Green Energy

[OceanAnnie]

What is the cleanest, greenest energy in your opinion?

 

[IdesOmarch]

I'm getting into the business slowly I am planning on setting up small hydro generators at appropriate/ideal sites in the near future. IMO Solar and wind are really the most "green" in that they don't really effect the environment at all. Now the crowd that I call the "environmental whackos" won't agree, they don't want any kind of power anywhere because they will claim that a windmill effects birds or putting a solar power plant in the desert will harm some endangered snail or whatever, but to me that attitude is beyond extremist. We have to have power, and it has to be put in somewhere. Everyone can't have the not in my backyard attitude.

Now saying all that, Hydro is my preferred method mainly because it works 10 times better than solar and wind. The traditional solar panel technology, you need a ton of panels, and they don't make much power, plus wind and solar are highly dependent on climatic conditions and don't work that great, and obviously don't provide you with power 24/7. Hydro on the other hand at an ideal site can produce enough power for 10 homes or more day or night, depending on how ideal the stream is.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

Solar, wind, human power (riding a stationary bike attached to a generator), hydropower (the newer unconventional methods like tidal flow I think are better than standard run-of-the mill dams).

Petroleum based products from algae or vegetables.

Hydrogen fuel cells (for cars) reduce pollution from the car, but requires pollution in order to extract the hydrogen from other sources (like water).

Nuclear, in my opinion, is better for the atmosphere than coal, oil, or natural gas plants, but obviously has its own unique dangers.

 

[Enchanted_Mama]

solar and wind, IMO.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Solar, wind, human power (riding a stationary bike attached to a generator), hydropower (the newer unconventional methods like tidal flow I think are better than standard run-of-the mill dams).

Hydrogen fuel cells (for cars) reduce pollution from the car, but requires pollution in order to extract the hydrogen from other sources (like water).

Petroleum based products from algae or vegetables.

Nuclear, in my opinion, is better for the atmosphere than coal, oil, or natural gas plants, but obviously has it's own unique dangers.

I wonder if those dangers will be reevaluated with the crisis Japan is facing. The damage has the potential to be extreme. There was such an outcry from environmentalists with the oil rig explosion, not so much with this nuclear event that is unfolding. And the potential with this event is much worse.

The environmentalists are strangely silent. What makes the oil rig explosion worse? It does not compute.

 

[IdesOmarch]

I wonder if those dangers will be reevaluated with the crisis Japan is facing. The damage has the potential to be extreme. There was such an outcry from environmentalists with the oil rig explosion, not so much with this nuclear event that is unfolding. And the potential with this event is much worse.

The environmentalists are strangely silent. What makes the oil rig explosion worse? It does not compute.

Don't worry they will, the environmental crowd is the most relentless litigators I've ever seen, you can be guaranteed if any power company in the US proposes a new nuke plant, the environmental groups will sue sue sue, appeal appeal appeal all day long, just like they are doing with the coal plants. THey sue anyone and everyone that tries to put in any type of new power plant, even solar. They are out of control IMO.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Don't worry they will, the environmental crowd is the most relentless litigators I've ever seen, you can be guaranteed if any power company in the US proposes a new nuke plant, the environmental groups will sue sue sue, appeal appeal appeal all day long, just like they are doing with the coal plants. THey sue anyone and everyone that tries to put in any type of new power plant, even solar. They are out of control IMO.

I don't know. It seems like the environmentalists favor nuclear energy. I just don't know what makes the oil catastrophe worse for the environment than the nuclear catastrophe.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The environmentalists are strangely silent. What makes the oil rig explosion worse? It does not compute.

Making any kind of commotion about this would be bad press at the moment. Those who do not believe nuclear power is a safe alternative will use this incident as an example as to its dangers, but not right now.

 

[Holly]

I wonder if those dangers will be reevaluated with the crisis Japan is facing. The damage has the potential to be extreme. There was such an outcry from environmentalists with the oil rig explosion, not so much with this nuclear event that is unfolding. And the potential with this event is much worse.

The environmentalists are strangely silent. What makes the oil rig explosion worse? It does not compute.

I have to disagree that environmentalists are silent on nuclear power. They haven't been and they're blowing up Facebook and all of the other sites where they discuss.

Nuclear power is something that is strongly debated within the green community. A lot of people are anti-nuclear but there are many who see it as a greener alternative to coal and oil. It's different from oil drilling, where everyone agrees that it's not an earth-friendly practice.

 

[IdesOmarch]

I don't know. It seems like the environmentalists favor nuclear energy. I just don't know what makes the oil catastrophe worse for the environment than the nuclear catastrophe.

