Darkflare Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 Also, wind and solar are not completely safe to the environment either. Both require huge amounts of area to collect power. Not so much for wind, but if we were to attempt to build a power system on solar alone, we would have to destroy a few ecosystems to do it are you joking? wind harvesting takes vasts amounts of land. you need quite a number of windmills to make enough electricity to power a decent amount of people. also, it only makes sense to build windmills in areas where there is a lot of wind.
Guest Price Posted September 4, 2003 Report Posted September 4, 2003 there's hydro electricity, windmills, Tide-powered kinda mills (i don't know how its spelled or named in english), and solar energy which is very cheap. let's use all of them and we should do ok. also US and Canada (but particurlaly US) are the topmost energy users of the world. Hence we're burning a lot of unnecessary energy, we're sucking our land dry, etc (add apocalyptic sentence here). Our best weapon vs energy shortage is sound ressources management from single household/family to big multicorpos. It would reduce the stress on the actual infrastructure and create new economies based on recycling instead of actual use of natural ressources. my 2 cents
»dr uniburner Posted September 5, 2003 Report Posted September 5, 2003 in the future all of our cars will be powered by hyrdogen.
madhaha Posted September 5, 2003 Report Posted September 5, 2003 Fueled not powered. I doubt it simply because of the logistics of carting around/piping such vasts amounts of hydrogen. I think we'd see a new kind of transport or other alternative fuels long before we use hydrogen. Notice where development is going at the moment and how alternative fuels (such as lpg) are already availible in inner city areas. People GENUINELY interested in trying some of this stuff out should try getting their car converted to run on gas. Its not overtly expensive although it'll hog a lot of space (back seats or the boot). Advantages are cheap fuel, quick to start, less polution, no congestion charing (in London), cheaper road tax etc. The only useful sustainable fuel source at the moment is solar power (yes it makes a difference even in overcast areas, if only for heating water). Wind power requires far too much land, creates a -*BAD WORD*- of a lot of noise and is not usually productive/reliable enough. Longterm effects unknown. Tidal powers is HORRIBLE to maintain and also have unknown longterm effects. Remember the creation of photovoltic panels requires posinous elements and that disposal/repair is expensive, if its even possible. Farmers are probably aware of the methane digester (dump all your crap and waste food in a digester and it'll provide odourless natural gas and fertiliser). At the end of the day, its the lowtech stuff that wins.
Aileron Posted September 5, 2003 Author Report Posted September 5, 2003 there's hydro electricity, windmills, Tide-powered kinda mills (i don't know how its spelled or named in english), and solar energy which is very cheap. let's use all of them and we should do ok. also US and Canada (but particurlaly US) are the topmost energy users of the world. Hence we're burning a lot of unnecessary energy, we're sucking our land dry, etc (add apocalyptic sentence here). Our best weapon vs energy shortage is sound ressources management from single household/family to big multicorpos. It would reduce the stress on the actual infrastructure and create new economies based on recycling instead of actual use of natural ressources. my 2 cents For the first part - no, that won't be enough. For the second part, true, but the US is the most industrialized nation in the world and the southern part of Canada isn't far behind. It is mostly industry that consumes power. Basically, use of the alternatize sources of power and energy consumption is universally respected as the first thing we should do. However, even if we did both of those things, we would still have to build more traditional power plants as well as modernize the power grid. Basically, evenyone agrees on step one, but we are discussing step two. Quote: Also, wind and solar are not completely safe to the environment either. Both require huge amounts of area to collect power. Not so much for wind, but if we were to attempt to build a power system on solar alone, we would have to destroy a few ecosystems to do it are you joking? wind harvesting takes vasts amounts of land. you need quite a number of windmills to make enough electricity to power a decent amount of people. also, it only makes sense to build windmills in areas where there is a lot of wind. I meant relative to solar. When comparing wind to every other type of power plant you are correct.
madhaha Posted September 5, 2003 Report Posted September 5, 2003 I'm interested to know why we DON'T use household digesters actually... They cost slightly more than your regular toilet but they can be used to power a generator or provide gas. And there is always the fertiliser which can be sold on or ploughed back into the land somewhere. No reason why ins!@#$%^&*utions (schools for example) can't use it to reduce their electricity bills. A lot of power can be saved via insulation but again, no-one is interested because of the cost.
Aileron Posted September 5, 2003 Author Report Posted September 5, 2003 Well, there IS a limit to how much energy conservation is desireable. You don't want to spend $10 to save $1 of electricity. Businesses will either apply energy conservation at a 1:1 ratio or they will be eventually forced out of business by compe!@#$%^&*ors that do. The tricky part is getting energy conservation at home. I'm interested to know why we DON'T use household digesters actually... They cost slightly more than your regular toilet but they can be used to power a generator or provide gas. And there is always the fertiliser which can be sold on or ploughed back into the land somewhere. Now that's just sick. The problem with that is that would have to store the waste until it can be used. If you can think of a way to store the sh*t in a fire-safe manner that seals odor, go ahead. Knock yourself out if all that methane doesn't do it first. Also, it is illegal to use human fertilizer. Spreads disease and it really stinks.
madhaha Posted September 5, 2003 Report Posted September 5, 2003 Digesters work, are firesafe and odourless etc. Food waste digesters certainly produces usable fertiliser. Human waste I'm not sure about (its in treated sewage which is used for fertiliser after all) but you can certainly use the gas.
