oil reserves have evidence of biological origin. It also has not been successfully used in uncovering oil deposits by geologists.[123]

wikipedia

Yeah abiogenic origin has been found to be only applicable to methane and other hydrocarbon gasses, but the amounts that exist are not great enough for commercial use.

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?

I will offer you the best advice your going to get on here most likely.

Go talk to a Phd level physics professor and he will explain why your
theory does not work like you think.

All dark colors already absorb heat from the sun, and radiate it out
over time, that is why its best to camp by the rocks in the colder
weather because they release their heat after sundown.

When you turn sunlight into electrical energy, expending that
electrical energy gives off heat.

All electric motors give off heat, as do all applicances.

Most refrigerators entire backside is covered with cooling coils.

Mountains and trees disrupt the wind, as a windmill would.

Rocks in the rivers and seas disrupt the waves, as a shrouded
water turbine would.

When you see the power JUST the moon exerts on the oceans as
seen in the Bay of Fundy In Canada you realize forces much
larger than we can wield are at work.

The Bay of Fundy - largest tides in the world

During the 12.4 hour tidal period, 115 billion tonnes of water flow in and out of the bay.[4]

The true power of the Sun

The amount of solar energy absorbed by the planet in one year
is enough to meet all power needs of all types including fossil fuels
for 7,905 Earths.

So if we were to tap 1% it would be enough for 79 earths.

And that is if we shutdown all nuclear reactors, all hydro electric dams,
etc etc.

It is quite egotistical of humans to think they could somehow tap 1%.

We don't have the spine to get the homeless off the street when
thousands of stadiums, churches, and foreclosed bldgs stand
empty every night.

If you want to worry yourself about something consider this below.

========================================

We saw a failure of the 5 year bond sale of T-bills.

market-ticker.denninger.net...

Then the failure of the 7 year bond sale of T-bills.

market-ticker.denninger.net...

Below says US foreign Embassys are being told to horde
1 years worth of non-US currency due to a possible
lengthy banking shutdown.

www.marketwatch.com...

Speaking of shutdown, 7 banks in one day went poof...

www.fdic.gov...

Close to 600 Bank of America locations to be closed.

news.yahoo.com...

FDIC top level official says bank closures to increase 10 fold.

moneynews.newsmax.com...

By just their public financials they are forced to disclose
348 banks are either technically already failed, or 1% away
from it indicated in the orange on this spreadsheet.

bankimplode.com...

They recently called back formerly retired FDIC workers,
and hired 600 more to get ready for it all.

www.npr.org...

I can see why she would say that with near 2,700 banks being
rated D+ or lower.

www.moneyandmarkets.com...

Over 1,000 Trillion in derivatives are set to implode.

theinternationalforecaster.com...

Once they monetize the debt and start printing money like mad
to buy our own debt up, they will devalue the currency and
turn the US into a modern day Zimbabwe.

They outline how this is likely to happen in these three videos.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

The tax revenues have dropped more than anytime since the Great Depression.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The real U6 unemployment rate is closer to 21%.

blogs.moneycentral.msn.com...

34 million ppl on food stamps, more than ever before.

www.forbes.com...

The World bank says we are entering a Deflationary Spiral.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

The FIVE sucker's rallys after the 1929 crash.

img88.imageshack.us...

100's of thousands of stores to be closed per retail maven.

finance.yahoo.com...:-U.S.-Consumers,-Retailers-in-a-

How all of this and more has been arranged on purpose.

www.youtube.com...

While some of the above may be hard to believe, this is
not the first time that things that were hard to believe
ended up being true.

conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com...

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

[edit on 29-8-2009 by Ex_MislTech]