8 replies to this topic

[JEBradley]

As we know, increasing 'alternative' energy resources are being utilised for our power needs. In spite of being a scientist, most of my information in this field comes from the media - which frequently frustrates me as the information I receive often strikes me as ungrounded, sometimes contradictory and sometimes alarming.

I wish to basically present a diatribe and hopefully people will agree or disagree.

It strikes me that many forms of renewable energy could be damaging to the earth's ecosystems - more or less so than the perceived effect of global warming I don't know. With wind energy, we remove energy from the wind to drive turbines. This must have the effect of slowing the wind down. At first this never seemed an issue but now one can consider the huge number of windfarms countries like Germany are operating - can this not affect weather systems - perhaps crucial ones like the gulf stream or the jet stream. It would also cool the air temperature (although in theory the energy would eventually become heat again by one means or another).

It was said - perhaps it was an urban myth - that the giant chinese damming constructions had the effect of slowing the rotation of the earth down by a measurable quantity. This is worrying to say the least, and whilst I have my doubts about its validity, the mathematics would make sense.

Rather than continueing to analysis each form of renewable energy, I believe the reader can see where i'm coming from.

To hopefully end end on a positive note - I feel that solar energy must be the only viable renewable source by following the presented argument. We extract heat and eventually generate heat - losing nothing.

[djack77494]

Mr. Bradley
I'm sorry, but with there being so many catastrophic, man-made, world ending (or at least changing) disasters predicted for our future, I will not be one of those worrying about the slowing of the earth's rotation due to river damming. Nor will I worry about surface cooling as energy is being extracted from the wind. (Actually, wouldn't that be a good thing, by current thinking?)

I would worry about the number of sliced and diced birds and insects unfortunate enough to mix it up with wind turbines. Not to mention the visual blight such images conjure up. Negative environmental impacts of tapping into our "clean, renewable" hydroelectric power are well known. Besides untold losses of archeological treasures, there is massive downriver disruption of nature cycles leading to subsidence and loss of delta buildup affecting the most productive and vulnerable of all areas, our wetlands. There is also the negative impact on fish and other wildlife.

This is not the place for an exhaustive examination of the pros and cons of alternative energy technologies. My main point is that they all come wtih a price. As individual sites and situations are analyzed, different technologies will be found optimal for each. I still favor nuclear energy as being perhaps the greenest of available technologies, and long term population control as being the ONLY real answer.
Doug

[JEBradley]

Thanks very much for your views.

I have to stress that I speak with no authority and precious little knowledge about the subject.

The main point I was trying to get across was that the issues being presented to us about renewable energy seem to be highly polarised. There are some scraps of counter-arguments but these receive little press because they conflict with the current pro-environmentalist Zeitgeist.

I am a strong supporter of nuclear energy. The long standing problem of nuclear disaster needs to be re-assessed following the de-classification of the Chernobyl incident.

Is population control possible ???? I won't comment as I don't quite know what you meant

[djack77494]

Is population control possible ???? I won't comment as I don't quite know what you meant

Population control is not only possible, it's inevitable. The only uncertainty is what form it might take. As a species, we might wake up one morning and realize that we have passed by the optimum population that can be sustainably supported by our planet. Two comments on that: 1) I think there is NO chance it will happen, and 2) Is there even such a thing as an optimum population?

The second approach to population is more natural, but natural does not equal good. Nature will take its course, and the finite resources of the planet will be strained to the breaking point by the huge growing mass of human population. There will be fierce competition for available resources (i.e. wars) along with famines, disease, natural disasters and the other natural mechanisms that will combine to limit the growth of humanity. That picture is, of course, ugly and very undesirable, and we'd hope that we're smart enough to chose path #1. I'm not holding my breath.
Doug.

[Adriaan]

So called GREEN ENERGY, in Europe at least, is taken as ANY form of energy that is not obtained by burning NG or oil or such .... this has the rather weird end result that people (old hippies <wink>) who want to be right-on and use green energy accounts with their energy (electricity) supplier in fact use nuclear energy (and they didn't want THAT!).

In the Netherlands, with its single nuclear powerplant at Borsele, this means nuclear energy from France is bought in. Former Dutch governments had decided to close Borsele down but the current lot reversed THAT descision.

ANYWAY, the reason for this post is to point out that GREEN ENERGY is a term that does NOT mean renewable energy, at least here it doesn't.

[djack77494]

the reason for this post is to point out that GREEN ENERGY is a term that does NOT mean renewable energy, at least here it doesn't.

That's a good point. Green energy does not mean renewable. It also does not necessarily mean "environmentally friendly".

We really have renewable and we have nearly inexhaustable energy sources. If you read my earlier posts, you may see that I think a strong nuclear component should be in the energy mix. Nuclear is not renewable, but it is darn near inexhaustable. I guess that only biofuels and solar could be considered as truly renewable. My opinion is that neither is ready to play a major role at the present time. Wind, hydro, geothermal, and tidal energy could all have significant roles and might also be considered renewable. They all come with negative environmental side effects. Interesting topic.

[Adriaan]

Nuclear is not renewable, but it is darn near inexhaustable.

NO!

The price of nuclear fuels is in fact going up so much - because of supply difficulties - that nuclear power costs are rising significantly. As a result some renewable energy systems are now on a par with nuclear energy cost wise!

[Adriaan]

My 100th post

By saving a little energy we could significantly reduce the need for power. Both directly and indirectly (don't let the water run while you are brushing your teeth, that sort of thing) savings can be made that really DO add up but do not actually inconvienience us.

A few years ago I saw a report that if JUST the US coal fired powerplants were upgraded to become more efficient the extra electricity generated would be suffficient to provide ALL electricity needed in Japan (using NO extra fuel!).

Let's face it, power is going to become more expensive (in Europe aluminium producers are trying to buy their own powerplants to insure they get enough power AT COST in future) and that MIGHT lead to people saving energy (doubt it though). More expensive power does mean that truly GREEN energy (solar cells and what have you) that are not economically viable NOW will be viable THEN.

[djack77494]

I think if "Breeder" reactors are included than it is fair to say that nuclear fuel would be nearly inexhaustable. If you also include fusion, then our fuel supply won't run out until the oceans dry out.