|Thoughts on Green Energy22-11-2015 01:04|
|So my question is for the Climate Change "Deniers", skeptics, whatever you want to call them. |
What are your thoughts on Green Energy?
Totototo wrote: What are your thoughts on Green Energy?
"Green Energy" is still too expensive and limited. Private businesses should pursue its advancement while we take advantage of the cheap, plentiful energy in fossil fuels.
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
|Into the Night★★★★★
There is little 'green' about green energy.
First off, it produces a trivial amount of power for the equipment it uses and the cost. Here in Washington, we are blessed with hydroelectric power, yet that isn't considered 'green' energy because of the so-called damage done by having dams.
One hydroelectric power plant produces more power than all the wind farms, solar plants, even nuclear power plants combined (our one nuke is number two in power production).
Second, what is 'green' energy? Hydro? Nuclear? Coal? Oil? Wind? Tide? Geothermal? Wood? Solar? What makes it 'green'?
No matter how you look at it, none of these are good for all cases. Coal is cheap and can burn very clean. Oil is a bit more expensive but translates well to mobile power supplies (automobiles, ships, aircraft, railroads, etc). Nukes are fixed supplies and use a tiny amount of fuel. They also have the problem of spent fuel recycling or storage. Hydro produces a large amount of power but cannot be installed everywhere. Some people have real problems with the dams they typically require. Wood produces a lot of soot. Wood, Solar, Tidal, Geothermal, and wind sources produce piddle power and are expensive. These stations are often eyesores with whole hillsides covered with wind turbines.
Personally, I find the hydrocarbon molecule to be the most compact form of cheap chemical power around. I like nukes, and they can be operated safely with modern designs. The problem facing them is the regulations preventing use of modern designs.
I consider hydrocarbons the 'greenest' of the fuel sources, since they can be efficiently burned producing little more than CO2 and water vapor. Other components of the burn dissipate readily. The engines are small and powerful for the power they produce. Coal plants equipped with proper scrubbers are quite good for fixed supplies where hydroelectric power is not practical. Coal is cheap, it's waste products are easily put to useful products, and the remainder is CO2 and water vapor.
Of course, I don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
|Climate change in green land||42||04-04-2020 00:41|
|Forget New Green Deal, Let's make BIS(Basic Infrastructure And Service) Free.||12||15-01-2020 20:30|
|New and 1st thoughts and questions||78||25-09-2019 19:20|
|Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?||1||21-09-2019 03:46|
|The Real, 'Green New Deal'||4||19-08-2019 02:52|