I would consider them about equal in catastrophes. Oh you can bet they will sue, if they'll sue over a new solar plant, you know they'll sue over a new nuke plant. I can guarantee you. Its the Sierra Club and Audobon society that usually takes the lead with these law suits.

 

[Holly]

Making any kind of commotion about this would be bad press at the moment. Those who do not believe nuclear power is a safe alternative will use this incident as an example as to its dangers, but not right now.

It's not bad press if you're an anti-nuclear activist, which many environmentalists are.

 

[golfgal]

In actually "producing" the energy, wind and solar are the obvious answers. Making wind turbines and solar panels though, how "green" is that process (no idea)? Is it along the lines of the hybrid cars where the cars run green but the batteries are bad for the environment?

Then take into consideration the physical effect of the sheer number of wind turbines or solar panels it takes to produce energy. Having lived near a wind farm, they take up a LOT of room. The upkeep on them is tremendous too.

Hydro power is great as long as you don't have to create the Hoover Dam to generate the power.

I think that using plant based fuel will be the future-easily renewable, positive effects on the environment, limited resources to produce, etc.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Making any kind of commotion about this would be bad press at the moment. Those who do not believe nuclear power is a safe alternative will use this incident as an example as to its dangers, but not right now.

I did read where Germany is re-evaluating.

I have to disagree that environmentalists are silent on nuclear power. They haven't been and they're blowing up Facebook and all of the other sites where they discuss.

Nuclear power is something that is strongly debated within the green community. A lot of people are anti-nuclear but there are many who see it as a greener alternative to coal and oil. It's different from oil drilling, where everyone agrees that it's not an earth-friendly practice.

I haven't read about it in the news. Haven't seen it on other sites. But then I'm not much for Facebook.

What makes oil drilling not an earth friendly practice as opposed to nuclear energy? The damage from catastrophes from both are enormous.

I *know* there are risks associated with just about any form of energy. I find it interesting what is deemed "good" vs "bad" and why.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

It's not bad press if you're an anti-nuclear activist, which many environmentalists are.

I mean, it makes the group kind of heartless. DURING a tragedy, you don't take the time to say "SEE, we told you!" That's just tactless.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

I think that using plant based fuel will be the future-easily renewable, positive effects on the environment, limited resources to produce, etc.

When I first heard about using algae to make oil, I was really happy. That would be a great way to solve quite a few problems.

 

[IdesOmarch]

I did read where Germany is re-evaluating.



I haven't read about it in the news. Haven't seen it on other sites. But then I'm not much for Facebook.

What makes oil drilling not an earth friendly practice as opposed to nuclear energy? The damage from catastrophes from both are enormous.

I *know* there are risks associated with just about any form of energy. I find it interesting what is deemed "good" vs "bad" and why.

Anything you do effects the environment. Walking across your yard to your car effects the environment, you may step on an ant, roach or other creature in the grass. Drilling, nukes, hydro, solar, anything will effect the environment to some limited extent. IMO I don't want a smoke stack emitting harmful pollution without scrubbers etc., so I have environmental concerns. But when you say you can't put a solar plant in the desert where it belongs, to me that drives me crazy.

 

[OceanAnnie]

Anything you do effects the environment. Walking across your yard to your car effects the environment, you may step on an ant, roach or other creature in the grass. Drilling, nukes, hydro, solar, anything will effect the environment to some limited extent. IMO I don't want a smoke stack emitting harmful pollution without scrubbers etc., so I have environmental concerns. But when you say you can't put a solar plant in the desert where it belongs, to me that drives me crazy.

Yeah. I know. Like I said. I find it interesting what is deemed, "good" vs "bad" and why.

We are paying other countries a premium for "bad" energy. With no tangible plans for diminishing our needs. It's just as bad for the environment in Timbuktu as it is in our back yard. We hate it. And we love it. Lots of irony.

 

[Razib456]

It is amazing how we can think about tact when a tragedy just occurred.

The problem is that the tragedy has already happened and there is nothing you can do about that and it may be the only chance to show people where and why they were wrong and, perhaps, you may be able to do something about future tragedies.

As far as the most green energy sources...there are many green energy sources only that using them requires equipments that may not be as green. But hydro seems a good solution, green enough for many people.

 

[Charade]

Kermit the frogs farts.

 

[IdesOmarch]

Kermit the frogs farts.

Yes and I hear the Sierra club is suing him because he is emitting more CO2 than they consider to be environmentally sound.