UPNetwork  

Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-12-2011, 09:15 AM   #1
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Real Green Energy

While I have my doubts about global warming, that doesn't mean I'm against having alternative energy sources.

Currently the Green energy solutions most widely known (and propagandized) are:
Solar Energy
Wind Energy
Electric Cars
Biofuels

While I have no issues with developing the technology, currently, each one has it's own problems (and sometimes some rather dirty secrets as well), it needs to overcome before becoming an attractive alternative to the public.


Electric cars
: short range, long recharge times, and it's not as "clean" as it's purported, because it uses energy from power plants which do burn fossil fuels, to charge it's short-lived battery. They've really made little progress on these matters since the 1920's.

Wind Energy: Windmills are noisy and eyesores for some, kill birds, only work when the wind is blowing fast enough, and must be shut off during periods of very high winds. Energy generation does not scale effectively with wind speed either. Small "personal" windmills will never pay off the energy required to manufacture them (starting from the raw materials to the finished product), and are only useful in certain locations, and at certain heights.

Solar Electric Energy: Solar Cells only work while the sun is shining, or while your battery is charged. They are costly to the end user, require consistent cleaning to perform at optimum efficiency, and won't work if they are covered or shaded, perhaps by a tree branch, debris, or a cloud. Will require many years to pay back the energy costs used to manufacture them (from raw material to final product).

Biofuels:
increase food prices, and require more energy to produce then they'll ever give back.


And a problem with Electric energy generation in general, is that it is very energy intensive to turn electrical energy, into heat energy, which is the most common application for fossil fuels, ranging from low temperatures for cooking and heating, to very very high temperatures for manufacturing; welding, forging, and refinement. (Don't expect to use electricity to smelt steel..)


The Solution?
Researching into Real green energy alternatives, and adopting them instead.

Solar Thermal Energy: instead of turning solar energy into electric power, a better solution would be to utilize the thermal power itself from the sun and redirect it to the application needed. This can range from cooking temperatures (Solar Ovens), to heat intensive enough to melt steel, for manufacturing. Also: Solar Death Rays!

Mechanical Wind Energy: instead of using windmills to generate electricity, which must then be stored and distributed for various mechanical methods, cut the middleman generator and use the wind's energy to do the mechanical work itself. There's tons of various grinding, chopping, cutting, pressing, and other mechanical work that can be done easily by a windmill, which is instead done by electronic equipment using energy from burning fossil fuels in power plants. And if the wind doesn't favor you today, you can get a donkey or horse, or even do it with your own manpower if you so wish, in a way that is not as energy intensive.


Steam Power: Being a Steampunk, I'm rather partial to this solution. What's been used in most all power plants since who knows when, can just as easily be utilized on a personal level, both for electricity generation, and transportation. And independent inventors have already improved upon the old 1900's technology, making it more efficient and more powerful. They can also run on practically any fuel that can burn, thus leaving fossil fuels behind. The Green Steam Engine, and The Cyclone Engine.
Steam power is very likely the power of the future, being more efficient and lighter then internal combustion engines, cleaner then fossil fuels, and more versatile in function and fuel. You can even combine them with Solar Thermal Energy to boil the water, and then you don't even need fuel! (best used for stationary generators though)
It's not to late to change course away from the internal combustion engine and "Big Oil."


Transportation Options: Efficiency is important
Road:
Wood Gas Cars
Steam Powered Cars
Air Powered, or Hydrogen Cars - not a solution
Steam Powered Motorcycle
Bicycle
Walking

Water:
Steam Ship
Sailing Ship

Air:
Steam Powered Planes
Steam Powered Helicopters
Steam/Solar/Wind/Sail powered Airships (Hot-Air, Steam, Helium or Hydrogen lifted)



Anyway, I just wanted to share this interesting information I found with you guys.

Oh, and heavily promote Steam Power. ^^;


(Apologies for quoting one particular site overall. I felt it had the best laid arguments and information relevant to the topics)

Last edited by unownmew; 10-12-2011 at 09:44 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 09:18 AM   #2
Tyranidos
beebooboobopbooboobop
 
Tyranidos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Krusty Krab
Posts: 3,800
Send a message via AIM to Tyranidos Send a message via MSN to Tyranidos
You forgot nuclear energy.
__________________
Tyranidos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 09:19 AM   #3
Lady Kuno
The hostess with the mostess
 
Lady Kuno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 226,522
I remember reading somewhere that hydroelectric power was the most cost effective source of energy, but don't have any facts for it.

