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.
Personally I believe strongly in Solar energy, which is not only clean and abundant, but which does have the capacity to easily fulfill of mankind's energy needs if properly harnessed. While we're working towards that hopeful future, however, we have to utilize everything else we do have currently available to drive down fossil fuel use, while we still have time.
I think you are being naive to think we can ever really create a truly perfect energy source. You are following pipe dreams made by solar energy proponents who only propose what could be and not what actually is. What actually is is that all of these plans to make solar power a perfect reality HAS NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN CREATED. Until we see proof that these technologies can come, you are only speculating and wishfully thinking. Solar energy will never be a truly renewable source of energy. Unless maybe you only use the sun as it is without harnessing anything. Even then there will be complications.
Like I said unless you're getting paid by the EPA or GE eco services or whatever company is making solar panels (or will be in the future) then stop being unrealistic. There has never been technology ever made that didnt have its drawbacks and limitations. Solar power will certainly have theirs whether technology fixes these issues or not. Others will arise.
Solar power will never be a perfect energy source. My whole point is just this. We will never have a perfect energy source so why fight over which one? As long as it is not clearly a harm to society. What we should be fighting over is not what we are using, but how we use it.
If you still disagree then I hope GE actually does give you a check simply out of pity for you, whether you're a worker there or not.
Last edited by tariqblaze; 10-09-2013 at 03:02 PM..
Actually, it's now thought that perhaps half the heat from the earth's core is derived from radioactive decay. The idea of fission occurring down there has been pretty well discounted. The rest comes from other factors such as gravitational effects. But geothermal energy taps this deep heat source in a meaningful way, and I think we'll see much more concentration on this source in the future. There's a geothermal plant not far from here that has been successfully operating for 20 years which has just currently in the permit process to double the size of the operation.
This is a slight conceptual error. Nuclear fission is not responsible for the heating of the earth's core. It is however responsible for sustaining the core during cycles when solar energies are inadequate for performing the task of maintaining life on this planet. Geothermal sites that tap energy out of the earth's core . . . I'll get back to you on this one. But i'll give a teaser. The law of conservation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
First, we only have practical access fissionable materials in a relatively thin layer near the surface, and those deposits are not only finite, but by some accounts the known reserves are already shrinking. Second, the by-products of nuclear energy are horrendous to deal with, remaining dangerous in some cases for 10,000 years or more, and disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima remind us of the extreme damage nuclear reactors can do. Japan is now on the way to decommissioning every single one of their nuclear plants, at enormous cost to their society. This is already prompting a huge upsurge in Japanese research into alternate energy systems.
My point is that these materials are going to fission regardless of whether we farm them or not. Just like the sun is going to shine whether we use it or not. Horrendous by products? Again I will get back to you on that. Spoiler alert, it has to do with the conservation of energy.
And Japan's "abandonment" of nuclear power is Green Peace propaganda at its finest. After Fukushima the plant's are performing a government mandated safety shutdown. Newsflash: It isn't the first time it has happened and surely won't be the last. They'll one by one start operating again while the people have a new shiny object to distract them from the recent tragedy. Government showing the people they care. . . Dang more agreement with tinfoil hat guy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD
Depends on who is using it, and how it is used. Like many others I use it simply to refer to renewable and sustainable energy sourcing.
Yes, reducing energy use is important too. But with such a huge amount of energy falling on the globe every day, utilizing more solar power is a no-brainer.
And here we'll conclude with our lesson on the conservation of energy. Energy in = Energy out. Whenever we use energy we are taking away from the environment. We are currently incapable of circumventing this law. The more energy we take out, the more impactful it is to the environment. That's why nuclear fission, per unit of mass, is our highest yet most environmentally detrimental form of energy generation. Just because we reduce the rate of energy generation (solar, hydro, thermal, whatever) doesn't mean we aren't impacting the environment at the same quantitative level. Nuclear fusion, converting mass to energy, when unlocked will complete the cycle and allow for the only pure form of renewable energy.
Until then we are NOT using green or renewable energy sources. We are simply removing energy at a slower rate with different methods. Thus reducing our energy consumption all together is a far more effective "no-brainer" than robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Last edited by Sandlapper3396; 10-09-2013 at 05:52 PM..
