Alternative Energy Sources discussion

Electric Vechicles Are Here - The world is rapidly going to S#@!


“Well, that's a shitty thing to say!

I don't believe that I have shit on anything.”



Yeah, ok.


Tim
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
In my view, it's all about energy density, comparative land use, end-user cost, and the waste volume created by the various forms of energy production. A hard fair look at the question really supports an even-handed comparison that in the end favors nuclear power.
I can't get past having to face the consequences that could stem from even a minor nuke plant accident (IS there such a thing?)...and they will happen no matter how 'fail-proof' the plant's design.
No matter what anyone says, nuke plants cannot be built to withstand any and all perils they may face...most notably terrorist attacks (of whatever nature) these days.
OTOH, if a coal/natural gas-fired plant blows up - eeeeh, in the final analysis, 'no real biggie.

JMPO. OMV..and often DO. ;-)
 

Randy V

Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Have they figured out a way to recycle the wind turbines?


Ian
It’s actually fake news. Or to be more precise - engineered news*. Fiberglass, carbon fiber and kevlar are three composites that recycle nicely, but not inexpensively. They must be ground up first, like most recycled products.
Instead, it is far less expensive to just dump them in a landfill - sometimes crushing them first with heavy equipment like bulldozers. The article does touch on this, but it seems to have played down the capabilities of recyclers.
Even if not used in future composite construction, the ground up bits would add considerable strength to road beds and other non-critical structures - I don’t think I would use it in bridges, but if properly processed it could be. We currently add fiberglass to concrete to get the strongest batches.

* engineered news - news that intentionally leads the viewer to a predetermined conclusion that’s based on an agenda of the news agency.
 

Ian Anderson

Lifetime Supporter
Supporter
It’s actually fake news. Or to be more precise - engineered news*. Fiberglass, carbon fiber and kevlar are three composites that recycle nicely, but not inexpensively. They must be ground up first, like most recycled products.
Instead, it is far less expensive to just dump them in a landfill - sometimes crushing them first with heavy equipment like bulldozers. The article does touch on this, but it seems to have played down the capabilities of recyclers.
Even if not used in future composite construction, the ground up bits would add considerable strength to road beds and other non-critical structures - I don’t think I would use it in bridges, but if properly processed it could be. We currently add fiberglass to concrete to get the strongest batches.

* engineered news - news that intentionally leads the viewer to a predetermined conclusion that’s based on an agenda of the news agency.
Thanks Randy
So is the pollution caused by not recycling added into the “green” credentials?

Up here in Scotland they are an eyesore on numerous hillsides, I accept they may generate “clean” electricity but what is the real cost? Including, cabling to the grid, pollution making concrete for their bases, pollution making the roads to get them into the fields /tops of hills etc. There was big news about 18 months back when Scotland actually generated more energy in wind farms than consumed, but it was one day only, 40mph winds all day and the day was Sunday when offices and a lot of factories are closed.
They also generate a lot of noise and flashing light as the blades turn. (More pollution)

I am a sceptic that they are as green as the tree huggers think!

ian
 
Thanks Randy
So is the pollution caused by not recycling added into the “green” credentials?

Up here in Scotland they are an eyesore on numerous hillsides, I accept they may generate “clean” electricity but what is the real cost? Including, cabling to the grid, pollution making concrete for their bases, pollution making the roads to get them into the fields /tops of hills etc. There was big news about 18 months back when Scotland actually generated more energy in wind farms than consumed, but it was one day only, 40mph winds all day and the day was Sunday when offices and a lot of factories are closed.
They also generate a lot of noise and flashing light as the blades turn. (More pollution)

I am a sceptic that they are as green as the tree huggers think!

ian
Thanks Randy
So is the pollution caused by not recycling added into the “green” credentials?

Up here in Scotland they are an eyesore on numerous hillsides, I accept they may generate “clean” electricity but what is the real cost? Including, cabling to the grid, pollution making concrete for their bases, pollution making the roads to get them into the fields /tops of hills etc. There was big news about 18 months back when Scotland actually generated more energy in wind farms than consumed, but it was one day only, 40mph winds all day and the day was Sunday when offices and a lot of factories are closed.
They also generate a lot of noise and flashing light as the blades turn. (More pollution)

I am a sceptic that they are as green as the tree huggers think!

ian
Ian, what are you skeptical about? Clearly wind power requires trucks to transport the turbines, it requires a bunch of effort to pour concrete, etc. all things you say. Candidly, coal and gas power plants require that as well. Wind takes a lot of space / acreage for all the towers.. birds get killed by them, they only power when the wind blows, they have environmental impact. They also don't produce greenhouse gases.