I'm a fan of solar power, however. New houses built with a focus on solar energy usually create excess energy that they don't even use, and the electric company gives them money for it. Why aren't more people doing this?
__________________
JUST NUKE THE FUCKING SUN


PROUD OWNER OF A MISSINGNO. IN FIZZY BUBBLES
Lady Kuno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 10:00 AM   #4
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyranidos View Post
You forgot nuclear energy.
Didn't forget, chose to leave it out.
No one says nuclear energy is "Green," and while it doesn't emit CO2, it's hardly "clean," (Nuclear waste anyone? Not that I mind too much since it's stored safely) It's also nonrenewable, as uranium and other radioactive elements must be found and mined, and are limited in quantity, just like Fossil fuels.
It's an alternative energy source, for sure, but it's not one needing much research and adoption (just government permission to build), and it's not renewable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I remember reading somewhere that hydroelectric power was the most cost effective source of energy, but don't have any facts for it.

I'm a fan of solar power, however. New houses built with a focus on solar energy usually create excess energy that they don't even use, and the electric company gives them money for it. Why aren't more people doing this?
I'd believe it. The waterwheel has been around since, before the middle ages at least. The problem is, it's limited by geography. (or the geography must be humanly formed, which is cost, time, energy, and labor intensive)


Because, a house built focusing entirely on Solar Electric Energy (which is different from Solar Thermal Energy), is costly to manufacture, specifically designed, must be placed in ideal geographical locations for maximum benefit, and expensive to buy, not even including the solar panels themselves. Solar panels must also be regularly cleaned to keep at optimum efficiency, so while you may be making money from excess energy, that money is going right back out in the form of regular servicing.

Lets also not forget the energy intensive processes required to produce the panels initially. Even if you make more energy then you use, you still cost the world more energy use in the form of fossil fuels for the cell production, then you are getting back under most circumstances.


Edit: Something else interesting I found. It seems humankind has been using dirty fossil fuels since at least the 1300s http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/...imes.html#more

Last edited by unownmew; 10-12-2011 at 11:26 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 01:42 PM   #5
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post



Wind Energy: Windmills are noisy and eyesores for some, kill birds, only work when the wind is blowing fast enough, and must be shut off during periods of very high winds. Energy generation does not scale effectively with wind speed either. Small "personal" windmills will never pay off the energy required to manufacture them (starting from the raw materials to the finished product), and are only useful in certain locations, and at certain heights.
To say the least, they have made a personal windmill that is very efficient. It was just in the most recent edition(or last months) of Popular Science, and it makes better use of how a windmill actually works, is quieter, and needs less wind speed. It pays itself in about 5-10 years, and after that, you are "making" money.

And let me say this, YOU DO NOT NEED TO "GREENIFY" YOUR ENTIRE ENERGY NEEDS TO BE A GREEN PERSON. Solar power and wind power are easily the best, and most readily available forms of energy for the normal households.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 02:24 PM   #6
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
To say the least, they have made a personal windmill that is very efficient. It was just in the most recent edition(or last months) of Popular Science, and it makes better use of how a windmill actually works, is quieter, and needs less wind speed. It pays itself in about 5-10 years, and after that, you are "making" money.

And let me say this, YOU DO NOT NEED TO "GREENIFY" YOUR ENTIRE ENERGY NEEDS TO BE A GREEN PERSON. Solar power and wind power are easily the best, and most readily available forms of energy for the normal households.
You mean the Skystream?

Starts working in 8 mph winds, and yields it's maximum output in 20 mph winds? Costing $10,000?

Well, if it works, that's great, but, I have my doubts. Where are you planning to live where you'll have an average wind speed of 8 mph at the height the mill will be at, let alone, 20 mph. And how common are those winds going to be?

I'm sure I could as easily dismantle the claims, given the location you plan to use it, and the height the mill is placed at.

Oh, look, the tests have already been done (albeit in a Dutch province), and the Skystream is one of the better ones (because it had a larger rotor radius then the others), so I'll give you that.