I think you are being naive to think we can ever really create a truly perfect energy source.
I never said we could. But we certainly can improve on what we've done in the past.
Quote:
You are following pipe dreams made by solar energy proponents who only propose what could be and not what actually is. What actually is is that all of these plans to make solar power a perfect reality HAS NEVER ACTUALLY BEEN CREATED. Until we see proof that these technologies can come, you are only speculating and wishfully thinking. Solar energy will never be a truly renewable source of energy. Unless maybe you only use the sun as it is without harnessing anything. Even then there will be complications.
You're getting tangled up in your rhetoric. The sun IS an inexhaustible - at least for the next 3 1/2 billion years, give or take - source of energy that can be utilized in many different ways. That's why we talk about solar energy being renewable.
Quote:
Overall, the sun emits about 7,000 times more energy than is required for human consumption. Presently the total amount of solar energy consumed for human use is less than 1% of our entire energy requirements. This means that an incredible amount of energy is still waiting to be captured.
Fossil fuels are also solar energy derivatives. But the problem is this energy is neither renewable nor clean.
The annual global electricity requirement for human civilization is estimated at around 17,000 tera-watt-hours. This is roughly the equivalent of an an hour of bright uninterrupted sunshine striking the earth’s surface.
Get that? Only one hour of sunshine falling on the earth is equal to all the energy used by the human race in an entire year.
Quote:
Like I said unless you're getting paid by the EPA or GE eco services or whatever company is making solar panels (or will be in the future) then stop being unrealistic.
This kind of attack on someone who does not agree with you is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Using it is pretty much a dead giveaway that you don't have a valid argument to offer.
There has never been technology ever made that didnt have its drawbacks and limitations. Solar power will certainly have theirs whether technology fixes these issues or not. Others will arise.
I've never said otherwise.
Quote:
Solar power will never be a perfect energy source. My whole point is just this. We will never have a perfect energy source so why fight over which one? As long as it is not clearly a harm to society.
Aye, but there's the rub. Using fossil fuel energy is a proven harm to society, and indeed a danger to all life on the planet. That's why we need to move away from using it as quickly as possible, now that we clearly understand the problems.
Quote:
What we should be fighting over is not what we are using, but how we use it.
Personally I'd rather see us co-operating to find meaningful solutions to our mutual issues.
Quote:
If you still disagree then I hope GE actually does give you a check simply out of pity for you, whether you're a worker there or not.
Another ad hominem. This says to me that you really have nothing substantial to say.
This is a slight conceptual error. Nuclear fission is not responsible for the heating of the earth's core. It is however responsible for sustaining the core during cycles when solar energies are inadequate for performing the task of maintaining life on this planet.
Well, that certainly is an interesting interpretation. Can you quote any references that confirm your theory? Here's one that contradicts it. Remember, radioactive decay is not the same as nuclear fission. Or, if you don't understand that simple fact, look it up.
Geothermal sites that tap energy out of the earth's core . . . I'll get back to you on this one. But i'll give a teaser. The law of conservation.
The Law of Conservation of Energy says: Energy can be neither be created nor destroyed but only changed in form. Geothermal plants, like the one about 25 miles from here in Puna, Hawai'i, which has already been operating successfully for 20 years, convert underground heat energy into electrical energy.
Quote:
My point is that these materials are going to fission regardless of whether we farm them or not.
No, they're going to continue to decay radioactively regardless, but that is not the same as fission. Leave them in the ground and they don't form extraordinarily dangerous materials that remain toxic to life for thousands of years, the way fission does.
Quote:
Just like the sun is going to shine whether we use it or not. Horrendous by products? Again I will get back to you on that. Spoiler alert, it has to do with the conservation of energy.
No need to get back to me. The dangers of nuclear fission energy are extremely well known.
Quote:
And Japan's "abandonment" of nuclear power is Green Peace propaganda at its finest. After Fukushima the plant's are performing a government mandated safety shutdown. Newsflash: It isn't the first time it has happened and surely won't be the last. They'll one by one start operating again while the people have a new shiny object to distract them from the recent tragedy. Government showing the people they care. . . Dang more agreement with tinfoil hat guy.
