Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

Solar sure, hydroelectric fucks up freshwater ecosystems something fierce though, even with fish ladders

[Sirus]

Solar sure, hydroelectric fucks up freshwater ecosystems something fierce though, even with fish ladders

Yeah, that's one of the "downsides" I was referring to 

Still, is every dam currently in operation fitted for hydropower? I assume so, but perhaps existing dams could be refitted, perhaps with more efficient generator and turbine designs. That way, no new ecosystems are screwed up.

[Dutchling]

Didn't fracking lead to things like burning water and angry Yankees?

[GalenEvil]

Wind and solar power will not become a reliable source of wide-spread power for many years to come due to its unreliability during transfer from location to location. The cost to set up a solar/wind facility by itself is cumbersome and would trend toward higher cost for the consumer. And as for the "global warming" argument that lost its status as fad a long time ago. The sun is constantly in a process of heating up so of course the earth will be heating up as well. Don't be so stupid as to blame industry on heating up the world. Sure CFCs may have some part in degenerating the Ozone layer, but that grows back with time and is surprisingly efficient about it... and the world has gone through consistent cycles of heating up and cooling down throughout history. This is no different. Consider that in many parts of the world, while we may be having some of the hottest summer months recorded we are also having the coldest winter months recorded. I remember when in Florida, USA there was a snowstorm back in the 90's. That was a freak occurrence. Now it seems that just about every winter there is some snowfall of some kind even here in Alabama, USA. Global warming my ass...

Nuclear power probably is the mid to distant future for general power needs. However until a suitable, high-cap, battery or fast charging system is introduced general electronics will not have a real marketbase in the automotive industry. Right now, based on the US, you will get an extra tax penalty if you drive an electric car because of the reduction in tax revenues to the gov't for buying gasoline. But if you drive a "gas-guzzler" like a Hummer you will also get an additional tax based on your impact to the environment. Currently there is a single highway attempting to convert to the electric way of life and that, I believe, is the I-5 on the west coast running from california up to the canadian border.

On topic - Fraking is an interesting process. Pumping crap down there to break up gas contained in shale rock is probably a difficult job. I don't think it HAS to contain the chemicals it does though. Nor do I think that it should be done near habitated areas such as towns or even a lonely shack in the wilderness. People should be able to live where they want without worrying overly much about how good their drinking water is beyond "is it clear?" If fraking was done near a highly populated area there would most likely be a) more outcry against polutants, or b) go somewhere else that isn't fraking with our water supply... pun intended.

TL:DR - Until sufficient progess is made in alternative fuel sources Coal and Oil will remain the premiere stars in fuel consumption.

GalenEvil

[Dutchling]

Are you sure wind and solar power isn't a reliable source for wide-spread power? IIRC Germany's power is 20% 'green' right now and they are planning to get it up to 40% to replace nuclear energy.

[G-Flex]

Wind and solar power will not become a reliable source of wide-spread power for many years to come due to its unreliability during transfer from location to location. The cost to set up a solar/wind facility by itself is cumbersome and would trend toward higher cost for the consumer.

In the long term, I fail to see how a power plant that doesn't even require fuel (well, non-free fuel) would have "higher cost for the consumer".

And as for the "global warming" argument that lost its status as fad a long time ago. The sun is constantly in a process of heating up so of course the earth will be heating up as well. Don't be so stupid as to blame industry on heating up the world. Sure CFCs may have some part in degenerating the Ozone layer, but that grows back with time and is surprisingly efficient about it... and the world has gone through consistent cycles of heating up and cooling down throughout history. This is no different.

You're actually denying mankind's contribution to global warming? Hasn't that fad overstayed its welcome?

Consider that in many parts of the world, while we may be having some of the hottest summer months recorded we are also having the coldest winter months recorded. I remember when in Florida, USA there was a snowstorm back in the 90's. That was a freak occurrence. Now it seems that just about every winter there is some snowfall of some kind even here in Alabama, USA. Global warming my ass...