However, when you really look at the numbers, things contrary to their marketing start to appear. If you're interested, I can expound those for you.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-12-2011 at 02:29 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 02:49 PM   #7
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
The appeal of an electric car is purely efficiency of power. If you fill your car to maximum, roughly 80% of the electricity is used to move the car. Electric car does not use energy while at rest and idling, while gas engines do. With regenerative braking, an electric car is able to save over 20% of the energy lost while braking while gas cars save nothing. In addition, gas engines lose most of their energy during the matter to energy conversion as heat as opposed to the pushing force used in internal combustion engines. Because of all these factors, a gas powered car only uses about 15% of the total energy stored in gasoline for propulsion. Diesel engines are about 20%.

So even if an electric car is using fossil fuel from a power plant, over 75% of all that energy is definitely being used for locomotion while only 15% of the gasoline you pump into your car is used for movement. This still means you burn less fossil fuels with an electric car than with a gas powered car.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 03:02 PM   #8
Doppleganger
我が名は勇者王!
 
Doppleganger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Emina Isle
Posts: 14,198
Send a message via AIM to Doppleganger
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Didn't forget, chose to leave it out.
No one says nuclear energy is "Green," and while it doesn't emit CO2, it's hardly "clean," (Nuclear waste anyone? Not that I mind too much since it's stored safely) It's also nonrenewable, as uranium and other radioactive elements must be found and mined, and are limited in quantity, just like Fossil fuels.
It's an alternative energy source, for sure, but it's not one needing much research and adoption (just government permission to build), and it's not renewable.
Fissible materials can be recycled to be more efficient. I wouldn't call sticking radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain pollution, necessarily. Considering nuclear is a non-polluting power source, and is strictly controlled, it's one of the safer alternative power sources but is also consistent. Wind power and solar power have downtime, while hydroelectric come at the cost of environmental destruction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire View Post
I'm a fan of solar power, however. New houses built with a focus on solar energy usually create excess energy that they don't even use, and the electric company gives them money for it. Why aren't more people doing this?
My electric bill is absurdly small, but I live in California which has such mild weather I hardly use it.

I mean aside from refrigerators and my laptop, I have nothing plugged in.

The larger energy bill and doesn't justify the large set-up cost of putting in solar energy panels.

Gas is a far, far bigger concern here.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望
今 信じあえる
あきらめない 心かさね
永遠を抱きしめて
Doppleganger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 04:33 PM   #9
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
The appeal of an electric car is purely efficiency of power. If you fill your car to maximum, roughly 80% of the electricity is used to move the car. Electric car does not use energy while at rest and idling, while gas engines do. With regenerative braking, an electric car is able to save over 20% of the energy lost while braking while gas cars save nothing. In addition, gas engines lose most of their energy during the matter to energy conversion as heat as opposed to the pushing force used in internal combustion engines. Because of all these factors, a gas powered car only uses about 15% of the total energy stored in gasoline for propulsion. Diesel engines are about 20%.

So even if an electric car is using fossil fuel from a power plant, over 75% of all that energy is definitely being used for locomotion while only 15% of the gasoline you pump into your car is used for movement. This still means you burn less fossil fuels with an electric car than with a gas powered car.
Really? I was unaware of that, for sure. I've never seen advertisement calling electric "efficient", just "Green" and "zero emission" (which is entirely untrue once you think about it). If you stick all the doodads other cars have, and increase the size/weight to regular car size, I believe you'll be at a general brake-even point, even with all the energy saving techniques. Though, that's just IMO.

I'm sure electric cars can have their niche, most likely city use, but they do still have the problems of, poor range, battery recharge loss, short battery life, and the "environmental hazards" of battery disposal, manufacturing, and charging. I can't see them taking off like the IC engine did, and we've made little improvements since 1920 in the technology.

I personally, however, would much prefer a steam-powered car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doppleganger View Post
Fissible materials can be recycled to be more efficient. I wouldn't call sticking radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain pollution, necessarily. Considering nuclear is a non-polluting power source, and is strictly controlled, it's one of the safer alternative power sources but is also consistent. Wind power and solar power have downtime, while hydroelectric come at the cost of environmental destruction.
Don't mistake me, I have nothing against nuclear energy, I fully support its use, polluting or non-polluting. I just didn't feel it warranted an entry in my post.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-12-2011 at 04:45 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 04:47 PM   #10
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Tesla Motors is the only large all electric car company I know of. Their site also explains efficiency of their vehicles with fancy pictures too. They make sporty cars, which are very expensive at the moment, but have claims that the considerably cheaper electric power ($0.01 per mile plus the efficiency I explained), the much lower need for maintenance since there's virtually no heat and absolutely no combustion in the engine, and the environmental impact counterbalance the cost to the consumer.