Aileron Posted September 9, 2003 Author Report Posted September 9, 2003 food digesters won't work for my house. We FINISH the food we start eating. There usually is SOME left, but not enough to power anything for any reasonable amount of time. I figure, if you are going to be wasting food, you might as well designate and process it for burning. What I am referring to is obviously corn-based alcohol which not only is a feasible power source (for transportation moreso than electricity), but would also solve the economic problems with farming.
madhaha Posted September 9, 2003 Report Posted September 9, 2003 The hope is that the same alcohol could be used in fuel cells producing electricity without the burning.
MonteZuma Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 Yeah...those alcohol-based biofuels sound good. But they aren't. Agriculture causes too many environmental problems. With biofuels, we subs!@#$%^&*ute one finite resource (oil) for another (soil), and subs!@#$%^&*ute one environmental problem (air pollution) with another (land degradation and water pollution). Forget it. Farming, in its present form, is not a sustainable way of producing energy. Monte.
Aileron Posted September 10, 2003 Author Report Posted September 10, 2003 True, but there are advantages as well. First off, oil is a resource we have to import, while farm products is something in which we don't. Secondly, switching to biofuels would eliminate the need for the subsidies we give to farmers. Finally, land is (atleast moreso than oil) a renewable resource. True, if you plant corn in a field for twenty years in a row, it will become crud. However, wise land management policies increase the longetivity of the land. It won't last forever, but it will last longer than an oil reserve. However, this is vehicular energy, which is a seperate issue. You couldn't put together a power grid on either alcohol or oil (judging by the results of this poll).
Yupa Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 this poll is lame all the options suck -*BAD WORD*- ever heard of hydroelectricity? wind? solar?
madhaha Posted September 10, 2003 Report Posted September 10, 2003 Akai = behind the times. Please scroll up to read all the reasons why these power sources are still toys compared to real solutions. However, this is vehicular energy, which is a seperate issue. You couldn't put together a power grid on either alcohol or oil (judging by the results of this poll). I don't understand what you said. Please explain.
MonteZuma Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 True, but there are advantages as well. First off, oil is a resource we have to import, while farm products is something in which we don't. Secondly, switching to biofuels would eliminate the need for the subsidies we give to farmers.Not necessarilly. Australia and probably other countries, might be able to produce crops for biofuels more cheaply than the US. Subsidies or imports might still happen. Finally, land is (atleast moreso than oil) a renewable resource. True, if you plant corn in a field for twenty years in a row, it will become crud. However, wise land management policies increase the longetivity of the land. It won't last forever, but it will last longer than an oil reserve.I don't think so. Soil takes so long to form that it is essentially non-renewable. Yes...improved land management can reduce the problem of soil loss, but we still need to deal with fertilisers (which are often derived from non-renewable sources - including petrochemicals) and pesticides. And, if we are going to produce the same amount of food AND then fuel as well, the world will need to dramatically increase the area of land under production. This would have massive implications. I'm not dismissing your arguments entirely. Biofuels are part of the suite of fuels that we can use to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, but at the current rate of energy use I think it is not feasible. Monte
»nintendo64 Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 How about using just Nuclear Power Plants and dumping the nuclear waste on the moon? Yes, it might sound like a joke but it could be a good idea for some time . -nintendo64
Yupa Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 Akai = behind the times. Please scroll up to read all the reasons why these power sources are still toys compared to real solutions. heh... "real solutions"? I'm guessing you mean "viable", in which case you're still wrong solutions? to what? creating energy? those options create plenty of energy you consider something that creates massive amounts of pollution and the potential for the increase of global environmental collapse a "real" solution? why don't YOU GET REAL we do not NEED electricity - there is no good reason to use such environmentally unfriendly ways of energy production
Aileron Posted September 11, 2003 Author Report Posted September 11, 2003 True, but there are advantages as well. First off, oil is a resource we have to import, while farm products is something in which we don't. Secondly, switching to biofuels would eliminate the need for the subsidies we give to farmers.Not necessarilly. Australia and probably other countries, might be able to produce crops for biofuels more cheaply than the US. Subsidies or imports might still happen. Finally, land is (atleast moreso than oil) a renewable resource. True, if you plant corn in a field for twenty years in a row, it will become crud. However, wise land management policies increase the longetivity of the land. It won't last forever, but it will last longer than an oil reserve.I don't think so. Soil takes so long to form that it is essentially non-renewable. Yes...improved land management can reduce the problem of soil loss, but we still need to deal with fertilisers (which are often derived from non-renewable sources - including petrochemicals) and pesticides. And, if we are going to produce the same amount of food AND then fuel as well, the world will need to dramatically increase the area of land under production. This would have massive implications. I'm not dismissing your arguments entirely. Biofuels are part of the suite of fuels that we can use to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, but at the current rate of energy use I think it is not feasible. Monte Yeah, both have their advantages and disadvantages. It is obvious that considering that the infrastructure for oil is already built, it is just plain easier to wait for a more advanced solution. Nintendo: be nice Akai: Nintendo is right, we have discussed the problems with wind, hydroelectric, and solar. Simply put, those sources require huge amounts of land to function. Basically, you are subs!@#$%^&*uting air pollution with destruction of ecosystems. In order to build a solar or wind plant, you need a huge amount of open space. This is usually acceptable if the space is a desert or tundra with little or no life on it. However, to impliment solar or wind EVERYWHERE, you would have to build plants EVERYWHERE. Thus, you would have to clear-cut forests and drain wetlands. As for hydroelectric, we have already built a dam at every viable location. Besides, dams aren't good for the environment either. Basically, those (and energy conservation) are the things we should try first in places where it is viable. After we exhausted those supplies, we will need something else.
