How to generate power?

[michel]

From:- http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear

Greenpeace has always fought - and will continue to fight - vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

And from:- http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3588

In the middle of his State of the Union Address on January 23, President George W. Bush gave a little “shout out” to alternative fuels. But interspersed with references to solar energy and hybrids, were such oxymorons as “clean coal technology” and “safe nuclear power.” While hearing the President admit that “global climate change” was a serious issue provided at least a little relief for environmentalists, Greenpeace experts who held a press conference the following day said Bush’s proposal did not go nearly far enough in weaning America’s dependence from fossil fuels.

According to the Greenpeace-sponsored report, wind turbines could provide the majority of U.S. energy by 2020.

While solving the global warming crisis is a top priority for the group, Greenpeace stressed that it can be done without any reliance on coal or nuclear energy by using truly renewable energy sources like wind. Over the last year and a half, Greenpeace International and the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) commissioned a study, entitled “Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for Solving Global Warming,” from the German Aerospace Center, showing that 80 percent of our electricity can be produced by renewal sources, carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced 50 percent globally and 72 percent in the U.S. without resorting to nuclear power or new coal technologies.
Bush’s call for a zero emission coal-fired plant is an untested idea. “Carbon capture and storage [CCS] or so-called ‘clean coal’ is not a proven technology,” says Sven Teske of Greenpeace International. “There is not a single commercial-scale power plant right now on the grid. We’ve seen through our analysis that wind turbines in some areas are competitive with new coal power plants already, or will be in the next five years.” In terms of nuclear power, Teske says, “Besides all the dangers...it is just too slow. It takes about 10 years to build one. The only European new reactor under construction is in Finland. One year under construction and already it’s one year behind schedule.”

It is my understanding that "Wind Farms" are extremey noisy; solar power will never be sufficiently productive to meet our needs.........

What other options are there that can solve our need for fuel without having to resort to nuclear power?

 

[Engyo]

It is my understanding that "Wind Farms" are extremey noisy; solar power will never be sufficiently productive to meet our needs.........

What other options are there that can solve our need for fuel without having to resort to nuclear power?

Michel -

Don't know about noise from windfarms, but that would seem to be a problem of machinery design and improvement, as well as location. For that matter, "normal" power plants are extremely noisy - ever been in one?

As for solar power "never" being productive, again if one is only talking about what we can do today, you're probably right. 100 years ago, we didn't know diddly about using sunlight to produce power. 50 years from now. who knows? I have been watching a fascinating program with Michio Kaku on the Discovery Channel, that covers issues like these: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/2057.html

There are plenty of other possible sources of power generation: geothermal, tidal, good old-fashioned water power, oceanic thermal, nuclear fusion, and other more exotic possibilities. All have their potential drawbacks; one must first decide whether human civilization is worth continuing with. If so, then we will have to accept some consequences from that. If not, a few can go back to a hunter-gatherer existence, making little or no impact on the planet, and billions will die. Of course those billions will die anyway, but it might happen sooner and more catastrophically if we decide to suddenly stop generating power in ways that have potential harm associated with them.

 

[michel]

Michel -

Don't know about noise from windfarms

Some have been set up in parts of the UK (where suitable) and local residents say that they are extremely noisy. Because they are not contained in a building, the noise does affect locals.

As for solar power "never" being productive, again if one is only talking about what we can do today, you're probably right. 100 years ago, we didn't know diddly about using sunlight to produce power. 50 years from now. who knows? I have been watching a fascinating program with Michio Kaku on the Discovery Channel, that covers issues like these: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/2057/2057.html

I agree; the trouble is that the latest estimates forecast anything from a 3 to 6 degree rise in temperatures worldwide over the next 50 years (i.e that option would be too "late")

The problem is that here, in the U.K, we are at a point where Nuclear plants will need replacing within 10 years; the Government was going down the "Nuclear route" as it is the cheapest option, but, of course, those opposed to nuclear energy, naturally, are going to lobby against that idea.

I know that there are other possibilites,but, apparently, the cost is prohibitive; I just wondered how the members here feel about the use of Nuclear power.....(especially in view of the fact that we want to deny 2nd and 3rd World Countries from going down that route)

 

[Engyo]

The thing is that the cost will soon not be prohibitive, as the cost of fossil fuels keep rising.

