So there is a lot going on with regard to our energy sources. The U.S. just realised that they're not likely going to develop a technology for safely disposing of spend nuclear fuel any time in the near future so they've decided to just mix it in with other recycled metal and disperse it that way. I saw a documentary the other night on wind farms that was actually quite well done. On-shore farms are now so big that they are putting stresses on the electrical grid that these grids were never designed to take, and the infra-sound related health issues are getting worse as the turbines get bigger. There is geothermal, but there aren't enough locations where this is feasible. From an energy audit perspective, solar is only economical if the tax payer subsidises it. There is hydro, but people are worried about the aquatic life as if nobody yet has come up with a design that is environmentally friendly. Of course we know about the desertification effect of large scale hydro projects. There is tidal energy and I'm frankly surprised that it's not taken off. Can anyone explain? Which leaves us with fossil fuels. I must admit, I don't understand fossil fuels. We seem to only find fully converted product (it's supposed to be a natural breakdown process of ancient bi organisms). If fossil fuels are formed they way we're told, why then why don't we find deposits in the intermediate stages? I also don't understand the "dirty coal" label. Dirty coal died decades ago before the exhaust scrubbing and carbon / sulphur capture technology was applied in the 1980's in response to the acid rain issue. Yes, it's dirty in respect to making your hands go black if you handle it, and it's dirty to mine. So I'm not looking for an argument here. I'm honestly curious about what the best assessment of our energy sources are. I'm actually neutral on this topic thanks to the fact that everyone on the planet with an agenda seems to be lying to us, so I thought we could have a discussion, look at the facts as they are presented, and test those facts to see if they are what the proponents claim them to be - facts.
I think greed and over consumption are the key to energy use. It makes no sense to me to use in 50 years what it took 50 million to produce. If every house and parking lot had solar on the roof and we used solar thermal as a base load and combined this with a consumption that met (and not exceded) our needs we would do well. That Australia - where solar abounds - is not right on top of this amazes me.
That's the thing that utterly blows my mind more then any drug, sensory deprivation chamber, or deep mediation ever could. You show someone an Earthship and explain it makes its own heating, electric, grows its own food, totally off the grid and people love it. Then they see a commercial for Doritos or some crap and forget all about it. My goal for this property is to be comfortably totally off grid and still be "modern" enough that it doesn't annoy the Mrs. too much. If a person in the USA, or any where doesn't pay for heating, electric, & has their own food... ..what else do they pay for? That came to me like a brilliant epiphany, & it seems to me like a person would suddenly have money & free time to pursue more noble pursuits, and that is the goal, for me.
My county is experimenting with it and as I understand it from my electrical CO-OP it is where a bulk of my energy comes from. In addition, the Klamath river is having every single dam removed due to what happened to the more important Salmon stocks. Lastly, as far as I knew 2 things happened with spent nuclear waste in the US. First I know of an artist that gets shipments from all over the world to bury it in deep concrete artistic structures. Not sure if he is still alive but the US government tattoo'd him with a bar-code as part of his ability to do this legally. I really haven't looked into his work in 10 years. Secondly, last I heard we were stupidly burying the waste products deep underground in salt mines. Where did you get the waste info?
spent nuclear fuel gets used as ballast in passenger jet aircraft, they those who rape our planet deem that to be a smart way of hiding the stuff, they never mention that fact when air craft crash. they'll get all onside if and when they develop a truly affordable power source for now all they are going to offer is nuclear, wonder if they use it in the ballasts of ships as well? len
Reduce the amount of energy we use is definitely the answer. I believe we can produce all of the energy we NEED sustainably, but we have to forget about all the energy we WANT. That goes for almost everything.
My belief is that power needs to be generated by the user as appropriate so they can take responsibility for its generation and any side affects (pollution). anything else is just supporting unsustainable systems created to make money for rich people at the expense of the environment.Most of the arguments are symptoms of bad design (cant make base load, not economical ,not efficient enough etc etc) and can be replaced with -is not profitable enough for rich people to maintain their expectations .
Boeing and McDonnall-Douglas stopped using it as plane ballast in the 1980's but Airbus may still be using it. Publicly known and researched as part of each crash that occurs in planes with DU ballast (depleted uranium) Not in ships but in a boat designed by André Mauric (Pen Duick VI), it was later changed to lead. Also comes in dental porcelain, false teeth (it gives you that zing when you smile :rofl, munitions, enamel paints, and used to be used for cooling of glass and porcelain but that's stopped now. A product with a thousand uses!! The key issue is with it being a toxic heavy metal not really with its radiation level as it doesn't travel far through the air and will not penetrate clothing. It is the ingestion through breathing particles and then the toxic repercussions that are more of an issue. But no worse than a thousand other heavy metals used in a large list of consumer devises nowadays.
