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.

 

U.S. says wind could power 20 percent of eastern grid

page: 3
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hangedman13
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Sacrifice for wind turbines? Not very eco friendly
Disrupting the natural order for our needs seems assinine. Anyway its not acid rain causing it.
www.nj.com...

So now what?

Sorry about the bats. What ever killed them was status quo not alternative energy. Worrying about the few that are left would be like a real skinny person running around in the shower trying to get hit by the drops.




posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


Thanks for all the good information!

As you could tell from my OP I wasn't much sold on all the wind machines in my home state of Iowa for many reasons but after doing a little research and reading what you have to say I really, really am against wind and becoming more and more sold on nuclear.

Nuclear would solve all the huge concerns that the Greenies have about greenhouse gasses and damage to the environment and on and on but they won't allow nuclear! Something is going on here, something stinks, the fix is on as they say, we are getting the wrong end of the stick.

It sounds like in 5 years we could be operating on clean nuclear, recharging our Prius on clean electricity, our skys could be clear, the city air could be clean for all to breath and life could be cool.

But no, the Liberals like Obama will stand in the way and try to get us to put up those ugly windmills that don't work and fine businesses for burning coal and try to tax the carbon. Oh yes and in Iowa, continue to give Warren Buffet a sweet deal and not compete with his dirty coal burning Iowa Power Company!

Go figure. Hopefully there will be some positive changes come November!



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by merka
 


Its true Nuclear Reactors are a safer option but going on the belief that I have which is ,that we are the 'caretakes' of this planet and we must look for different alternatives that suit mother nature and ourselves.

Green energy is the way forward.




At this time there really is no such thing as truly green energy. Believe me i am all for being more energy efficient and reducing waste and the human impact on the environment but there is no free lunch.

There is data to show that wind power(with enough turbines) can affect the wind and weather patterns. And as one poster noted the cost to repair and care for turbines results in more energy used. Solar is great but solar panels by their nature, absorb light energy, thus potentially heating the planet(if there were enough). Black surfaces absorb and hold heat while white surfaces reflect light back into space.

I'm not saying that we should give up on alternative energy sources but energy has a price no matter what form it is in.

Besides, carbon output is not what we should be worried about. Its the thousands of man made toxic chemicals that we are constantly dumping and venting all over the world. In my opinion, carbon output is the least of our long term problems.

There are many factors that go into the heating and cooling of the earth and we dont have a full grasp on all of these factors and how they work together. But we know how certain toxic chemicals affect the reproductive capabilities of certain species. We know that mercury, lead, pesticides, herbicides, triclosan, can have a very negative effect on the ecosystem.

Carbon release is a red herring, blinding us from the real pollutants that threaten the long term sustainability of this planet.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by iamcamouflage
 





Besides, carbon output is not what we should be worried about. Its the thousands of man made toxic chemicals that we are constantly dumping and venting all over the world. In my opinion, carbon output is the least of our long term problems.


Starred!

Tks!

Do you have that right! Man is injecting incredible toxins into mother earth and the least of the worries is CO2!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Carbon release is a red herring, blinding us from the real pollutants that threaten the long term sustainability of this planet.

Carbon fears even blinds of us from carbon.

For example with the "green" ethanol we're heading for complete disaster. A recent study here indicated a massive increase in carbon emissions due to ethanol.

What we should be doing is going electric - supported by power plants capable of outputting vast amounts of power. Fission is the best way at the moment and I am hoping that in the future we can replace it all with fusion. We're wasting our time - and planet - in these alternative things.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by merka
 





For example with the "green" ethanol we're heading for complete disaster. A recent study here indicated a massive increase in carbon emissions due to ethanol.


Be quiet about that! Us corn farmers don't like to hear the downside of biofuel! LOL!
Seriously though, there is a lot of denial on that issue!



posted on Jan, 24 2010 @ 04:27 AM
link   
It appears I made a mistake in one of my earlier posts. Nothing major, but it is corrected in my thread, here (shameless plug).

reply to post by merka
 


From what I understand, batteries are too heavy, expensive and cannot hold enough charge to fully replace conventional petrol vehicles. Instead, we may be able to use Hydrogen and/or Ammonia as a fuel.

Nuclear-Power Ammonia Production - Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Ammonia - Wikipedia

Hydrogen Production by Nuclear Power.

Hydrogen Economy - Wikipedia.

It might also be possible for nuclear energy to aid in mining and the oil industry.

Hyperion Power Generation.

Thanks.

[edit on 24/1/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by merka

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
Carbon release is a red herring, blinding us from the real pollutants that threaten the long term sustainability of this planet.

Carbon fears even blinds of us from carbon.

For example with the "green" ethanol we're heading for complete disaster. A recent study here indicated a massive increase in carbon emissions due to ethanol.

What we should be doing is going electric - supported by power plants capable of outputting vast amounts of power. Fission is the best way at the moment and I am hoping that in the future we can replace it all with fusion. We're wasting our time - and planet - in these alternative things.


I agree that electric is the best option right now. Its not to say that here is no pollution with electric(electricity comes from fossil fuels) but if we generate electricity in one location we can at least isolate the pollution to one area.

The real problem with coal isnt so much the burning of it, its the extraction of coal from the ground that creates so many problems for the environment. Modern coal burning plant do a really good job of trapping all the carbon(exhaust) produced so that its not vented into the atmosphere.

I also think that nuclear needs to be closely looked at again. Obviously there are downfalls but like i said there are downfalls with all of our current energy production methods. Nuclear provides the most bang for the buck, and while there is waste produced, nuclear waste can be isolated and contained.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Modern coal burning plant do a really good job of trapping all the carbon(exhaust) produced so that its not vented into the atmosphere.

Modern coal power plants do a really good job of filtering the flue gas to remove particulates, and the causes of acid rain (e.g. Nitrogen oxide). They do nothing about capturing its huge CO2 emissions (twice as high as natural gas), which at the moment can only be minimized by increasing the plants thermal efficiency and using black coal instead of brown. Oil has a carbon intensity about 3/4 of that of coal (per unit of heat).

[edit on 26/1/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 02:37 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 





Modern coal power plants do a really good job of filtering the flue gas to remove particulates, and the causes of acid rain (e.g. Nitrogen oxide). They do nothing about capturing its huge CO2 emissions (twice as high as natural gas), which at the moment can only be minimized by increasing the plants thermal efficiency and using black coal instead of brown. Oil has a carbon intensity about 3/4 of that of coal per unit of heat.


Good point! This makes a good argument for Nuclear, far and away the most efficient in every way energy producer! Now if only the proponents of green energy would stop being hypocritical and support/ stop blocking the cleanest energy source!




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join