 

[Gentoo]

I know that there are other possibilites,but, apparently, the cost is prohibitive; I just wondered how the members here feel about the use of Nuclear power.....(especially in view of the fact that we want to deny 2nd and 3rd World Countries from going down that route)

While my first impression is to be against nuclear power, I have to ask: fission or fusion? I'm against fission completely, but will support fusion if no other option is available.

I'd rather see more "noisy" wind turbines go up ("noisy" because I've never experienced it, so I don't know how noisy they really are) than see another nuclear power plant go up. At least there's no by-product of wind power, it's completely renewable, is much safer and cleaner.

 

[xexon]

Solar cell technology is really growing at the moment. I was reading last week about spray on solar cells.

This could lead to electric cars that recharge just by being outside.


x

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

From:- http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/nuclear


And from:- http://www.emagazine.com/view/?3588



It is my understanding that "Wind Farms" are extremey noisy; solar power will never be sufficiently productive to meet our needs.........

What other options are there that can solve our need for fuel without having to resort to nuclear power?

I don't find them extremely noisy..I have been right to the base of several wind farms in strong wind and the noise was no more than you would expect from wind in the trees.
True it had a pulse to it but it was in no way unpleasent. From 200 yards a way, I could hear nothing over the noise of the wind itself.

I think people forget how noisy wind in such places is.

 

[michel]

I don't find them extremely noisy..I have been right to the base of several wind farms in strong wind and the noise was no more than you would expect from wind in the trees.
True it had a pulse to it but it was in no way unpleasent. From 200 yards a way, I could hear nothing over the noise of the wind itself.

I think people forget how noisy wind in such places is.

That's interesting; I heard (must havebeen on the television) that a group of local residents were fighting planning permission for some......

 

[Hema]

I think people forget how noisy wind in such places is.

**In a very serious tone**
When I was in primary school, I once heard a boy tell another boy that if he farts in the gas tank of his father's car, it will be able to run. I suppose this is another form of "natural gas". I don't have a car so if one of you tries it, perhaps you can give us some feedback.

**sneaking off into another room**

:biglaugh:

Sorry guys, I just HAD to.

 

[Hema]

How come no one posted after my comment! **snicker snicker** I suppose you guys are off to try it.

 

[Green Gaia]

solar power will never be sufficiently productive to meet our needs.........quote]
Where did you get that idea? It was my understanding that solar polar is exceptionally clean, efficient and productive... not to mention it's always there (the sun)!

 

[Quiddity]

Check these fans out:
http://photo.net/photo/pcd0278/wind-farm-27

If I remember correctly they power an entire a city.

 

[anders]

Modern windmills are ugly even if silent. And they kill birds.

Nuclear energy from state-of-the-art plants run by sufficiently trained and responsible people is close to perfect if the fuel is mined in a way that cares for people and wildlife.

Wave and/or tidal energy is interesting, if they don't interfere with marine life.

Much is happening in the solar energy business. And shielding deserts with solar panes should create lots of arable land.

 

[Engyo]

Nuclear energy from state-of-the-art plants run by sufficiently trained and responsible people is close to perfect if the fuel is mined in a way that cares for people and wildlife.

Anders -

The problem with nuclear fission is the spent fuel; how to safely manage that is a big issue here in the States, at least. Nuclear fusion will eliminate that, but we haven't managed to make it work yet.

 

[Fluffy]

Currently humanity uses about 15 TW in a year. High end estimates place global population at 11.5 billion in 2050 and potentially cresting. So that would up our consumption to about 25 TW and that is assuming that we take no measures to make any consumption more efficient during that time.

The renewable energy from wind is rough 300 TW so we would need to create an infrustructure capable of harnessing 9% of that in order to rely entirely on wind power.

Now much of that 300TW is simply not available to us but 9% of it certainly is. And that is from just a single renewable source. Wind seems, to me, to be the most viable option. If the only objection to wind is that it is noisy then that seems nothing in comparison to the dangers of other fuel sources.

 

[kiwimac]

Wind power is a goodie
Solar power (even on cloudy days enough solar radiation usually gets through to heat water)
Tidal generators
Deep water / Cold Water generators
Water wheels in rivers
Water Drop turbines

there are