Battery technology is the unfortunate downside of the electric car. Right now, it requires a large leap forward in order to really become more standardized and effective for all vehicles.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 05:28 PM   #11
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
There's also a lot of geopolitics involved with batteries. Most electric cars, including the Tesla roadster, boast lithium ion batteries not unlike the ones you're accustomed to using in your portable electronic devices. The thing is, most of the world's lithium is in just two countries -- Chile and China. (Tried to find you a good map like the ones I saw in college, but I came up short. Click here instead and scroll down to the table "World mine lithium production in past decade".) So therein enters Problem #1 for an electric car future: limited supply (and in the hands of at least one player who has time and time again shown that it plays very selfishly and with no concern at all for open market economics) in the face of mounting demand would mean surging prices for lithium.

But you have an even more insurmountable problem in Problem #2: and that is that lithium batteries won't carry us even one full generation into the future. Again, wanted to find you a better source like the ones my lecturers used in college, but you'll need to settle for this quote from Wikipedia for now:
Quote:
Worldwide reserves of lithium are estimated to be 23 million tonnes. Using the battery efficiency figure of 400 g of lithium per kWh, this gives a total maximum lithium battery capacity of 52 billion kWh which, assuming it is used exclusively for car batteries, is enough for approximately 2 billion cars with a 24 kWh battery (like a Nissan Leaf).
Assume lithium batteries in a Tesla roadster last for 15 years. (They very likely do not.) That means that if you took all the world's lithium -- all of it -- and put it towards the production of car batteries for electric vehicles, you would get one fleet of cars. (Wikipedia assumes Nissan Leaf capabilities and suggests 2 billion vehicles at best.) One global fleet for one generation of 2 billion motorists. And not even twenty years later, you're S.O.L. and right back where you started. Today, we do not recycle lithium as it is cheaper to discard it and purchase freshly-mined lithium: but if everyone suddenly starts using lithium in an electric car-driven world, then we may have to start recycling it. And that introduces a significant cost.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that it's unrealistic to even suggest "let's put all lithium towards electric cars' batteries." Before there was the Tesla Roadster, before there was the iPad, before there was even the world's first lithium ion battery, there was the ceramics industry. 31% of lithium usage in the United States is in the production of ceramics and glass. Not only is this an enormous chunk even in our electronic age with lithium batteries up the wazoo -- they now account for 23% of all lithium use in this country -- but it's a significant chunk, too. Significant in the sense that we can't cut the lithium out of glass or ceramic production. Not only that, but the lithium used in the production of these materials is sequestered there, unavailable for recycling for lithium battery production purposes. Not unless you want to destroy the ceramics or glassware, essentially digging one hole to fill another.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 05:40 PM   #12
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
http://www.teslamotors.com/

Tesla Motors is the only large all electric car company I know of. Their site also explains efficiency of their vehicles with fancy pictures too. They make sporty cars, which are very expensive at the moment, but have claims that the considerably cheaper electric power ($0.01 per mile plus the efficiency I explained), the much lower need for maintenance since there's virtually no heat and absolutely no combustion in the engine, and the environmental impact counterbalance the cost to the consumer.

Battery technology is the unfortunate downside of the electric car. Right now, it requires a large leap forward in order to really become more standardized and effective for all vehicles.
Ah, the Netherlands, that would explain why I haven't heard of them. Those cars look a ton better then the dinky little (and sometimes boxy) ones sold in America, so I imagine they'd get a much better reception then electric cars generally have here.

I'd be careful about throwing around the term environmental impact though, because, the manufacturing process for the car and battery, as well as the general charging, still requires energy which will most of the time be provided by fossil fuels. You're still driving a fossil fuel powered car, you're just getting the energy from the power grid instead of the gas pump, you may be cutting back some, but we're still nowhere near 0 CO2 emissions, which is the claimed goal of the environmental movement.

I'd still rather drive a steam car, even if it doesn't look as "sleek and nice" as the other cars. I'd turn more heads then them.

Edit: Wow Talon, that's a good assessment. I hadn't even thought of those issues.