This is a ridiculous counterargument. "Global warming" isn't meant to imply that every single planet gets warmer every single day of every single year. Weather patterns in general can also get more extreme, and some places can get colder than usual sometimes. This is established scientific consensus. Please do your research.

Also, it sounds like you're literally arguing here that the Earth isn't getting warmer, period. This is just plain ignorance of trivially observable fact. There are plenty of charts and graphs for you to look at in order to be proven wrong at a glance. Here you go. Average temperatures have gone up. Sea level has risen. These are facts you can't dismiss because you had some colder-than-usual winters in Alabama.

TL:DR - Until sufficient progess is made in alternative fuel sources Coal and Oil will remain the premiere stars in fuel consumption.

And unless we provide incentives for industries and consumers to use alternative energy sources and develop them further, there won't be sufficient progress until it's too late.

[palsch]

A few links to bring data into the discussion.

Without The Hot Air is a book (free online there) and blog by the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK government's Department of Energy and Climate Change. The principle is simple; create a basic model of all the elements involved in each potential power source (dismissing fossil fuels out of hand) and then using those to model potential future paths. His work is mostly focused on the UK. There is a calculator based on the book that lets you design and model your own pathway, and a TEDx talk focusing on energy generation density - a very significant factor when every type of energy generation is subject to NIMBY syndrome.

More on point to the fracking argument, this got my attention recently. It's effectively a hockey stick for earthquakes in a specific mining region in the US. An extremely clear and significant increase in earthquake activity.

[Wayward Device]

Here's an interesting fact about the dangers of wind power: wind turbines can kill goats by collapsing their lungs. This happened to a bunch of goat farmers in Spain. Basically, if you build a wind turbine a a location like a hill or ridge with plenty of regular wind (the type of land goat farmers are likely to have) then it'll both produce steady power and a really loud but deep "wump...wump" noise. Once the goats get used to this, they seem to like it and start sleeping underneath the turbine. But what are essentially 60 ft  2 ton continuously spinning prop blades tend to do things to the air pressure around them, even more noticeably so if you are at a high altitude. This can give you an area of low pressure directly under the blades and if a herd of goats likes to sleep under such a settup...well, -1 herd of goats.   

[mainiac]

The leading state for fracking is Pennsylvania.  Most of Pennsylvania is in the watershed of the Chesapeake bay.  A large fraction of the water used in fracking thus ends up in the Chesapeake bay as runoff.  So Maryland and Virginia take it in the pants while Pennsylvania get's all the benefits.  Just by way of very limited example, fracking brought 12k jobs to Pennsylvania.  Crabbing alone directly employed 10k people a decade ago (the number of crabbers keeps dwindling).

If only there was some sort of governing body above both Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania that could regulate interstate commerce and keep states from fracking their neighbors like this.

[Wayward Device]

The leading state for fracking is Pennsylvania.  Most of Pennsylvania is in the watershed of the Chesapeake bay.  A large fraction of the water used in fracking thus ends up in the Chesapeake bay as runoff.  So Maryland and Virginia take it in the pants while Pennsylvania get's all the benefits.  Just by way of very limited example, fracking brought 12k jobs to Pennsylvania.  Crabbing alone directly employed 10k people a decade ago (the number of crabbers keeps dwindling).

If only there was some sort of governing body above both Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania that could regulate interstate commerce and keep states from fracking their neighbors like this.

You mean, some kind of... federal type thing? Like in startrek? Sounds pretty far out there... I mean, that would mean that Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania would be part of some kind... united collection of states?. If they got a few others involved then they could be a force to be reckoned with in world politics!

[mainiac]

Yeah, they'd need some sort of representative system though to make sure every state had it's voice heard.  That way before PA started fracking their fellow states like this the "representatives" of MD and VA would say "Hey dude, not in our water." and then the PA representatives would be like "oh, totally, our bad" and then they'd come up with ways to get natural gas that didn't poison the greatest natural resource on the east coast.