The only thing that is certain at the moment is that all 50 of Japan's nuclear reactors have been shut down. Whether they will be restarted or not is uncertain at this point. Popular sentiment is growing against doing that.
And here we'll conclude with our lesson on the conservation of energy. Energy in = Energy out. Whenever we use energy we are taking away from the environment. We are currently incapable of circumventing this law. The more energy we take out, the more impactful it is to the environment.
That doesn't follow. Conserving energy isn't the same as Conservation of Energy.
Quote:
That's why nuclear fission, per unit of mass, is our highest yet most environmentally detrimental form of energy generation.
No, but nice try. It's not detrimental because of Conservation of energy, it's detrimental because of the toxic by-products it creates.
Quote:
Just because we reduce the rate of energy generation (solar, hydro, thermal, whatever) doesn't mean we aren't impacting the environment at the same quantitative level.
Not even close. The geothermal plant occasionally releases a little bit of a stinky smell, but it's no killer.
Quote:
Nuclear fusion, converting mass to energy, when unlocked will complete the cycle and allow for the only pure form of renewable energy.
I have a lot of hope for fusion energy. A big announcement was made today that kind of got lost in the shuffle with all the other news... during an experiment in late September at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) in Livermore, California, the amount of energy released through the fusion reaction exceeded the amount of energy being absorbed by the fuel - the first time this had been achieved at any fusion facility in the world.
Until then we are NOT using green or renewable energy sources. We are simply removing energy at a slower rate with different methods. Thus reducing our energy consumption all together is a far more effective "no-brainer" than robbing Peter to pay Paul.
See my previous post on this... the amount of energy falling on earth from sunlight alone is 7000 times what humans use. Converting a tiny portion of this into a form we can use is not going to bring down the house. Continuing to fill the atmosphere with pollution and greenhouse gasses by burning fossil fuels, however, could do just that.
Physicsworld? Really? That site has a DISCLAIMER that it doesn't stand by the very information published on its webpages. It also states that it is biased towards "green" energy. Can you find an independent source that backs your claims? I'll wait.
Here is a biased site that could be used to counter all of your renewable energy claims. It doesn't have a disclaimer and stands 100% by what is published on its webpages. Things Worse Than Nuclear Power
Correct. Radioactive decay is not nuclear fission. But nuclear fission is radioactive decay. Glad we cleared that up. Uranium and every other heavy unstable nuclide breaks down the same way. 99.9999% of the time. Like clockwork. Regardless of it being forced (nuclear fission) or when it decays naturally without man's interference.
All energy sources have risks to life. Can you name the dangerous toxic by-products produced by nuclear fission? The cancerous causing radiation is the same being produced by the sun and is blocked by our atmosphere. Claiming that is uncontrollably dangerous is like admitting you don't know anything about sunblock.
I'm going to attempt this conservation of energy thing again, it went completely over your head. The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant.
That last part. Constant. You seem to not grasp that we are not using renewable or green energy. We are still taking away from the environment without putting back in. Which is the question asked of this thread Solar, wind, hyrdo, geothermal, whatever the waste generated, for lack of a better term, is not placed back into the system. It's a feel good term as we have no current way to convert the waste from our energy sources back into the system. Once it's used up for all intensive purposes it's gone. Fusion is the only way to accomplish renewable energy in the purest definition of the term.
Until then reducing our carbon footprint, i.e. consuming less is really the only answer.
I think Ted Kaczynski said it all:
The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.
Ted is considered by many to be a nut, but he's a prophetic nut. It's easy to see this ongoing reduction of human beings and living things to fit the needs of the socio-technological machine. Virtually every technology facilitates reducing of humans and environment to engineering products. Some do so more obviously (GMO, TV & mass education and mass cult) some are more subtle. Technological future is less than inviting, however low tech alternatives are simply hellish. After all, at the time of his capture Ted lived in squalor and isolation, without big evil machine he would be most likely dead.
