Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found nothing in the article that would make me believe the safety of our tasty little sea creatures had been considered. Would you care to provide us with some hard data on the topic.
Thank you in advance,
Obamas clean Coal Coalition.
Its a new field so a lot of digging around has to be done, but the "wave generators" is a term used to classified a broad range of technologies. That said, they all have pros/cons and different environmental impacts. That said, targeted installations will be key to keep impact low. If there is an abundance of marine life that depends on the waves/currents/etc then simply don't build there.
off topic... but there is no such thing as clean coal... and thats all i'm going to say on that.
In the interests of 'brainstorming' for human solutions to human problems, I welcome 'positive' input from 'John 1960'. Since perpetual motion, has finally been discovered (i.e.ocean waves), I would think the power source is guaranteed. As most of the water shortages exist in hot, arid areas, the addition of Solar collectors for additional power sources, is also a given. The 'tree huggers' ,should and will, have their input. Now , for the 'larger brains', involved here, the problems of distribution and replenishment of damns and aquifers would need to be adressed. I doubt that Obama is interested in investment but Warren B. may.?
Notice that the OP is already 10 y/o. Anybody seen the wave installations yet?
All technologies have their downsides- gotta balance risk vs benefits. Steps to ameliorate damage to environment could be taken if economic benefit or over all enviro-benefit were worth it, Then and now it doesn't make any sense. With fossil fuel relatively cheap and certainly plentiful, economics favor the present paradigm of power generation.
Besides, there is still no hard evidence, only unproven conjecture that "carbon" is bad for the environment nor that lowering "carbon" will in any way help us. In fact, plenty of evidence that more co2 in the atm and higher temps have benefits. Why would we make expensive changes that hurt us?
All the wave energy systems I have ever seen require a excessive amount of maintenance. The tidal area of the ocean is an area of high corrosion, high marine growth, and frequent storms.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,726 posts, read 58,067,115 times
Reputation: 46195
Consider making a difference (rather than bottling 3,000 gal / day into plastic bottles )
get a serious desalinization plant (probably solar) to pump 10m gal / day to Phoenix. (or the AG land of TX, and bring down the rising ocean levels) or 10,000 other 'needy' places around the Earth...
Why can't they just use those solar power plants that boil water and use the steam to turn a turbine to power a desalination plant. In both cases you boil water so you can kill two birds with one stone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
