energy

[tommays]

Re: energy

I think one of the real shames is when we gave up on solar water heat and such that was makeing so much progress 20 years or more ago

A huge amount of time was wasted that could have been used to make them cheeper and better


Tommays

 

[aspeck]

Re: energy

We have some hydro and some wind energy here in PA. The funny thing to me is they want to put 3 or 4 more wind farms in our area. We have some ridges that apparently get enough constant wind to make it a viable option. However, the "Green Committee" (or something like that - not positive about their name), keeps trying to block it because it would be an eye sore and to dangerous for the birds.

So therein lies the dilema, do you use renewable, non-carbon based systems to produce energy to save the environment, or do you not use them, to save the environment? Somewhere, someone has to give. You may be able to have it both ways sometime in the future, but what do you do now?

 

[tomatolord]

Re: energy

it is the same problem - storage and transportation.

You have to build the wind farms where people live instead of building them where no one lives or can see them.

build them in the frozen artic, no birds or people, but how do you get the energy from there to here?



Tomatolord

 

[tommays]

Re: energy

Whats a bigger eyesore ? and kills more life ?

Mineing it counts in the death count

A smoke stack or a windmill

There was a NASA test windmill unit on Block Island 22 years ago , i could never figure out why they put it right in the middle of town and did not expext it to get shut down because of noise

Tommays

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: energy

transportation - it is very hard to transport electricity, you cannot make it maine and use it california

Sure you can. They're called "wires". Power is wheeled all over this country every day - generated in one place, used somewhere else hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

 

[treedancer]

Re: energy

We live near the Mississippi river; I do believe the tide is always in motion on it as well as the Missouri river. Between the two rivers I don’t know of one hydro Electric plant, if there is one let me know .I do know there are plenty of coal fired plants, including the one near downtown St.Louis, it was put on the river I’m guessing at least one hundred years ago ,maybe more,it was placed there so it would have barge access too the river so it could offload coal.



If this sealed wind mill turbine is effective it just might be usable in something like rivers. Hopefully? Of courses it would be apposed by the barge industry, as they make a good part of there money hauling... you guessed it coal, for coal fired power plants, and now corn.... for twenty first century stills too make ethanol.

Edit.
Miss treedancer has let me know that the Army Corps of Engineers has given the ok, for the building of a hydro electric plant in Alton ill. That is just north of St.Louis on the Ill. Side, of the river, here is a link.


http://www.examiner.com/a-633776~Proposed_hydroelectric_plant_at_Alton_gets_Army_Corps_OK.html

 

[QC]

Re: energy

I love the tidal deal, invisible, and it works. I guess there will probably be some migratory fish darter, salmon running, crab enhancing envir-disaster deal to mess it up . . . "One man's solution is another man's pollution." - QC

hydrogen is the answer

Yeah, it only needs "planned" inventions . "Hydrogen - the fuel of the future . . . and it always will be." - Unknown Oh yeah, and it's free too . . .

 

[CalicoKid]

Re: energy

I wouldn't be entirely surprised if a few of the 'tree hugging eco hippie bird lovers' turned out to be coal or gas industry lobbyists in fact resisting the possibility of lost marketshare to alternative energies by acting as environmantal protestors. The larger eco organizations like Seirra Club and Nature Conservancy seem to be in support of wind, tidal, and solar energy despite ecological drawbacks. They understand compromise.

Any energy production and use will produce side effects, we just need to chose the least harmful or lasting while considering cost. We burn an awful lot of coal in the midwest and unless the Mercury can be scrubbed from the exhaust coal is not a good fuel. Mercury is a very long lasting environmental toxin that is very dangerous to us humans, especially our children. My son cannot eat a fish caught from most WI lakes per the WI DNR.

WI also has a fair amount of hydro power and some wind power. We are also building plenty of peak demand natural gas generators and then running them nearly full time. That seems a waste and is contributing to the rising costs of heating fuel in the Midwest.

I would like to see more alternative energy in the Midwest as well as cleaner coal burning. I don't like nuclear because of the waste problem. We don't have a way to dispose of it or store it forever. Production, transport and disposal of fuel and waste is expensive in terms of safety and security. Dismantling and disposing of defunct reactors poses the same problems.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: energy

Nuclear is the only answer; all these other ideas are pipe dreams and waste money.

Use nuclear power to convert coal to crude oil. Use nuclear to produce tar sands and oil shale. Use crude oil for plastics and fuels.

Nuclear power is safe and nuclear waste is a myth.

Ken

 

[OLDSPUD]

Re: energy

The Navy has nuclear power for over twenty years with no china syndrone problems. The best answer is nuclear power.

I suppose Hanoi Jane will probably make another propaganda movie and scare all the pinheads again, leaving us with the current worthless windmills and such.

Paris France (Liberal utopia) gets about 70% of its energy from nuc plants.

leave things up to radical enviromentlists and we'll and be driving the worthless Prius to pull our mini boats to the water.

Spud

 

[QC]

Re: energy

Check it out . . . A KIZ sighting

Nuclear is the only answer . . . Use crude oil for plastics and fuels.

I guess I would not say only, but we definitely agree.

 

[bruceb58]

Re: energy

Sure you can. They're called "wires". Power is wheeled all over this country every day - generated in one place, used somewhere else hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

Too much loss in the wires to transport from coast to coast.

 

[stevieray]

Re: energy

We gotta face it - as long as there is one drop of oil left in the ground, someone is going to be selling it to us. Of the 5 largest corporations in America, 3 are oil companies (Wally & GM are the other 2). With that kind of power & pull, we're stuck with them for the forseeable future.

 

[tommays]

Re: energy

Not a troll at all

BUT i then to think like many other things the true cost is hidden as we dont seem to be able to get are act toghter and store it some place

How much does it cost to store a set of spent fuel rods for 10000 years ?

And unlike a normal electric plant a good size chunk of stuff (reactor) has to be delt with about every 40 years


As Long Island has stupidly taken apart a perfectly good nuke plant i can assure you the cost of dealing with and old plant with no real problems is in the fact books and is HUGE






Thats a LOT of stuff as most of the current plants are getting close to old age with no place to store the old plant parts


So until we get are heads out of the sand and deal with the storage as a NATION we just got stuff laying ALL over the place




Tommays

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: energy

Why can't we enslave all the illegal immigrants & put them on treadmills that will power the turbines?
We could feed them with the corn we are wasting on ethanol.....​

 

[thurps]

Re: energy

Just park a retired nuke in any harbor and run some jumper cables down to it. There will never be any meaningful alternative energy programs as long as there's so much money in oil.... down to the last person on earth.