EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 7:58 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:11 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wind Power is definitely better for the Environment than Fossil Fuels, but it does have it's negative consequences to the Environment. The images of clearing out forests for Wind Turbines should make any environmentalist angry.

Image

Discuss here...

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:24 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
As opposed to the clearing for oil, gas, and coal production or for other power generation facilities? :eh:

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:26 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
Glad to see you are still around, we were just wondering about you the other day.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Yes we should switch to a power source that doesen't make such a mess, like tar sands.

Image

glad to have you back looking forward to your comments in the sea ice thread snowy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:09 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
spot1234 wrote:
Yes we should switch to a power source that doesen't make such a mess, like tar sands.

Image

glad to have you back looking forward to your comments in the sea ice thread snowy.


Fossil fuels are horrible for the environment, polluting the atmosphere with carbon monoxide and other toxic gases, while polluting the rivers, and causing massive deforestation.

However, wind farms also have their environmental problems as well that can not be ignored.

Solar energy should be the way we should go IMO, but it is still very expensive.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:11 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Glad to see you are still around, we were just wondering about you the other day.


Thank you, I have been quite busy, researching.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 6:53 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
Yes we should switch to a power source that doesen't make such a mess, like tar sands.

Image

glad to have you back looking forward to your comments in the sea ice thread snowy.


Fossil fuels are horrible for the environment, polluting the atmosphere with carbon monoxide and other toxic gases, while polluting the rivers, and causing massive deforestation.

However, wind farms also have their environmental problems as well that can not be ignored.

Solar energy should be the way we should go IMO, but it is still very expensive.


It is expensive and is not suited for some locations either. Hydroelectric is also a renewable that has an environmental impact it seems we have decided is worth the trade.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
spot1234 wrote:
Yes we should switch to a power source that doesen't make such a mess, like tar sands.

Image

glad to have you back looking forward to your comments in the sea ice thread snowy.


Fossil fuels are horrible for the environment, polluting the atmosphere with carbon monoxide and other toxic gases, while polluting the rivers, and causing massive deforestation.

However, wind farms also have their environmental problems as well that can not be ignored.

Solar energy should be the way we should go IMO, but it is still very expensive.


It is expensive and is not suited for some locations either. Hydroelectric is also a renewable that has an environmental impact it seems we have decided is worth the trade.


I think pretty much every renewable energy source is better than fossil fuels... and has some consequence except for probably Solar. I attended a lecture by Dr. Ray Najjar of Penn State University and the amount of Solar Panels needed to power the United States was about roughly the size of Connecticut. He then showed us calculations that showed us that there was enough soalr energy to power 33 United States of America.

As you go poleward, however, as you mentioned, there is less solar insolation, and solar energy would become less convienient.

However, there are also less people who live in the polar regions, meaning that there would be less solar energy needed to power the people up by the polar regions.

I absolutely think that Fossil Fuels need to be gotten rid of as soon as possible, since they do much harm to the environment. Nuclear is also not the right choice IMO.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:43 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
How about doing a serious amount of geothermal from Yellowstone?

The initial cables to transmitt it about would be expensive, billions, but then a lot less than a single atomic power plant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:45 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20550
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:


Fossil fuels are horrible for the environment, polluting the atmosphere with carbon monoxide and other toxic gases, while polluting the rivers, and causing massive deforestation.

However, wind farms also have their environmental problems as well that can not be ignored.

Solar energy should be the way we should go IMO, but it is still very expensive.


It is expensive and is not suited for some locations either. Hydroelectric is also a renewable that has an environmental impact it seems we have decided is worth the trade.


I think pretty much every renewable energy source is better than fossil fuels... and has some consequence except for probably Solar. I attended a lecture by Dr. Ray Najjar of Penn State University and the amount of Solar Panels needed to power the United States was about roughly the size of Connecticut. He then showed us calculations that showed us that there was enough soalr energy to power 33 United States of America.

As you go poleward, however, as you mentioned, there is less solar insolation, and solar energy would become less convienient.

However, there are also less people who live in the polar regions, meaning that there would be less solar energy needed to power the people up by the polar regions.

I absolutely think that Fossil Fuels need to be gotten rid of as soon as possible, since they do much harm to the environment. Nuclear is also not the right choice IMO.


Factors such as normal cloud cover, surrounding elevations, and the like factor in to the application of solar, plus there is an additional impact if you do not add solar panels to an existing structure.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:47 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1649
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
The best energy source is the energy you don't need. People say solar is too expensive are trying to install a solar panel system that is about 10 times too big. Everybody can have a normal looking house with energy use about 10 times less then average. It still is a bit expensive and has a logarithmic effect on the payback time (each time you double the efficiency, it costs 4 times as much and because you are using half the energy, the payback is 8 times as long) but for a payback ROI within a typical mortgage time of 30 years, a reduction to 10% of normal is very possible in the most severe climates (I have done the calculations and so did the Norwegians who started a program for houses above the arctic circle on he north side of mountains... no solar, no wind, no fuels... they are heated with body heat most of the year). These wind towers only have to be so tall and big because nobody wants to see them so they are located in remote areas where efficiency becomes critical to pay for the new power lines (the windmills cannot be stopping for any reason... no wind? go higher)


Last edited by Ann Vole on Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
We will need multiple sources in the future. Both Solar and Wind are needed. Wind will provide more employment because more maintenance is needed than solar. Solar should be invested in to help bring the future costs down. Which our present republican candidate does not support.


http://www.ieer.org/reports/NC-Wind-Solar.pdf

Conclusion
The important conclusion from all of the calculations is that a system with annual
sales of 91 billion kWh can be run with 76% of total generation coming from intermittent
solar and wind sources. The intermittent sources would be assisted by 2,000 megawatts
of biomass generation or cogeneration, 2,500 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity, and
1,500 megawatts of pumped storage. If such a system also has ice storage (in the
summer), load control, and access to vehicle batteries, it can be run with some modest
outside-of-system purchases and 2,700 megawatts of auxiliary gas-fired capacity.
Purchases and auxiliary generation are needed for 6% of electricity loads. There were, in
this simulation, 17 hours out of the 2,952 examined in which generation would fall short.
These results were obtained with only three onshore windpower sites. The periods of
shortfall would be reduced in a system with multiple wind sites distributed over a wide area
(North Carolina has 200 mile long area in which mountain winds are strong, 320 miles of
coastline and vast areas offshore). Also, the auxiliary power needs shown here would be
somewhat smaller if carry-over power in pumped storage facilities were applied to needs in
succeeding days.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2012 2:04 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:13 am
Posts: 25
The siting of windfarms has to be carefully considered.

Badly sited turbines kill a lot of birds, and microbats are killed by the pressure differential of simply flying close to them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Sep 22, 2012 2:38 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2277
Location: Central Colorado
I have been happy with my solar electric independent system for over 14 years. Small wind turbines like the Air Breeze are nice in the limited area they are good for. Big ones are kind of an eyesore. Tidal turbines and wave generators are nice where they will work. The safe, waste using modular GenIV reactors designed in 1994 are nice for areas without sufficient other alternative energy.
Getting rid of huge grids would give a lot of material to recycle and stop a lot of line loss. Let each area or region, house or town, city or state, have its own independent non-emissions power system.
USA wind (about 1/4 OK for it);
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind ... _scale.asp

Personally, I am glad the anal wipe snowy is gone, after all the ruin and delay in reducing emissions he and his disreputable ilk have caused. :twisted: :razz: =; \:D/ :mrgreen:

oloo oolo U!!!!!

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group