Yupa Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 Akai: Nintendo is right, we have discussed the problems with wind, hydroelectric, and solar. Simply put, those sources require huge amounts of land to function. Basically, you are subs!@#$%^&*uting air pollution with destruction of ecosystems. humans have claimed every bit of land for their own already the ecosystem will die if land is not returned to an unowned state putting nuclear reactors all over the place isn't going to be any better
Aileron Posted September 11, 2003 Author Report Posted September 11, 2003 humans have claimed every bit of land for their own alreadyThat is just simply incorrect. There ARE such things as parks, wildlife preserves, game lands, wetlands, and land that simply hasn't been developed yet. The ecosystem is stronger and larger than environmentalists would have you believe. putting nuclear reactors all over the place isn't going to be any better Actually, it would be better. Nuclear plants have a MUCH better power output to land consumption ratio. Nuclear Plants consume roughly half the land area of a solar plant, but produce roughly 50 times the power. The only reason solar survives is because of the HOPE that it might become more efficient with research. In my opinion, Cold-Fusion holds the same odds of success, but could be so powerfull as to make our fission ones look like a joke. Don't get me wrong, solar has it's uses. Calculators and highway call boxes are very practical uses of solar power. However, I really don't think that solar could be the power workhorse that we need.
madhaha Posted September 11, 2003 Report Posted September 11, 2003 How about using just Nuclear Power Plants and dumping the nuclear waste on the moon? Yes, it might sound like a joke but it could be a good idea for some time . -nintendo64 Sounds like a plan. Hey, I wonder what happens when the rocket/shuttle blows up. That'll be fun, what with those high al!@#$%^&*ude airstreams to spread the material around the world and all. That said, the Russian's announced they want to build a nuclear powerplant on mars: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3162129.stm All Americans in favour of having the Russians sending nuclear material into space raise their hands please. Aileron's counter argument to Akai is broadly correct (I haven't done the maths to prove it) but he forgot to add that solar anad wind power are very dependant on their location and that there simply aren't enough sites, even if we were to destroy the environment, to generate the power we require. Also note the maintenance is a -*BAD WORD*- seeing as the prime sites (miles off coast in rough seas, deserts, gale prone areas) aren't particularly forgiving when it comes to high tech repair.
Yupa Posted September 12, 2003 Report Posted September 12, 2003 humans have claimed every bit of land for their own already That is just simply incorrect. There ARE such things as parks, wildlife preserves, game lands, wetlands, and land that simply hasn't been developed yet. The ecosystem is stronger and larger than environmentalists would have you believe. just because there aren't hotels and shopping malls on the land does not mean some human(s) don't think they own the land a lot of parks are owned by the government, I believe (cough-presidentbushwantstodrillforoil:p-cough)
madhaha Posted September 12, 2003 Report Posted September 12, 2003 I don't see how you know/care. You're stuck inside playing subspace and reading the forum all day. What difference does it make to you where the electricity comes from?
Aileron Posted September 12, 2003 Author Report Posted September 12, 2003 The problem with dumping the material on the moon is that it resembles a lot of other policies of dumping garbage in the ocean or in the country side. It just leaves the possibility that we will have to deal with it later. Besides, space travel is simply too expensive to be spent on waste products. (Actually, the second reason is better than the first, but...) I like the international storage site that the US is building. The only problem with it is that either we will get screwed by storing everyone else's waste, or everyone else will get ticked off at our monopoly. It really would just be easier to build our own site and let foreign countries deal with their own waste.
Yupa Posted September 12, 2003 Report Posted September 12, 2003 I don't see how you know/care.mmm, I'm an uncaring robot with no access to information (not even the internet which is how I visit this forum so often) You're stuck inside playing subspace and reading the forum all day. don't play much anymore, but I do check the forum often, I guess that makes me really stupid and uncaring and you only half as much so What difference does it make to you where the electricity comes from? this seems like a really strange question in a thread asking about what particular method of energy production should be used... obviously it makes a difference to me or I wouldn't have posted the use of coal and nuclear power plants (among other things) presents a threat to the environment - most life on this planet cannot live without a healthy environment around it and the rest probably would prefer to just keep it healthy
Recommended Posts