Another reason to adopt Steam Cars

Last edited by unownmew; 10-12-2011 at 05:45 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 05:44 PM   #13
Loki
The Path of Now & Forever
 
Loki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 5,304
Water Vapor is considered a greenhouse gas, so a steampunk car wouldn't exactly help in any way. Also, you would still burn fuel to heat the water to make steam.
Loki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 05:52 PM   #14
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raptor Jesus View Post
Water Vapor is considered a greenhouse gas, so a steampunk car wouldn't exactly help in any way. Also, you would still burn fuel to heat the water to make steam.
Pfft, greenhouse gases? All the Green Environmentalist Movement cares about is CO2. That's a proovable fact.
And I don't care about either, but that's beside the point.

Efficient steam engines recycle the steam and convert it back to water, for continuous boiling and steam pressure, so you're not emitting steam into the air.

As for burning fuels, as long as you're not burning fossil fuels, and you burn them completely, the emissions are carbon neutral, so no harm there either.
Of course if someone wanted to burn fossil fuels in their furnace, who's to stop them from doing so? If they're available and cost effective, I don't see any reason they should be prevented from doing so, nor any way to regulate it effectively (The biggest win of all).

Last edited by unownmew; 10-12-2011 at 05:58 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 06:12 PM   #15
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Pfft, greenhouse gases? All the Green Environmentalist Movement cares about is CO2. That's a proovable fact.
And I don't care about either, but that's beside the point.

Efficient steam engines recycle the steam and convert it back to water, for continuous boiling and steam pressure, so you're not emitting steam into the air.

As for burning fuels, as long as you're not burning fossil fuels, and you burn them completely, the emissions are carbon neutral, so no harm there either.
Of course if someone wanted to burn fossil fuels in their furnace, who's to stop them from doing so? If they're available and cost effective, I don't see any reason they should be prevented from doing so, nor any way to regulate it effectively (The biggest win of all).
Fun fact is that water vapor is more potent than CO2. Fun fact is that CFC's and methane are the most potent.

The government. They have a duty to protect their people.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 08:11 PM   #16
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeVA View Post
Fun fact is that water vapor is more potent than CO2. Fun fact is that CFC's and methane are the most potent.

The government. They have a duty to protect their people.
That's the whole irony with the Global Warming movement, but, I won't bring that here.

CFC's are purported to kill the ozone layer, not cause global warming. I remember learning that in science class. Also the whole scare with Global Cooling back in the 80s.


I'm not saying the government doesn't have a duty to protect it's citizens, but making the steam engine illegal because some random peson can burn fossil fuels in it isn't protecting anything, it's entirely nonsensical, and any regulations they could try to impose would be impossible to enforce.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2011, 10:13 PM   #17
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
CFC's are purported to
Purported to nothing. Good lord, if you don't know shit about chemistry -- and you clearly don't -- then please spare us your weighings-in on all things chemical. Please.

Also, CFCs are implicated both in ozone depletion and in global warming. See the table here? Look for "CFC-12" and "HCFC-22."
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 08:01 AM   #18
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
Purported to nothing. Good lord, if you don't know shit about chemistry -- and you clearly don't -- then please spare us your weighings-in on all things chemical. Please.

Also, CFCs are implicated both in ozone depletion and in global warming. See the table here? Look for "CFC-12" and "HCFC-22."
I learned about CFCs in Middle School science class, right around the same place as Acid Rain and the poor Ozone Layer dieing, and global warming wasn't mentioned once in regards to that, if at all for that matter, I don't remember it being brought up, Greenhouse gasses, sure, but not their apparently evil effects on the environment and Global Warming.

Apparently it's no longer a threat, or they'd be hyping its effects just as much as they do with "evil" CO2. IMO, it's all Balogne, and not worth researching further, so I'm sorry I don't regularly research stuff I already learned. I had had no reason to believe it's effects had changed.

Edit: did some research, apparently it's not a threat anymore because it's been made illegal. But how are they going to make CO2 illegal?
And it's effect as a Greenhouse gas was mentioned very briefly in the last two tiny sections.
Of course, we can't trust Wikipedia, it's too easily edited by biased and uneducated people.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-13-2011 at 08:19 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 10:38 AM   #19
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
I learned about CFCs in Middle School science class
No, you clearly didn't.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 11:31 AM   #20
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Well then that's clearly the teacher's and the textbook's fault, not my own. But does it really matter? I did mention my knowledge was from a past science class.