[palsch]

Here's an interesting fact about the dangers of wind power: wind turbines can kill goats by collapsing their lungs. This happened to a bunch of goat farmers in Spain. Basically, if you build a wind turbine a a location like a hill or ridge with plenty of regular wind (the type of land goat farmers are likely to have) then it'll both produce steady power and a really loud but deep "wump...wump" noise. Once the goats get used to this, they seem to like it and start sleeping underneath the turbine. But what are essentially 60 ft  2 ton continuously spinning prop blades tend to do things to the air pressure around them, even more noticeably so if you are at a high altitude. This can give you an area of low pressure directly under the blades and if a herd of goats likes to sleep under such a settup...well, -1 herd of goats.

Got a source for this? Because I can't find a single story and it doesn't make a lick of physical sense.

The closest thing I can find is a single story about the noise preventing goats from sleeping and that killing them, based on the claims of one farmer and before any serious investigations into the cause of death. There is absolutely no follow up on that story I can find, despite it being three years old and occasionally brought back up on NIMBY and other anti-wind type forums.

[Wayward Device]

Here's an interesting fact about the dangers of wind power: wind turbines can kill goats by collapsing their lungs. This happened to a bunch of goat farmers in Spain. Basically, if you build a wind turbine a a location like a hill or ridge with plenty of regular wind (the type of land goat farmers are likely to have) then it'll both produce steady power and a really loud but deep "wump...wump" noise. Once the goats get used to this, they seem to like it and start sleeping underneath the turbine. But what are essentially 60 ft  2 ton continuously spinning prop blades tend to do things to the air pressure around them, even more noticeably so if you are at a high altitude. This can give you an area of low pressure directly under the blades and if a herd of goats likes to sleep under such a settup...well, -1 herd of goats.

Got a source for this? Because I can't find a single story and it doesn't make a lick of physical sense.

The closest thing I can find is a single story about the noise preventing goats from sleeping and that killing them, based on the claims of one farmer and before any serious investigations into the cause of death. There is absolutely no follow up on that story I can find, despite it being three years old and occasionally brought back up on NIMBY and other anti-wind type forums.

The TV show QI, my post was based almost entirely on what I remembered from the episode where they talked about that story a little while after it happened. It was almost three years ago, but I definitely remember that they said it was the low pressure directly under the turbines that killed the goats by screwing thier lungs. I could be wrong though, it was a while ago. I'll see if I can find the episode in question, QI is an awesome show and usually excessively accurate with it's fact checking and research. 

EDIT: I'm actually in favor of wind and other renewables in combination with nuclear (with our radioactive friends doing the heavy lifting and the renewables pitching in as and when they can), until such time that we get reasonably cheap fusion (my personal belief is that this'll happen about the same time I'm ready to retire, in the next fifty years or so). 

[palsch]

OK, I think I've tracked down the source of that.

It's a real effect and it's in bats. The low pressure zone is only in a small area around the blade tips (that's what was making me incredulous) and it seems bats are somewhat attracted to these areas. A lengthy section of a relevant paper has been copied here. It seems this is only a problem with fixed speed turbines (variable speed ones slow during low wind periods when bats are active) and in the areas with high bat populations.

[mainiac]

EDIT: I'm actually in favor of wind and other renewables in combination with nuclear (with our radioactive friends doing the heavy lifting and the renewables pitching in as and when they can), until such time that we get reasonably cheap fusion (my personal belief is that this'll happen about the same time I'm ready to retire, in the next fifty years or so). 

Nuclear may be more efficient then green at round the clock generation but green is more efficient at peak hours generation.  So unless you are proposing to start building 500 nuclear power plants tomorrow and shut off every coal power plant when they are done in 5 years, green energy is a more cost effective addition to our energy portfolio at the current time.  Only when we get to the point where we start phasing out coal for nighttime generation (I would be delighted if we reached that point in 30-40 years) do we have a niche for nuclear emerge, baseload generation.  But nuclear will certainly no longer be the best baseload source when we reach that point.

Fusion is 50 years away and has been 50 years away since 1946.