Green Energy

[Bilberry]

I think geothermal is an attractive green energy. Natural gas appears positive also.

What ever is looked at in the future, as the President has been touting green energy of late, we need to be careful of the economic impact on the nation. For example, Spain tried subsidizing wind mills and solar and found that to be a job killer. Not good for a nation on the brink of economic collapse.

And was a little disappointed to read the other day about a study on electric cars not being green! I have and drive an e-auto. Oh well.

"British Study: Electric Cars Not So Green"
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/06/13/british-study-electric-cars-not-so-green/

Excerpt:

The past few days have been a one-two punch to the eco-friendly market. First we heard that biodegradable products are not nearly as environmentally friendly as advertised, and now this:
ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found.
An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.
The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars.
[...]
The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.

 

[luvmy3]

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.

Not very at all, but most people don't even think about that when deciding to go green.

 

[Nette]

Mr. Fusion

 

[IdesOmarch]

But again, how or why should anyone consider the "green" aspects of manufacturing any of these products. We as humans emit CO2 continuously. The flora needs CO2 to survive. I think demonizing CO2 to this extreme is beyond reasonable (to put it in the most PC terms I know.) We as humans are not and cannot be expected to have 0 environmental impact. That is not possible. It is time we recognize alot of this is not possible and we should not worry about alot of this. The best we can do is utilize green energy as much as possible without outlawing other energy sources until suitable greener replacements are found. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And alot of these proposals would do just that.

I believe in going green and being as green as possible. And I am, and will do a lot more in the future. But I'm not going to worry about how much CO2 was emitted in manufacturing my solar panels or my electric car. That is not reasonable at all to say the least.

Pollution exists, it probably always will. We can do our part, but to expect humans to get down to a 0 environmental impact will only happen when the human race is totally extinct. And even then, Sierra club robots will most likely sue because dead human bodies in the ground are negatively impacting the environment.

 

[luvmy3]

But again, how or why should anyone consider the "green" aspects of manufacturing any of these products. We as humans emit CO2 continuously. The flora needs CO2 to survive. I think demonizing CO2 to this extreme is beyond reasonable (to put it in the most PC terms I know.) We as humans are not and cannot be expected to have 0 environmental impact. That is not possible. It is time we recognize alot of this is not possible and we should not worry about alot of this. The best we can do is utilize green energy as much as possible without outlawing other energy sources until suitable greener replacements are found. You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater. And alot of these proposals would do just that.

I believe in going green and being as green as possible. And I am, and will do a lot more in the future. But I'm not going to worry about how much CO2 was emitted in manufacturing my solar panels or my electric car. That is not reasonable at all to say the least.

Pollution exists, it probably always will. We can do our part, but to expect humans to get down to a 0 environmental impact will only happen when the human race is totally extinct. And even then, Sierra club robots will most likely sue because dead human bodies in the ground are negatively impacting the environment.

I wasn't speaking about the CO2 that is emitted, I'm talking about the energy used to produce those solar cells, and anyone who touts they are going green and using solar to "save energy", doesn't really think about that aspect. I don't care what people choose to do or not do, I just think its important to educate yourself when making these decisions, and not make them because "going green" is the buzzword of the times.

 

[IdesOmarch]

I wasn't speaking about the CO2 that is emitted, I'm talking about the energy used to produce those solar cells, and anyone who touts they are going green and using solar to "save energy", doesn't really think about that aspect. I don't care what people choose to do or not do, I just think its important to educate yourself when making these decisions, and not make them because "going green" is the buzzword of the times.

Don't get me wrong, I too believe there is a lot of fashion and "pet rock of the day" aspect with it. Going green can mean all kinds of things. I don't believe in taking 30 second showers and stuff like that to "conserve" energy. And I don't believe in shutting down all the power plants because of EPA regulations, that is going to just cause everyone's power bill to skyrocket. But I do think it makes sense to be as environmentally sound as possible. My interest in it is setting up a particular kind of green generator, but its also in part for money. I admit I wouldn't even be doing it if I couldn't make money off of it.

 

[OceanAnnie]

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.

You joined in May and bumped this thread up today to share your tidbit on tact? How odd.

Huh. Green energy questions have a time meter on tact.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

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

Public Relations is part of politics.