There's no need to be so venomous when I'm wrong, simply correct me, "No, that's not quite right, it's really this..." and if I find I really am wrong, I'll say, "Oh, I guess I was wrong, thanks for letting me know," and that can be the end of it. If I think I'm right and you're mistaken, I'll show my sources and then a respectful debate can ensue to prove who really is right. *sigh* Apparently that never happens.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-13-2011 at 11:34 AM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 12:23 PM   #21
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by unownmew View Post
Well then that's clearly the teacher's and the textbook's fault, not my own. But does it really matter? I did mention my knowledge was from a past science class.

There's no need to be so venomous when I'm wrong, simply correct me, "No, that's not quite right, it's really this..." and if I find I really am wrong, I'll say, "Oh, I guess I was wrong, thanks for letting me know," and that can be the end of it. If I think I'm right and you're mistaken, I'll show my sources and then a respectful debate can ensue to prove who really is right. *sigh* Apparently that never happens.
Except, that has not been the case with you. You return with scathing remarks when we prove you wrong.

That is dumb. Really, to prove ourselves right? What? I could tell you that the Earth is made of cheese and dog shit, and as long as I can prove that I am right, we are okay? No, the real reason should be to make sure what is said is correct.

Anyways, after looking at some of the posts:

Nuclear: once perfected, the greenest energy we will ever have, only needing helium. One of the reasons that there could be settlements on the moon during the next century.

Hydropower: Limited. And, almost completely used up. There is not much room for improvement.

8 mile an hour wind speeds: That is not that fast, really. Though, it is true that finding an average can be a bit tough, it is not impossible. Plus, that is intended to be an extra source of energy, not replacing your energy needs.

Global Warming: The only reason that CO2 is so "evil" is that it is found in such great quantities compared to the others. Even water vapor, the next closest, is still somewhat behind. CO2 does have a warming effect, and it can trap and re radiate heat. That is obvious. But, alas, this is not the thread.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 12:25 PM   #22
Talon87
時の彼方へ
 
Talon87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
It's because you're wrong about everything so, so much and I shouldn't have to be the one to re-educate you. It's like asking me to spend the next 4+ years of my life teaching you what I took 4-8 years to learn myself. No. You need to either:

a) quit talking about stuff you have a neglible education in, or else
b) go and get that education

You claim that CFCs are "no longer a problem" because you "no longer hear about them." That is as bad as if you were to say, "Well clearly smallpox is not a serious problem anymore since we never hear about it." Smallpox would be a serious problem if we were to reintroduce it. The only reason you don't hear about it is because we've buttraped it out of existence. It's the same thing with CFCs. They have remarkably destructive effects on the atmosphere, both as ozone depleters and as global warming contributors, that the nations of the world recognized the problem in the late '80s / early '90s and said "Whoa, this ain't funny " and banned them. So yes, they're not a "problem" anymore in the sense that they are a problem that has been tackled; but no, they are still very much a problem in the sense that YES, they do do what you've been told they do and YES, they would be a colossal problem if we were to bring them back.
Talon87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 02:02 PM   #23
unownmew
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,319
Send a message via MSN to unownmew
Quote:
Originally Posted by Talon87 View Post
It's because you're wrong about everything so, so much and I shouldn't have to be the one to re-educate you. It's like asking me to spend the next 4+ years of my life teaching you what I took 4-8 years to learn myself. No. You need to either:
I'm not asking you to give me the entire ins and outs of everything you've learned, just a slight course re-adjustment, letting me know I'm lacking, and need to look into it further.

Quote:
a) quit talking about stuff you have a neglible education in, or else
b) go and get that education
That's why I speak out, either to correct a possible mistake, or to be corrected myself. If I don't know my information is inadequate, what reason would I have to look into re-education? I love being corrected, because then I learn things. But I hate being told, "that's how it is, accept it, don't question it. Ever!"

If everyone just accepted the knowledge they're fed, we'd go nowhere, and no progress would ever be made. It's the skeptics that produce innovation and scientific breakthroughs.