I have used this example in the past but in the 60s pollution was so bad in some areas that rivers caught on fire:

Would we be better doing nothing? Should we try to advance some new technology that enables different power options to support our lifestyle? Or would you prefer to simply think what was created years (coal power plants) ago is fine, if that is the case perhaps we should go back to driving Ford Model Ts?

Perhaps the word "green" is just off-putting. Is it the eyesore of wind that makes you dislike it?

I wonder if there would be this much reaction if we finally figure out Fusion power which could be less environmental impact.

I just don't get the negativity against new ways to generate power.
 

Doc Watson

Lifetime Supporter

 
Fusion is awesome, I so hope they can figure it out. Does feel like it has been 5 years out for the past 30 years.. but it is massively complex so I am not judging nor do I think I could do any better.
 

Randy V

Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Engineering Explained...
A marvelous speaker that knows his stuff...
If you really want the numbers, he’s got them.
I’ve learned a lot watching his videos and this one is no different.
 
I quite like some of the underwater tidal kite generators. They sit 100% below the surface of the water and end up towing a cable in a figure of 8 pattern. As it goes around the path it drives a turbine via the tension in the cable that it is pulling.
as they are below the surface they are not subject to problems associated with large waves as they pass over the top regardless.
 

Randy V

Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
I quite like some of the underwater tidal kite generators. They sit 100% below the surface of the water and end up towing a cable in a figure of 8 pattern. As it goes around the path it drives a turbine via the tension in the cable that it is pulling.
as they are below the surface they are not subject to problems associated with large waves as they pass over the top regardless.
Very interesting... I will need to do a bit more investigating to determine exactly how it works. One of my concerns woukd be of the cable or turbine getting fouled by all the refuse in the oceans these days.
 

JimmyMac

Lifetime Supporter
Agreed Randy, refuse in the oceans is a major problem.
So far nobody has mentioned our smelly stuff and how much waste that we actually produce and send to landfill either locally, or overseas or alternatively to be dumped in our oceans. Thinking about it, we humans are now the best producers of fuel.

Energy from waste plants are proving viable solutions as they incinerate all of your waste as fuel.
Companies are now investigating the potential of mining the old waste landfill sites for secondary re-cycling of the material to use for fuel in these incineration plants. I mentioned secondary because the populous don't now believe dumping mountains of it in the countryside is actually recycling.

The technology is advancing rapidly to increase burn temperatures for cleaner gassification processes and even plasma incineration has been tried in Japan.
Recently some plants have been built with the capacity to burn in excess 800k to 1M + tonnes per year cleanly and efficiently. Some are even bigger.

Look up the Copenhagen energy from waste plants if you are interested. The vent stacks blow "smoke" rings with clean condensate as a reminder of the cleaner environment and the roofs are used as ski slopes and skate boarding parks by the citizens.
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
Same guy: My take on what he is saying is this. All we need is control over when you use electrical power and for what purpose...............

As I have said over on the electric car thread, my concern is HOW, as a free people, it is decided how to let individuals decide for themselves what they want to buy and own for transportation. What I think is going to happen is that people who are living in cities will adopt EV at a faster rate than the country folks. Then given the tendency of the left, who have their voter base in the cities, to think they should use their greater intellect to decide what is best for everyone else the pressure is put on to eliminate ICE cars altogether.

I don't dislike the idea of EV's. If I had a need for one I might just buy one. What I don't want is the government creating a need to buy one by making ICE cars more expensive via tax policy, regulation, or changes in the law. Let individuals decide what they want and then let the marketplace supply that demand.

 

Howard Jones

Supporter
The current state of fusion energy research in the US. You can find out where we are here with a few downloads. The bottom line is there has been enormous progress in this field in recent years.

 

Randy V

Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Just thinking....
You know, 100 Million Degrees is pretty hot... Roughly 4 times hotter than the core of our own sun is thought to be.
Not knowing what we don’t know - is anyone concerned about this getting out of control and starting a cataclysmic chain reaction that consumes the whole planet?
I live just a few miles where the Super Conducting Super Collider was to be built in Texas (now cancelled). There was a lot of concern then of the same thing...
 
I live just a few miles where the Super Conducting Super Collider was to be built in Texas (now cancelled). There was a lot of concern then of the same thing...
It was too bad it was cancelled due to funding but I get why these things happen. CERN turned out to deliver on the promise but it took a few tries to get the technology to work... again, for something that has never been done this should be expected. Interesting note, the CERN facility delivered on finding the Higgs boson particle but I believe I read a lot of the research was driven out of Fermilab, they just didn't have a collider large enough to do the experiments. l I put Fusion in the same situation, takes a while to figure out what works.

Howard, agree, massive steps forward on Fusion, I hope it plays out. Also agree that achieving Fusion won't ignite the planet on fire. There was a similar yet unfounded concern around the nuclear bombs back in the 40s.
 
Top