I think this is to distinguish it from the concept of 'clean coal' which is used to describe the sequestration of any of the Co2 left over in the manufacturing process. Another little 'lets keep the public happy with something that 'may' be possible if we throw enough money at it'. Personally, pumping any large hole we can find underground with Co2 and hoping it has no cracks or movement is a bet I don't feel comfortable taking.
They should just dump all that nuclear waste on the pacific coast since it's contaminated from Japan anyway(sorry Pak!). I'm sure the EPA can just raise the healthy PPM again to make everyone feel safe. Just ignore the increase in cancers, or tell everyone it's from that dangerous sun we have. I thought they were getting ready to make huge off-shore tidal generators somewhere... I "think" you need a massive die-off that gets covered quickly to receive a future petroleum product(ie: poor suckers standing around a volcano when it blows its top). Dirty/clean coal is pretty much a marketing term, so therefor means nothing. They may as well have just said "New and Improved coal, now 100% more ecofriendly!" or some such crap. There's no such thing as clean coal, it's all dirty. I think: 1) We need to use a lot less electricity than we currently do in the affluent nations. 2) Solar electricity needs to have more research in finding better ways to make panels. I'm not really worried about efficiencies because of point#1 above. 3) Battery technology needs vast improvement. We need a recyclable/repairable battery that are safer to handle than current technology. Some sort of wet cell system is usually more maintenance friendly(not necessarily lead-acid). Maybe something involving vinegar for the acid so it's a little better environmentally? 4) The power grid needs a rethink. The technology is over 50 years old. 5) I'm not a big fan(no pun intended) of large wind turbines. Our native birds are already having a rough time because of us, we don't need to add insult to injury.
I feel the same way about any big project (wind farm, big hydroelectric dam, etc). I feel big projects of that kind tend to have negative effects over all, and we should be working more toward small local solutions and most importantly I should mention I am not currently generating any of my own electricity, so not living up to my own ideals.
Using a lot less isn't the same as producing your own. I recently replaced my entire AC unit with a heat pump(supposedly up to 30% more efficient, but costs about $1000 more for equipment). When I replaced a broken hot water heater, I went down by about 20 gallons(I was hoping to find an on demand electric water heater locally, but that didn't happen). I have a completely electric house in the hot and humid subtropics and I've reduced my usage by about 30% over the past 3 years just by making simple and small changes. Unfortunately, my house is the completely wrong aspect for solar panels so I'd only be generating half power at most(roof slopes east-west instead of north-south). If I ever get around to cleaning most of the crap out of the garage and spend the time to learn how to make my own solar panels, I might make the investment, but I'm only planning on living in my house for another 9 years. If I can justify it to myself on an ethical level, I might just do it anyway. I'd rather spend the money on a broadacre permaculture retirement project though.
Have we all gone insane? Infrasound? Yeah, right. Proven wrong. Bird deaths? Something like 200 a year vs in the hundreds of thousands for cats. Don't believe that crap.
I chuckle when I read about a broad acre retirement. Just keeping the fences intact will exclude any "retirement"
I think it may be a whole lot better as the community infrustructure may well be less costly to the environment than a whole lot of seperate units.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/17/us-wind-farms-under-fire-for-bird-kills/ Granted, it is fox news, but that winds up being more than 200 per year world wide. It won't get better with more wind farms going up either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Impact_on_wildlife "Bird mortality at wind energy facilities can vary greatly depending on the facility's location, with some facilities reporting nearly zero bird fatalities, and others as high as four birds per turbine on an annual basis.[39] An article in the journal Nature stated that each wind turbine kills an average of 4.27 birds per year.[40]" That's each wind turbine taking the lives of 4.27 birds annually. https://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/collisions/wind_faq.html They say about 1 million birds per year by 2030. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wind-turbines-and-bird-conflicts Estimates current bird and bat deaths to be 500,000 per year. Just because cats are estimated to kill up to 100 million birds per year is not a rationalization for killing more. If anything, it's another good reason to spay or neuter your cats. However, I would like to see where the low estimate of 200 is coming from. I couldn't find anything that low, but then small numbers don't make good news.
Are you trolling Len? It is hardly in the spirit of discussion to make such provocative posts. Disist or we will get the mods on to you.
oh i see purplepear, ok for mousinthe house to do what they did but i can't ask for more info' and i don't troll, if you don't know that by now you never will, i may have different view points but never troll, like MITH appears to have done len