Quote:
You claim that CFCs are "no longer a problem" because you "no longer hear about them." That is as bad as if you were to say, "Well clearly smallpox is not a serious problem anymore since we never hear about it." Smallpox would be a serious problem if we were to reintroduce it. The only reason you don't hear about it is because we've buttraped it out of existence. It's the same thing with CFCs. They have remarkably destructive effects on the atmosphere, both as ozone depleters and as global warming contributors, that the nations of the world recognized the problem in the late '80s / early '90s and said "Whoa, this ain't funny " and banned them. So yes, they're not a "problem" anymore in the sense that they are a problem that has been tackled; but no, they are still very much a problem in the sense that YES, they do do what you've been told they do and YES, they would be a colossal problem if we were to bring them back.
That's a dizzying paragraph, but I'll see what I can do.
..
Ok after rereading it's a little clearer.
If we had stopped hearing about them without a resolution (such as them being made illegal), it would be evidence that they were never really a problem (or the people warning about it, didn't really care about the problem itself, and were just using it for their agenda). Being as they have been made illegal, I have nothing to stand on, and, while I don't doubt the science behind what they can chemically do, I do have doubts about their actual environmental impact. Since these doubts are currently unprovable, I accept your position as undebatable.


In other news, I found a new link about Wind Energy, and will edit it into the OP shortly.
Edit: upon further consideration, I feel the politics surrounding it will over-weigh the part I wanted to show, so it will not be added in.

Last edited by unownmew; 10-13-2011 at 02:16 PM.
unownmew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 02:36 PM   #24
Concept
Archbishop of Banterbury
 
Concept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Nipple-Hunting with Elsie and Kairne
Posts: 7,030
Send a message via Skype™ to Concept
Re the electric car debate - hydrogen vehicles get around the lithium supply issue, I believe. Of course, it's just an energy storage medium rather than a source (given hydrogen fuel doesn't occur naturally on earth so we have to stick a bunch of energy in to electrolyse water to get it), so this just pushes the problem back a step from IC engines to big ol power plants instead, but as tends to be the case large scale power plants would be more efficient than a bunch of small IC engines.

The problem is as it stands no truly green energy source is particularly good from a efficiency and cost point of view. How much of this is down to us simply not having put nearly as much research into them as fossil fuels remains to be seen. They can work in some cases (for example, about 2/3's of Icelands energy is from geothermal power plants - but Iceland is basically one huge volcano. Also there's some south american country whose entire energy supply is from one bigass dam, but it's one of those that barely uses any energy compared to energy intensive - and wasteful - first world countries). Honestly as it stands I'm probably in favour of seriously increased usage of nuclear power. It's rather more developed than truly green technology at present, and if done properly has less enviromental and supply issues than fossil fuels. If nothing else it'd be good breathing room to see if we can develop properly viable and efficient solar/wind/geothermal/hydroelectric/etc power sources.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by PTerry
What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man?
Concept is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-13-2011, 04:09 PM   #25
Emi
Barghest Barghest Barghe-
 
Emi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 12,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Emi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concept View Post
Re the electric car debate - hydrogen vehicles get around the lithium supply issue, I believe. Of course, it's just an energy storage medium rather than a source (given hydrogen fuel doesn't occur naturally on earth so we have to stick a bunch of energy in to electrolyse water to get it), so this just pushes the problem back a step from IC engines to big ol power plants instead, but as tends to be the case large scale power plants would be more efficient than a bunch of small IC engines.

The problem is as it stands no truly green energy source is particularly good from a efficiency and cost point of view. How much of this is down to us simply not having put nearly as much research into them as fossil fuels remains to be seen. They can work in some cases (for example, about 2/3's of Icelands energy is from geothermal power plants - but Iceland is basically one huge volcano. Also there's some south american country whose entire energy supply is from one bigass dam, but it's one of those that barely uses any energy compared to energy intensive - and wasteful - first world countries). Honestly as it stands I'm probably in favour of seriously increased usage of nuclear power. It's rather more developed than truly green technology at present, and if done properly has less enviromental and supply issues than fossil fuels. If nothing else it'd be good breathing room to see if we can develop properly viable and efficient solar/wind/geothermal/hydroelectric/etc power sources.
This is true, we spend millions more on fossil fuels that we do on alternative energy. This has to do with lobbying to some extent, especially when the people who lobby makes KILLINGS in oil and natural gas sales. Plus, the fact that this is a new field, and humans instinctively stay with things they know instead of new things.
__________________
Emi is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   UPNetwork > General Forums > The Misc


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Design By: Miner Skinz.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.