I'm going to attempt this conservation of energy thing again, it went completely over your head. The law of conservation of energy states that energy may neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant.
That's another thing that green energy activists overlook. Sun energy fluctuations as little as 0.5% is enough to trigger planetary sized climate catastrophe. If humans would capture as little as 0.1% of energy of Sun falling on the surface of Earth to convert it to work (using photocells, wind mills etc.) that would have profound effect on the climate. Capturing any amount of solar energy disturbs equilibrium. Everything is linked. There is no "energy source" that 7 billions of the energy hungry hairless monkeys can tap into without disturbing equilibrium in the ways that threatens our survival at the end.
Only warp drive and spreading the plague in the outer space would give us a chance. What about extraterrestrials and their ecosystems then?
I never said we could. But we certainly can improve on what we've done in the past.
You're getting tangled up in your rhetoric. The sun IS an inexhaustible - at least for the next 3 1/2 billion years, give or take - source of energy that can be utilized in many different ways. That's why we talk about solar energy being renewable.
Get that? Only one hour of sunshine falling on the earth is equal to all the energy used by the human race in an entire year.
This kind of attack on someone who does not agree with you is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem. Using it is pretty much a dead giveaway that you don't have a valid argument to offer.
Aye, but there's the rub. Using fossil fuel energy is a proven harm to society, and indeed a danger to all life on the planet. That's why we need to move away from using it as quickly as possible, now that we clearly understand the problems.
Personally I'd rather see us co-operating to find meaningful solutions to our mutual issues.
Another ad hominem. This says to me that you really have nothing substantial to say.
I think you fail to realize nor respond to any of my points
My point was that there will still be limitations to solar power. You said it yourself that solar power will have limitations. Which means solar power will harm the world in some way just as fossil fuels are harming the world.
Nothing is perfect and solar power wont be either therefore we will still be harming.
Is solar power a lesser harm?
Either way what you think is a greater necessity, the next man may think it is a lesser necessity. It differs based upon ones unique individual priorities. Greater/lesser harm is subjective on ones perspective. You can not see this?
I think you fail to realize nor respond to any of my points
Sorry, I didn't mean any slight, but if I tried to deal with every poorly reasoned post here I wouldn't have time for anything else.
Quote:
My point was that there will still be limitations to solar power. You said it yourself that solar power will have limitations. Which means solar power will harm the world in some way just as fossil fuels are harming the world.
That does not logically follow. Limitations does not equal harm.
Quote:
[]Nothing is perfect and solar power wont be either therefore we will still be harming. Is solar power a lesser harm?
Yes, it appears to be. It doesn't foul the air. It doesn't create CO2 emissions. It requires no fuel, so the whole fuel extraction, processing, transport and waste disposal side of fossil fuel based power generation is eliminated.
Quote:
Either way what you think is a greater necessity, the next man may think it is a lesser necessity. It differs based upon ones unique individual priorities. Greater/lesser harm is subjective on ones perspective. You can not see this?
Yes, but so what? We have to live in the present, so we have to do the best we can with what we have available. Fossil fuels were the best we could do for a very long time, but that time has passed.
That's another thing that green energy activists overlook. Sun energy fluctuations as little as 0.5% is enough to trigger planetary sized climate catastrophe. If humans would capture as little as 0.1% of energy of Sun falling on the surface of Earth to convert it to work (using photocells, wind mills etc.) that would have profound effect on the climate.
So what you are saying is that if we capture as little solar energy as would equal 7X the total energy we now use from all sources combined, that could be a problem. That's good to know. Totally irrelevent to the discussion at hand, and to the need to solve current problems, but good to know.
Quote:
Only warp drive and spreading the plague in the outer space would give us a chance. What about extraterrestrials and their ecosystems then?
I'm more interested in reality than you are, obviously.
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.
and surely won't be the last. They'll one by one start operating again while the people have a new shiny object to distract them from the recent tragedy. Government showing the people they care. . . Dang more agreement with tinfoil hat guy. 
This says to me that you really have nothing substantial to say. 
It also states that it is biased towards "green" energy. Can you find an independent source that backs your claims? I'll wait. 
